Jump to content
Problems logging in? ×
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?

full_frontal_occlusion

Members
  • Posts

    593
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by full_frontal_occlusion

  1. Whilst this is an interesting story, the device remains to be tested in a vacuum and microgravity let alone understood. Other experiments which seemed to violate conventional laws of physics (cold fusion, faster than light neutrinos etc.), have since proven to be in error. The NASA scientists have not jumped the gun and stated 'it works' but have cautiously suggested further experimentation is necessary - evidently having learned from the mistakes of others. If it is proven to work, then a new chapter of science and possibly the next evolutionary state of humans may have just opened up. I will wait for confirmation but something tells me that the wait should be tempered with a healthy dose of caution.
  2. R.O.F.L.M.A.O. When the sun goes down, Water vapour condenses out and ends up as a drop in the ocean. Literally and metaphorically. If we were to suddenly switch from producing the same mass of globally produced CO2 to H2O, then it would take around 10,000,000 years to increase the volume of water on the planet by less than 0.01%.
  3. I hope they both have good pre-nuptials. In space, no-one can hear you scream.
  4. I think it's less complex than the 'no debate' argument. Secnario: Joe Bloggs average IQ 100. Wants an easy life, struggles to make ends meet in times of austerity and everywhere he looks for an answer to this climate change thing, he gets conflicting viewpoints. Who can he trust? Not the politicians; They are all out for fiddling expenses, bribery and corruption endemic, and, I didn't vote for any of their policies. When I did, they did a u-turn and sold us out. The media? Uh, gimme a break. They are as corrupt as the politicians and will hack the phones of dead children letting those poor parents believe they are still alive. Scum. Captains of Industry? Nope: profit, profit, more profit and bleeding the suckers dry is all that matters. Hell, I don't even know whether beef is beef any more. The scientists? Well what a bunch of no-hopers. They gave us nukes, genetic mutations, chemical weapons and can;t even tell what the weather will be like in a few days time let alone 50 years from now. So with all of these 'big' people who I don't trust shouting at me and forcing me to do stuff I don't agree with, and, since I won't be alive to see it happen anyways, I'm not gonna loose any sleep over it. If it does happen, ain't much I can do about it. Just gonna hunker down with l'il ole head in the sand and worry about my bills and if I can hold on to my job and house and get my kids a decent livin' and God will take care of the rest. Footnote: Nothing will be done until it becomes a clear and present danger and a few capital cities get flooded around the world, the coasts march several miles inland with a few decades of drought wiping out the grain bowls, mass migrations across borders prompting robust military action. But then isn't that what people are sick and tired of hearing? I totally agree with others who have said change will be driven through by industry: when 'green' transportation and power generation replaces 'fossil' in the war for profits and taxes. All of us, believers and sceptics alike surely want the same legacy - a beautiful planet fit for our children and our children's children. ffO. ffO.
  5. Or perhaps the Blue Oyster Cult....... http://youtu.be/kgqDtU8BXf0 ffO (Cover version but K.A. nonetheless)
  6. The simple answer is no, surface warming is not countered by stratospheric cooling. As the planets surface heats up due to absorption of shortwave UV radiation from the sun, the release of that stored surface energy is via longwave infra-red radiation. It's here that greenhouse gases trap that energy and the troposphere heats up. However as the net global tropospheric temperature increases (and since the rate of radiation is also a function of temperature), the troposphere emits radiation at a higher rate, an ever increasing part if which then goes straight past the stratosphere and exits to space. The tropospheric temperature can only equalise and remain constant when the incoming shortwave energy absorbed is equal to the longwave outgoing radiated energy. i.e. the energies are balanced. ffO.
  7. Oh, just noticed this reply so apologies for the belated response: I'm no expert, so some of the others may wish to interject The boundary is defined by a thermal inversion which as you know varies with height between the polar regions and at the equator. As far as is practicable, there is very little mixing between the stratosphere and troposphere. The coupling between the layers therefore arises from adiabatic expansion and contraction of regions of air within each layer. The gas laws (PV/T = constant) which themselves are a function of the thermodynamic conservation laws, which state that as the temperature within a gas rises (forced by external influence), then either the pressure or volume or both must change in order to ensure equilibrium. This means that if the temperature of a region within the stratosphere rises then the pressure and volume of the gas within that region must also change (divergence). This will therefore influence the tropospheric air underneath causing low level convergence. Thus adiabatic (or diabatic) expansion and contraction corresponds to tropospheric air pressure changes together with a thermal change. NB. Little work is done between the layers so there is no net exchange of energy between them. The surface thermal and pressure changes are a result of the expanding and contracting of pressure coupling between the layers. Does that make more sense? ffO.
  8. Energy conservation laws dear chap. Longwave radiation carries less energy than the incoming shortwave per quanta. So less energy gets back out into space and the temperature on the inside (atmosphere beneath the CO2 layer) rises as more energy gets stored. But as the stored energy increases, the amount of energy lost through longwave radiation back out into space also starts to increase - until the incoming/outgoing balance is restored and the temperature reaches equilibrium in the troposphere. The stratosphere is transparent to longwave to all intent, so energy transfer is via convection between layers. ffO.
  9. A week ago during the major snow events, everyone was gnashing and wailing because all the models showed nothing but the Atlantic train-ride. SSW's were consigned to the scrap heap as being unpredictable on their affects for (cold-lovers) favourable positioning of the fragmented Polar Vortex. Predictions by some of the most respected members on NW.tv were trashed as being unreliable and new-fangled mathematical hocus-pocus with the rest of winter consigned to the bin. The snow is gone and the Atlantic has indeed powered up, but the models for several runs now, have shown tentative signs of cold returning form the North. Still in FI, but the trend is nonetheless there. As always, the outcome will only start to become apparent when the steady-state features (blocking patterns, high pressure anchors etc.) enter into to higher resolution parts of the model run. And as we all know (or should know by now) the very real stratospheric events take time to propagate and influence the troposphere. That latency coupled with the relatively poor vertical resolution capability of the current NWP models conspire to make 'surpise' output turnarounds likely in even the statistically reliable modeling timeframe. In the meantime, look to the other indicators for guidance. Extended range ensemble means, frictional & mountain torques, ENSO, GWO phasing etc. Patience young Padawan's. Winter will return. ffO.
  10. Hi SB, very informative and well written post. Thank you. A couple of items which your comments would be appreciated: 1) Noting the differences between Grid Point and Spectral distribution models (which have different abilities in vertical resolution), is there a correlation between that and the perceived lack of ability of the models to pick up the tropospheric impact of long drain events such as SSW's until their effects become resolved within the grid point truncation-error scale? 2) Hybrid models (spectral, grid point, hydrostatic) all have differing strengths and limitations however as I understand it, there is no Grand Unified Model or at least non that I know of in development? For example, hydrostatic models do not have a vertical forecast equation and have limited mesoscale resolution? Whereas non-hydrostatic models are limited by computational time? 3) Parameterisation overheads reduce as a function of grid-point resolution but still necessary to compensate for errors introduced by mesoscale features? 4) Can you give an indication of parameters of that are currently not modeled well but known to be in development? That hidden pattern between summer and winter may point to the difficulty in modeling diurnal forcing within limited vertical resolution models. i.e. When super adiabatic-layers develop in the boundary layer due to diurnal heating, isentropic surfaces appear more than once in the vertical profile above a point? Many thanks, ffO.
  11. There is only one way to treat people who post derogatory remarks in the hope of provoking a response. Ignore them. I can't help but think there is a smidgen of jealousy in some peoples post's. Who was it once said 'science is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration?' Meteorology has a long way to go, but thank goodness there are people prepared to dedicate their lives to pushing forward the boundaries of knowledge. And to do it in such a public way takes courage and confidence. Long may they continue. ffO.
  12. It ain't over till the fat lady sings. All the popular models had unprecedented trouble settling on this current cold spell even a few days beforehand. If that is also transpiring for long range events between the stratosphere and troposphere, then the outputs used to base next weekends 'potential' breakdown could also be woefully in error. The modeling of the vortex reformation is part of the story - but is it correct? ffO
  13. Cornwall is the county of sunshine and rain, but mostly rain. Head for the moors! PS. Only kidding, Hope you do get some snow!
  14. Hi SB. Are you saying this because you have access to the latest UKV output which has shown the eastern limit of Fridays event? Or is that your prognosis on the current slew of model output and available data? ffO.
  15. That looks like a good case for showing the error between the main NWP models and reality during and preceding the run run up to an SSW. i.e. the models cannot resolve the correct solution. Be aware that the AO and NAO index prediction is based on standard NWP output and so forward looking cannot be relied on in this situation. ffO
  16. Some folks are getting hung up on the 'ppn type' charts which ALWAYS show the fringes of the snow transiting from rain to snow. Don't get hung up on this, it is purely a graphical representation and does not depict what is likely to happen on those fringes. The METO weather warnings quote 'An area of rain, sleet and hill snow spreading into northwestern Scotland by early Monday is expected to turn increasingly to snow to low levels as it moves southeastwards through the day.' The keywords are: turning increasingly to snow to low levels as it moves southeastwards. As the sinking low moves south, the ppn will pivot around the low. Expect the SE will see more snow as the LP track favours those areas. Kent, East Sussex, Essex, Suffolk, London, Herts could all get a pasting. ffO.
  17. Rybris is close to the mark methinks. GIGO rules apply: There are a few studies which show that the Stratopause and Mesopause coupling mechanisms are not well understood. SSW events are shown to influence different longitudinal zones in markedly different and complex ways. i.e. thermal, gravitational and dynamic regimes. For example there is no stable temperature response to the SSW forcing in some longitudinal zones whereas in others the correlation is verified. Couple this with temporal discrepancies caused by varying inertia over different longitudinal zones together with missing grid data and the uneven distribution of the spatial sample grid and reduced grid resolution with increasing height, (phew) then the picture becomes increasingly desperate. Dynamic forcing and propagation from the upper to lower atmospheric model can therefore be full of inaccuracies. The seed data for the Troposphere is therefore incomplete at best and at worst incorrect during active SSW events with the rate of change increasing error. It is only when the layers reach relative equilibrium with stable temporal differentials, can the lower atmospheric modelling get to grips. It is my belief that these are the primary reasons why the various models differ widely and lurch from extremes. Perhaps others would care to comment? ffO.
  18. It will also give the insurance companies another reason to jack-up premiums. The risk to environmental contamination of water tables is of far more concern since there is no method of cleaning up disasters. Pandora cannot be put back into the box. Perhaps like the GW cynics often espouse, 'there is not enough conclusive evidence' on the safety of fracking within a highly dense population area (like the British Isles) with which to make an informed decision? Drawing conclusions with the US (including falling prices) is meaningless as it is not comparing like with like. There is too much at stake to embark on an 'experiment' on industrial scale. Perhaps we should write into law that the board members and politicians in collusion with the companies that stand to profit from fracking, will face criminal prosecution (with stiff prison sentencing and punitive damages) if the risks manifest? Profit must be weighed against the risks and I am certainly not convinced we understand the risks. ffO.
  19. A time would come when Men should be able to stretch out their eyes, they should see the planets like our Earth. -Christopher Wren, Inauguration Speech, Gresham College, 1657. Perhaps we should place Sir Patrick's ashes within this other great man's legacy. If ever there was a person so deserving, I am sure Mr Wren would approve. ffO.
  20. Start with Edwin Hubble (astronomer) who observed that wherever he looked and measured in the observable universe, everything was moving away from everything else. (i.e. on the scale of distances between galaxies but excluding local phenomena such as merging galaxies, individual stars within galaxies, planets etc.) Logically, if everything is moving away from each other, then the universe must be expanding: (Imagine points on the skin of an inflating balloon). It follows that the universe will therefore be bigger tomorrow than it is today. (Major assumption since we don't know what the universe is expanding into which itself is a major assumption of indeed the universe is expanding into something at all). If one supposes this logic is correct then it also follows that the universe was smaller yesterday than it is today. So interpolating backwards in time, the universe must have started from a single point which the 'steady state' proponent Fred Hoyle disparagingly called 'the big bang' and the name stuck. Hope this helps. ffO.
  21. Downburst: There is of course nothing wrong with amateur meteorologists seeking to advance understanding and therefore improve medium-long term predictive ability. There is also nothing wrong in the competitive spirit of seeking to better the experts; this is after all a huge part of the fun and motivation for many people. It's a sort of sport. So very often science is advanced through serendipity so why not have those emerging ideas and theories tested by people who have a real passion for weather prediction on such forums? It is one area of science which can be delved into by lay-people using nothing more than patterns, logic and analogues without the need to understand the complex physics and mathematics beyond a relatively simple level. People also come here to exchange knowledge, spar and generally indulge in their pass-time with other like minded individuals and in so doing, hopefully increase their knowledge and enrich their lives. If people want access to the experts and discuss emerging science at the professional scientific level then they have to go through the hard earned process of advanced education and find a career in meteorology. But that ain't what this site is about? I for one, welcome the inputs of every contributor - far far too often science is damaged by those who would rather treat it as an elitist society and close off the very fruitful avenues for amateurs that make meteorology so much fun. ffO.
  22. The fixed cost stays the same, the variable costs are the eye-waterers: deployment allowances, tax free, medical care costs of the wounded/disabled, invalid benefits, cost of expended equipment, vastly increased maintenance bill, vastly increased fuel costs, transportaion to/from the battle zone etc. War is far more expensive than a dormant army. Start adding it up: eurofighter £70,000+ per hour in the air (1 round trip to Libya = £0.55m), Block IV Tomohawk missile circa £1m each, replacement cost of a Eurofighter £65m each etc. Estimated additional costs of the war in Afhanistan - £4bn / year. Source - RUSI London. ffO.
  23. I think you may have missed my point. I'm not talking about people who are climate scientists who can speak with authority be they from either camp. Nor do I state that scientific arguments can be dismissed from a philosophical viewpoint. My point is that scientific argument at the majority of lay-persons level is not where the debate can be argued and won. But your outburst does prove my point that climate science is a very emotive subject. ffO.
×
×
  • Create New...