Military 'may have to abandon flood-prone bases'
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would the scientific community's prediction have been for the climate at the height of the little ice age 300 years ago?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there was indeed a "little ice age", and it's not clear it's a global feature, then without a "white tundra summer", there would be no sign of an onset.
Currently, blue arctic ocean summers and melting permafrost are rather more of a concern.
Currently, blue arctic ocean summers and melting permafrost are rather more of a concern.
There's also the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) to screw with our weather - this was only discovered 90 odd years ago. Plus the magnetic pole is due a flip as well as an ice age or a super-tsunami.
Finally, a large meteorite is overdue that could stop global warming; either by wiping out a large amount of the population (and their carbon emissions) or by throwing up loads of material into the atmosphere that will block the warming from the sun.
Finally, fossil fuels will dwindle and other sources of energy will need to be used. So in 50-100 years time when we all have cold fusion reactors powering our cars, ships, trains and planes, then the problems of the 'sandalista' will need to change tack.
I would rather bet on West Ham winning the Premiership 3 times over the next 100 years than try to predict what the weather/climate/environment has in store over the same time period.
LJ
Finally, a large meteorite is overdue that could stop global warming; either by wiping out a large amount of the population (and their carbon emissions) or by throwing up loads of material into the atmosphere that will block the warming from the sun.
Finally, fossil fuels will dwindle and other sources of energy will need to be used. So in 50-100 years time when we all have cold fusion reactors powering our cars, ships, trains and planes, then the problems of the 'sandalista' will need to change tack.
I would rather bet on West Ham winning the Premiership 3 times over the next 100 years than try to predict what the weather/climate/environment has in store over the same time period.
LJ
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Military 'may have to abandon flood-prone bases'
Langley old chap, as A non merman weather guesser who was mainly in Atlantic lows deep and far out giving good surf could you elaborate as to why moving or blocking your widget matters so much please
I am a curious george!
I am a curious george!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,763
Received 2,748 Likes
on
1,171 Posts
Quote:
Weren't we supposed to be having 'the coldest winter for years' in 2014?
Ahh BEagle old chap, you've confirmed yourself as a Daily Depress reader - the paper who persist with their not-in-the-slightest-bit-exagerated doom laden headlines from the bloke-in-a-shed weather "forecaster" that proved to be completely wrong on pretty much every occasion. Even seaweed would have given a better prediction!
The headlines do make us chuckle at work, although it worries us a little that people think it's us making those predictions!
As for the Daily Heil's and Depress' claims about the seasonal forecast being wrong, well, they're cherry picking from something they don't understand to make news out of nothing and find someone else to blame - oh, and coincidentally try to claim they got it right (they didn't - as you say, remember the aforementioned coldest winter on record headlines they ran?)
Hopefully not too many people believe every word they read.... Oh, they do?
Weren't we supposed to be having 'the coldest winter for years' in 2014?
Ahh BEagle old chap, you've confirmed yourself as a Daily Depress reader - the paper who persist with their not-in-the-slightest-bit-exagerated doom laden headlines from the bloke-in-a-shed weather "forecaster" that proved to be completely wrong on pretty much every occasion. Even seaweed would have given a better prediction!
The headlines do make us chuckle at work, although it worries us a little that people think it's us making those predictions!
As for the Daily Heil's and Depress' claims about the seasonal forecast being wrong, well, they're cherry picking from something they don't understand to make news out of nothing and find someone else to blame - oh, and coincidentally try to claim they got it right (they didn't - as you say, remember the aforementioned coldest winter on record headlines they ran?)
Hopefully not too many people believe every word they read.... Oh, they do?
So you have about another 10 months until we actually hit Winter 2014, or does your piece of seaweed on the washing line predict that far forward?
International standard measurement of wind at 10m above ground [up a steel lattice mast in UK], ideally near runway ......... customer iffy about anything near runway so mast sited a LONG way from significant obstructions which could disturb wind flow. Obstructions certainly do give values untypical of those at the runway, sometimes blanking gusts, sometimes giving "false" gusts, and very often giving wrong wind direction, even reversal.
In extreme cases, the sudden arrival of a sea breeze or a storm down-draft may not be picked up in time. RAF Nicosia really needed two anemos, one at each end! The sea breeze was often massive, slamming doors and blowing off the staish's cap.
In extreme cases, the sudden arrival of a sea breeze or a storm down-draft may not be picked up in time. RAF Nicosia really needed two anemos, one at each end! The sea breeze was often massive, slamming doors and blowing off the staish's cap.
I would rather bet on West Ham winning the Premiership 3 times over the next 100 years than try to predict what the weather/climate/environment has in store over the same time period.
LangleyB
Isn't the rule of thumb for obstacles from a windsock or anemometer 10 times the obstruction height? Ie. 6m obstruction must be 60m from obstruction?
Also, I seem to remember that there are factors to apply if your wind measurement isn't at the prescribed 10m. If it's less then you apply a factor of greater than 1 and if it is more than 10m then you apply a factor of less than 1. Ie. 8m wind measurement of 8kts is multiplied by 1.1 and so the actual wind is observed at 8.8kts? (My factor may not be the right factor, but you get my drift?)
LJ
Isn't the rule of thumb for obstacles from a windsock or anemometer 10 times the obstruction height? Ie. 6m obstruction must be 60m from obstruction?
Also, I seem to remember that there are factors to apply if your wind measurement isn't at the prescribed 10m. If it's less then you apply a factor of greater than 1 and if it is more than 10m then you apply a factor of less than 1. Ie. 8m wind measurement of 8kts is multiplied by 1.1 and so the actual wind is observed at 8.8kts? (My factor may not be the right factor, but you get my drift?)
LJ
In fact, I found the Met Observer's Handbook on the Met Office website and it is add 10% for a mast between 5-7m, add 20% for 3-4m and a massive 30% for 1-2m (ie. a handheld anemometer - I bet many didn't know that!).
LJ
LJ
LB - Nicosia would probably have been better without one at all! In the summer you could have the anemometer reading just about zero, and the windsocks at either end showing approx 30 - 40 kts - only 180 degrees different (the sea breeze from both east and west coasts and a temp of +40C or more)! However, about 500ft up you could almost sit in autorotation and still climb.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Berks, UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NutLoose said:
It wasn't me who said winter of 2014, it was BEagle! I'm innocent. Soooo innocent. Bah.
and LangleyB:
More than likely the same team, yes, but at least we aren't trumpeting research and experimental forecasts all over the news as fact this time... It doesn't mean they're not at least a little useful as a form of guidance and doesn't mean they shouldn't be used, but you and I both know, they're caveatted heavily and not really suitable for public or press consumption yet because, being probablistic, they're very much open to misintepretation, particularly by those with a long standing grudge. Maybe one day they'll be suitable, maybe not. So I guess we've learned something from the BBQ summer debacle!
And no, I don't care to post the exact wording... 1. I quite like my job, 2. its not my area of expertise, and 3. I'm sure you know what our intranet site is like and how hard it is to find stuff....
Well you might be a MetMan, but this is in effect the winter of 2013 as traditionally the seasons run Spring, Summer, Autumn ( or fall for the colonies) then Winter..
So you have about another 10 months until we actually hit Winter 2014, or does your piece of seaweed on the washing line predict that far forward?
So you have about another 10 months until we actually hit Winter 2014, or does your piece of seaweed on the washing line predict that far forward?
and LangleyB:
Perhaps metman would care to post the exact wording of the official Met Office winter prediction?
here is one who would certainly understand it.
thinks ....... is this the same Met Office team that promised a BBQ summer? Thought so.
here is one who would certainly understand it.
thinks ....... is this the same Met Office team that promised a BBQ summer? Thought so.
And no, I don't care to post the exact wording... 1. I quite like my job, 2. its not my area of expertise, and 3. I'm sure you know what our intranet site is like and how hard it is to find stuff....
Last edited by Metman; 25th Feb 2014 at 12:30.
QUOTE:
Isn't the rule of thumb for obstacles from a windsock or anemometer 10 times the obstruction height? Ie. 6m obstruction must be 60m from obstruction?
From memory that may be the internationally agreed MINIMUM separation.
It takes no account of the width or density [think trees] of the obstruction, and is a long way from best practice. Height has a big effect on gustiness, width a big effect on direction and gustiness.
Regarding probabilistic forecasts, the great unwashed have a deep instinctive knowledge of probability, as witness racing odds, National Lottery and many life events. The great unwashed also recognise a lot of time and money being spent on unsound science.
Isn't the rule of thumb for obstacles from a windsock or anemometer 10 times the obstruction height? Ie. 6m obstruction must be 60m from obstruction?
From memory that may be the internationally agreed MINIMUM separation.
It takes no account of the width or density [think trees] of the obstruction, and is a long way from best practice. Height has a big effect on gustiness, width a big effect on direction and gustiness.
Regarding probabilistic forecasts, the great unwashed have a deep instinctive knowledge of probability, as witness racing odds, National Lottery and many life events. The great unwashed also recognise a lot of time and money being spent on unsound science.
(a bear of little brain)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 51 10 03.70N 2 58 37.15W
Age: 75
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF.
Little Rissington 730ft/223 Metres AMSL
Dunkeswell* 839ft/256 Metres AMSL
It may not be long but it is a surfaced runway
Little Rissington 730ft/223 Metres AMSL
Dunkeswell* 839ft/256 Metres AMSL
It may not be long but it is a surfaced runway
(a bear of little brain)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 51 10 03.70N 2 58 37.15W
Age: 75
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF, to be honest never been to Little Rissington, but the drainage at Dunkeswell (200 foot + deep valleys to the North and South to provide drainage, with the runway at the top of the hill more or less) would lead me to believe that they aren't going to have flooding problems there* in the near future.
* Except for the potholes in the car park last time I was there, but that's a different story.
* Except for the potholes in the car park last time I was there, but that's a different story.