Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

The Climate Change debate

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

The Climate Change debate

Old 22nd Jan 2011, 08:53
  #7201 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
Here's the suppsedly secret forecast that was allegedly given by the UK Met Office to the Govt. about this winter.

What sort of forecast does the Met Office Supercomputer make? | Watts Up With That?

With 15 million megabytes of computing power and peak performance of 1 Petaflop, this is the forecast their most powerful computer gave.

QUOTE

Met Office Initial Assessment of Risk for Winter 2010/11

This covers the months of November, December and January 2010/11, this will be updated monthly through the winter and so probabilities will change.

Temperature

3 in 10 chance of a mild start
3 in 10 chance of an average start
4 in 10 chance of a cold start

Precipitation

3 in 10 chance of a wet start
3 in 10 chance of an average start
4 in 10 chance of a dry start

Summary: There is an increased risk for a cold and wintry start to the winter season.

Looking further ahead beyond this assessment there are some indications of an increased risk of a mild end to the winter season.

UNQUOTE

Hey, 30% chance of mild, 30% chance of average and 40% chance of cold winter! You could've never guessed that!

You can never be wrong with such " forecasts ".

As one poster commented, the value of this forecast is not even equivalent to one cowflop.

And Julia Slingo wants more money for a more powerful computer
rvv500 is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2011, 09:32
  #7202 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
That really does confirm that the Met office are no-longer fit for purpose and therefore should be closed down to save the tax payers money.

Incidentally my prediction for the summer is: 30% below average temp, 40% average temp, 30% warmer than average.
green granite is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2011, 10:19
  #7203 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
And Green Granite, it's time you asked the UK Govt to give you more money to buy computing power to improve your forecasts to reach the third decimal accurately. About 20 million quid should do.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2011, 10:46
  #7204 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Probably, if I said I could prove AGW beyond all reasonable doubt, I'd get it and a couple of million a year to run it.
green granite is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2011, 13:31
  #7205 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 77
Posts: 4,580
Ecopropaganda film

Just watched a film "Kilowatt Ours" on the government-run "educational" channel. While 50% is simply solid efficiency no-brainers (home insulation, caulking...) the other 50% is touting windmills, solar panels, CFLs, etc. with wildly optimistic payback claims.

The film also takes a trip down the AGW slippery slope, even interviewing Dr. James "The debate is over" Hansen. This bit, of course, focuses my scrutiny on the entire film.

If you can stand the aroma, visit Kilowatt Ours :: A Plan to Re-Energize America by Jeff Barrie - and review their supporters.
barit1 is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2011, 15:02
  #7206 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
Here's a good post about metrology of thermometers and the resultant measurement errors. The author states that uncalibrated instruments can have measurement errors of a degree or so.

The Metrology of Thermometers | Watts Up With That?

Add that to this post below about a paper published in Energy and Environment about surface temperature error margins

Surface temperature uncertainty, quantified | Watts Up With That?

which states that the error margin of surface temperatures is plus or minus 0.46 degrees C at the lower limit, then the 0.6 degrees warming seen since the past century is statistically insignificant, in the face of such error margins. So it can be reasonably said that it is impossible to accurately quantify the warming since 1880.

Last edited by rvv500; 22nd Jan 2011 at 16:05.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2011, 17:28
  #7207 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alderney
Age: 57
Posts: 80
Not sure if this link has been posted before, but makes interesting watching.

AccuWeather.com - Weather Video - Bastardi: "A La Nina That Is King?... More Cold to Follow!"
beaufort1 is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2011, 21:27
  #7208 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sydney
Posts: 213
The trouble is that the rainfall which falls on any particular patch of turf is a result of some complex non-linear ocean-atmosphere coupling, the physics of which is important at pretty well all spatial scales, and involves significant time lags as the ocean and atmosphere respond.

But warmer sea surface temperatures (SSTs) will enhance evaporation of water molecules from the sea surface, and presto your hydrological cycle is enhanced (ie more rainfall somewhere).

The present La Nina gives us higher SSTs (and lower atmos. pressures in general) in the western pacific, which results in more evaporation, more convergence and more uplift of saturated air- hence bigger local rainfalls in the western pacific.

The El Nino / La Nina phenomenon involves a large scale slopping of the thermocline in the equatorial pacific, which is related to the aggregated wind stress over the region, which is in turn affected by the SSTs which are in turn affected by the winds... (chicken and egg).

The ocean currents also carry heat (absorbed by the sea surface near the equator) poleward reducing temp maxima at the equator and increasing temp minima at the poles. This can modify sea ice extent which modifies albedo (as does cloud cover). The strength of these currents (and the associated heat transfer) is affected by the all the larger scale wind fields.

The global coupled ocean/atmosphere climate models are unable to parameterise all the physics accurately because their spatial and temporal time steps can't resolve the small scale physics. Global climate models therefore reflect some sort of parallel world of physics and may or may not be reasonable.

However, the general physics suggest that "Droughts and flooding rains" will always be with us and can only become more extreme if/when the SSTs increase.

I am saddened by the effects of floods, droughts and bushfires on my fellow aussies, but not at all shocked. It is all going to happen again and again.

Pity some of the pollies can't figure this out......
Seabreeze is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2011, 00:59
  #7209 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central Azervicestan
Posts: 68
Seabreeze, that probably is as good a post as any I have seen in relation to the supposedly definitive "settled science" we are constantly bombarded with.

Just one thing, you say

However, the general physics suggest that "Droughts and flooding rains" will always be with us and can only become more extreme if/when the SSTs increase.
I have gained the distinct impression that the jury is still out on directly linking SSTs with extreme weather events, there seems to be a lot of "he said/she said" out there on this particular subject.

Increased precipitation per se in theory - yup.

PS - just found this from Judith Curry. A tad generic, but...


"A further issue is that future extreme events that are even more extreme than anything we’ve seen in the 20th century have to be classified as emergent phenomena from the model: well outside the range for which the model has been validated. While I made the statement of “overconfidence in IPCC’s 20th century attribution,” I have to say that I find no basis for confidence in the model-based attribution of extreme events. Yes, there is the issue of more water vapor in the air with warmer sea surface temperatures, but exactly how this gets translated into individual weather events is not at all straightforward (this will be the topic of a future post).

Summary: Not sure what the motive is for the attribution of extreme events, other than to build political will for climate change policies. More comprehensive analysis of regional extreme events (including those in the paleo records, of which we need more of) in the context of known modes of natural climate variability is probably the single most useful thing that could be done in this regard. In terms of attribution services and the broader issues of a National Climate Service, well don’t get me started (more on this in a future thread.)"

Last edited by konstantin; 25th Jan 2011 at 10:11. Reason: More info
konstantin is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2011, 06:55
  #7210 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
ok, it's the daily maul..

BBC became propaganda machine for climate change says Peter Sissons | Mail Online
stuckgear is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2011, 07:25
  #7211 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Stuckgear, that article neatly sums up the reason I didn't bother to watch the Horizon programme on Science Under Attack last night.
green granite is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2011, 07:34
  #7212 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,627
Did anyone watch Horizon last night, "Science under Attack"?

BBC iPlayer - Horizon: 2010-2011: Science Under Attack

On the whole, although it had some good bits, the programme did more to undermine the current status of scientists on climate change.

E.g. he gave a lot of coverage to Phil Jones on Climategate but, instead of balancing it with an interview with one of the scientists who couldn't get data from CRU, he showed a heavily edited interview with James Delingpole, a journalist.
pulse1 is online now  
Old 25th Jan 2011, 08:28
  #7213 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
More calls to rally the troops to bolster up a failing science:
Climate science must move on from email scandal - Yahoo! News UK

Reviews last year of a scandal over scientists' leaked emails correctly ruled out data manipulation and showed it was time for climate science to move on, a panel of lawmakers said on Tuesday.

It is the fourth British review of a scandal dubbed "climategate" which had partly involved the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.

Three reviews were published last year, one by the same panel of lawmakers as reported on Tuesday, and two subsequent independent reports. All three exonerated the climate scientists of trying to manipulate data.
my highlighting
green granite is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2011, 09:31
  #7214 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Why oh why would I wanna be anywhere else?
Posts: 1,306
This will eventually go down as the biggest scam perpetrated on mankind since the invention of religion.
sisemen is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2011, 09:52
  #7215 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Did anyone watch Horizon last night, "Science under Attack"?
Unfortunately iPlayer refused to budge past JD opening the door to Sir Paul. My impressions up to that point was that it was a vain attempt to sell the personality of Nurse. The attempts at describing the science were non-existent. The accusations of the sceptics cherry-picking were laughable considering it was merely seconds since the edited for effect interview with Singer.

Even more laughable was the attempt to wow us with NASAs chavtastic widescreen TV, jumble of big satellites that haven't been space-bourne for little more than a few decades and a complete misunderstanding of the difference between data and information.

Oh yes, and the really strong defence "they told me to make it simple to understand" defence of Jones was nearly the cherry on the cake, but once I have finished watching it, perhaps even that will be trumped.

From what I have seen so far, it was nothing but over-stylised spin and misinformation.
Sciolistes is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2011, 10:18
  #7216 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
From what I have seen so far, it was nothing but over-stylised spin and misinformation.
Entirely predictable, which is why I didn't bother to watch it.
green granite is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2011, 11:49
  #7217 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 627
I watched the program last night. Frankly it was a disgrace. I always enjoyed Horizon because it often covers very interesting science without dumbing it down. But that program was nothing like that.

Sir Paul Nurse, whoever he is, should be ashamed of himself. His use of the word 'denialist' for a start. Don't tell he doesn't understand the implication. Then there was the diversion into AIDS and GM foods. What the hell was that about? The irony of the GM piece was that the anti GM mob, given their green credentials are in all probability enthusiastic supporters of AGW.

Then there was the unintended irony when he accused skeptics of cherry picking and taking a position on a subject and then seeking evidence to prove it. Laughable when you consider the tactics of the AGW proponents.

Frankly for a supposedly eminent scientist to involve himself in a pure propaganda piece like that is appalling. Even the title of the program was pure propaganda.

The BBC has clearly lost the plot.
corsair is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2011, 12:23
  #7218 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Japan
Age: 67
Posts: 204
Sir Paul Maxime Nurse, PRS (born 25 January 1949) is a British geneticist and cell biologist.

Clearly, The World's most qualified scientist to comment on climate change.
Yamagata ken is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 19:39
  #7219 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: united states
Age: 41
Posts: 95
cowflop indeed:

They can't even (climate scientists) get their sample spaces well defined, a decent sample from a population, or explain the methods they used to arrange the raw data, let alone release the actual raw data! WTF?!?
jcbmack is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 19:43
  #7220 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
The wheels are coming off. Off the rails. The light at the end of the tunnel is a headlight, etc. Pathetic desperation. Game Over.
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.