Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?

Timini Cricket

Members
  • Content Count

    41
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Location
    PO1 5RF
  1. Northernlights, you can just change the year in the date field of the page at EarthWindMap to get the archive a year ago - it was around 400ppm: https://earth.nullschool.net/#2016/05/10/0130Z/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/orthographic=-350.29,49.02,3000/loc=-3.692,57.647
  2. Thanks BFTV, Flicking through the timeframes on the earth.nullschool.net atmospheric chem view in the Northern territories and Western Australian outback there are several ongoing SO2 plumes at surface level, but only the one I indicated had high CO and CO2 levels too - I guess there must have been a lot of old standing Eucalyptus timber burning, relative to the other sites, where they were likely to be predominantly bushfires on younger, shorter growth nearer to the ground where the sulphur sources would be found.
  3. Data Source | GEOS-5 / GMAO / NASA CO2 display from https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/orthographic=-230.54,-18.46,3000/loc=129.435,-21.034 Google Maps CO display from https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=cosc/orthographic=-236.32,-19.84,3000/loc=129.435,-21.034 SO2 display from https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=so2smass/orthographic=-236.32,-19.84,3000/loc=129.435,-21.034 Is it smelting, cement production or some natural phenomenon - there's nothing apparent on the satellite image from Google:
  4. Apart from the fireworks, vedur.is has published a full preview of a paper on: Volcanic system: Bárðarbunga system Alternative name: Veiðivötn system Compiled by: Gudrún Larsen and Magnús T. Gudmundsson Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Iceland http://en.vedur.is/media/jar/Bardarbunga_kafli20140825.pdf note and summary:
  5. Here's an example of a cloud that I fail to understand the reasons for it being so grey: The view is looking north towards the south downs from Portsea Island (Portsmouth), 1:50pm July16 2014. The sky is brilliantly clear overhead, with just a few thin cirrus over towards the north, and hot sunshine behind the photographer. Yet these more distant clouds are fringed (on all edges, top and bottom) with dark grey, and there is no indication that they are bathed in sunlight, as they surely must be, since there are no other clouds between these and the sun. So I am wondering if anyone can explain how the illusion works?
  6. Timini Cricket

    new

    new stuff
  7. I've never had the physics explained, of the supposed ability of the jet stream to influence the movement and variation in the weather systems of the lower troposphere. How can a phenomenon with high speeds in the near friction-free thin atmosphere at around 250 millibar (i.e. with 75% of the atmospheric column below it and upwards of 20% of the atmosphere above), at a temperature of around minus 40 C, contain enough energy to influence the planetary boundary layer with the necessary friction that the dense atmosphere near the surface imposes on the topology of the surface features? I can understand that this feature is easier to model computationally, and thus to extrapolate to the motions of the lower troposphere for forecasting models, but surely it is the energetic features below that impart a little of their energy to the layer below the tropopause, rather than the other way around? Like cracking a whip - the tip may break the sound barrier, but the arm that wields it supplies the much greater force that powers it!
  8. For on moment, imagine if the earth had 2 suns. One, the one we know so well, which is the source of all of our incident energy, more or less, 93 million miles away, radiating with a surface temperature of 5 to 6 thousand deg C. The other one, with apparent diameter from earth, and apparent temperature the same, but where the moon is, a quarter of a million miles away, orbiting just like the moon does. How would that change the conditions on earth? Twice as much incoming energy, but with a highly variable frequency of irradiation. Now instead of where the moon is, move that glowing sphere of energy, radiating with the black body temperature of an estimated 5 to 6 thousand deg C to about 2,000 miles away from every point on the earth's surface. The only way to do that is to move it inside the earth. Hang on though, it's there already! If you had created a vertical shaft 2,000 miles deep, the surface at the bottom would glow like the sun. It is estimated at that temperature because the pressure, density and physical characteristics suggest a solid core of iron and nickel and a fluid core surrounding it of iron and nickel with some oxide and silicate components helping to keep it fluid like a solderer's flux. Its been there for 4.5 billion years, cooling at a rate of perhaps a degree or less per century, but also has an energy source of an unknown quantity of fissile nuclear fuel keeping it hot, according to all the estimates that have been made, meaning that the data we have about it is actually quite sparse. That this is a negligible source of heating at the surface (or any number of points near the surface) is just as much of an educated guess. It could be described as a large known unknown. The IPCC does not figure it is worthy of a mention in the current climate analysis.
  9. There is much speculation about - whether there is a pause, whether it will cool or resume warming, wot did it, etc. Another way of looking at apparent warming and pauses, is not that what warms us is increasing, but that what kept us cool in the past is not keeping us cool any longer. For this argument's sake, our little-observed-before polar oceans until the last short few years seemed to have much greater amounts of fast ice and shelves, which have been observed to become more fragmented and temporary now. How much more ice was there before, in terms of volume is not certain. What sorts of quantities of ice might possibly have been hidden, submerged beneath the icepack as fast ice before the annual rates of retreat and regrowth became like we have experienced recently? I love to watch this footage from the Antarctic from the BBC, which shows how Ice can grow down and form on the seabed: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/15835017 In terms of Gigatonnes, might this bottom ice be several tens of times the amounts that freeze and melt each year with a total heat loss of about 10 ZettaJoules annually for both polar oceans? (based on PIOMAS http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/ and calculation of latent heat required to melt 13 million sq km of Antarctic sea ice about 1.25m thick on average) Say that for the last 150 odd years ocean currents have been eroding submerged ice, and shifting it around the Arctic and Antarctic coastal shelves, keeping the deep currents happily cool, and the icepacks above have been behaving like they should, flowing around in the summer and repacking in the winter. At some time during this period, the underwater ice topology became unstable, and submerged ice began to be dislodged or eroded, not to be replaced, because the currents prevented bottom refreezing. The ice released of course joins the summer pack to be lost in the annual melt, and affecting surface ocean temperatures by depressing them. It would not matter how much more ice than "normal" floated away in any one year, it would melt, and cool the ocean a little. Move on a few decades, and almost all the bottom ice is gone. The ice pack becomes more fragile, more mobile, and multiyear ice becomes less common. Deeper currents do not cool so much as they pass through, because they no longer oppose submerged ice, so over time they begin to warm slightly. The ballpark figure for increased ocean heat content is about 5 ZettaJoules per year. Sounds familiar? Surface icepacks are much reduced in both summer minimum area and overall thickness. Greater areas of new ice form on an annual basis, emitting more long wave radiation into the atmosphere than was usual when the pack was less annually variable. That increased longwave radiation affects global temperatures in ways we might interpret as GW. Submerged ice is still ice and has a density of about 0.9 that of water. As it melts it loses volume. Its effects on mean sea level actually mask the rate of rising levels, until the fast ice is all gone, and then the rises due to thermal expansion become amplified. Eventually a new quasi equilibrium establishes, where the temperatures seems to stabilize a little warmer than previously, and more extreme weather variations occur. Some of these may lead to extreme cold polar conditions favouring storms and layering of pack ice, reestablishment of fast ice fields in places where currents are less strong, and a reversal of some of the effects and events described above.
  10. Since 2005, The American Meteor Society has kept logs of fireball sightings reported in to them: http://www.amsmeteors.org/fireballs/fireball-report/ lots of good information there (2013 to date) 2005 467 2006 517 2007 591 2008 730 2009 699 2010 954 2011 1636 2012 2145 2013 2250 pending 201 This indicates an almost five-fold increase in sightings over the last 8 years. Why would this be? More fireballs or more observer-hours watching the skies? It is certainly easier to communicate to report by mobile phone/internet services, so there may be some observational bias here. More fireballs is also possible - more satellite debris falling to earth would increase fireball numbers, or is our region of space just getting dirtier? Is the solar system passing through a debris cloud? NLC -noctilucent clouds, Polar Mesospheric clouds have been linked to meteor burn-up debris or meteor smoke as nuclei for formation, and have been increasingly observed over the past few years. http://www.spaceclouds.info/ for lots more info, incl Chelyabinsk and Volcanic effects. (Megatonne explosion = equivalent weight of TNT to get that explosive effect, and is nothing to to with the mass of the object as it enters the atmosphere.)
  11. I saw a man eating cabbage once... it was horrible!
  12. Still very quiet and dry in Portsmouth. Just a few small droplets avoided evaporation before reaching the ground at about 1500 today. I think I imagined a distant rumble, Otherwise sunny or hazy sunshine, with a light SW breeze.
  13. The BBC IPlayer has a treat for Archaeology Buffs here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/collections/p018818x/archaeology-at-the-bbc Featuring the oh-so BBC presentation and style of early TV, with characters such as Sir Mortimer Wheeler, and a young Magnus Magnusson. Of course the programmes are historical features in themselves, with live recordings, BBC English plummy dialogue, 4:3 ratio, black and white, and 405 lines, but none the less still enjoyable IMHO. I particularly enjoyed the following from 1954: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p01819j0/Buried_Treasure_The_Peat_Bog_Murder_Mystery/ - not least for the Bronze Age cooking spot and a fashion show featuring a rather embarrassed young model trying to hide her long legs in a very short Norse number that would not be reprised until the mid nineteen sixties! But there are 24 to choose from altogether...
  14. Timini Cricket

    research

×
×
  • Create New...