Alan Robinson
-
Posts
1,036 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by Alan Robinson
-
-
Please could you explain how and why the atmosphere is ever more capable of holding onto heat.
Perhaps the volume of atmosphere is increasing. Sublimation.
-
The journalist seems to be confusing climate with weather models.
Look back testing is very sensible - how much is it done?
The journalist was quoting Jens Hesselbjerg, a senior climate researcher at the Danish Meteorologigical Institute.
-
Well, those who claim scince knows it all, read on;
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/klimamodeller_skal_finjusteres
More from the climate conference in Denver;
CLIMATE MODELS NEED SMALL ADJUSTMENTS
Climate researchers are among the first to agree that mathematical models used to predict future climate need improvement.
One theme for debate during Wednesday’s WCRP conference in Denver was how climate models might be enhanced, and are they in fact so poor as some people imply.
“Briefly put, they are generally quite good” says DMI’s Jens Hesselberg. “They show consensus in many respects, and agree regarding overall tendencies. We ought not forget that current climate models are in fact based on algorithms used for our weather forecasts.”
Problems arise however when we go into details regarding localities, timing and types of phenomenon.
The method used to optimize climate models is to look back in time to well-documented situations, and to see if our climate models could predict their occurrence. If the phenomenon is not predicted – perhaps the position of a ridge of high pressure; a strong air current in the atmosphere, or sea surface temperatures – then investigations begin in order to understand why the model fails, and what is needed to make it work.
“But we should not simply create increasingly complex models”, says Sandrine Bony of Laboratorie de Meteorologie Dynamique. “We must understand the elementary physical science used to write the models. Only when we truly understand the science can we improve the models.
Sandrine Bony’s point is that many people nowadays use climate model predictions to guide them in future investments. Duty of care therefore demands that not only climate models be continuously improved, but our overall understanding of the climate.
-
For example recent research shows evidence that a 1 metre rise in sea level is within natural variation and the current observed rise isn't what had been expected.
Maybe the missing sea is in the stratosphere as vapour
-
dichotomies.
A very apt word.
-
Lol.
Are you trying to wrest the Pedant's crown from my head? I think it's only fair to warn you that it's more of a Tiara, very sparkly and definitely too girly for you.
I hadn't thought of you as girly Jethro. Is there something you keep from us?
Anyway, science is obviously not in a state of rest, however little progress we might see in our short lifetimes. The development of technology is a clear indication of how many admirable discoveries in the past have since been supplemented or perhaps superceded. Materials technology is a particularly fine example.
I personally suspect that climate science is in its infancy, and am unafraid to say so. Where is the taboo?
-
It seems climate scientists are aware of the need for cross-disciplinary co-operation, and they do not regard state-of-the-art climate science as the finished article. Here is my loose translation of the link below;
Applied climate research is the program in Denver.
With the theme “Climate Research for Society” more than 700 climate researchers from 80 different countries will convene in Denver, Colorado, just east of the Rocky Mountains.
Their aims are to
-
· Review contemporary climate science and provide a valuable contribution to the IPCCs 5th major report
-
· Identify opportunities and challenges connected to weather observations, climate models and analyses in order to improve estimates of how Earth’s climate might develop, and also the occurrence of extreme weather conditions.
-
· To facilitate interaction between various scientific disciplines in order to improve our understanding of Earth as a system
-
· To draw attention to research supportive of climate services, as instigated at the World Climate Conference III in 2009
Participants expect wide-ranging talks, including extreme weather; optimising weather observations, regional reliability of climate models, future sea levels, and the requirements of business for new climate knowledge.
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/anvendt_klimaforskning_paa_programmet_i_denver
-
· Review contemporary climate science and provide a valuable contribution to the IPCCs 5th major report
-
And when you link onto his own page the "homepage" it says.......
Could I really be mistaken for believing he at least created most of these pages?
Perhaps we should leave it up to others to decide whether he's biased and even if he has the relevant background to be so critical of the actual climate experts.
People will make up their own minds, but I will simply say of Segalstad - as he is not participating here to defend his own corner - his own website re-directs to the CO2 activist's website, and it is they, not Segalstad that uses emotive language. Regarding his CV I notice he has acted as Expert Reviewer to the IPCC (the environmental lot, not the coppers).
When people say the science is settled, I'd just like to know why scientific academics like Segalstad say it isn't; this is why I am skeptical.
-
I'm perfectly calm, 'tis a nice morning out after the howling wind and rain of yesterday!
You called me partisan. Something I consider an insult, which I'm sure you were well aware of when posting. Eerily reminiscent of the old " you question any part of the war effort and you're a un-patriotic terrorist".
How about you get back to discussing the point, un-biased research that isn't coming from one side or the other, i.e., not Segalstad.
As Jethro said
Nice to see you are calm, and we can continue the debate.
I used partisan as it is defined in my Pocket Oxford dictionary, namely adherent of a party or side or cause, esp. one who prefers its interests to truth and justice. I did so because you wrongly quoted Segalstad. He nowhere writes "doom", it is the people that have taken Segalstad's paper and put it on their partisan website who expressed themselves so. Segalstad's work seems to me very sober and proper.
Perhaps you will be kind enough to take another look and realise your mistake; you will not read another word from me on the matter.
-
Throw your insults about as you like and claim to be whatever you want, I don't want to drag this thread down with a mud slinging match.
The discussion was on non-biased work. Segalstad clearly has an agenda that even the blind could probably see, disproving CO2 as the cause of recent warming. For whatever reason, before you even read his research he wants you to know what camp he's set his tent up in.
Research on the link with UV light and recent cold winters didn't get its result and then proclaim the Arctic Amplification or global warming was now a scam, it just showed what it found in a matter of fact way, the way things should be done, the scientific way.
Even when I find the time to read through it and if I produced evidence that refuted it, you would probably take the same stance as you did with Jarawoski and claim that you don't understand it and there are different views, so therefore it's controversial.
Nay, calm yourself sir, in what way did I throw insults about? All you need do is produce evidence that Segalstad and Jaworowski are all at sea with their work. I still haven't seen that.
-
But when on the second line of the page you linked to it says
I think the angle of most of the work is going to be quite obvious!
And the refutation? Did you happen to read Segalstad's work or glance at the reference list? I am personally neither warmist or nay-sayer, and I am not promoting either camp. You on the other hand seem to me partisan.
-
Wouldn't the easiest way to beat any taboo's and conflict be to forget all about the two sides, ignore the traditional concept of pro or anti AGW and adopt an attitude of knowledge seeking, regardless of what it reveals? Strikes me that both in the general public and the science community, too much time and effort is spent trying to prove one side of the debate over the other - science, real science doesn't have views, it has facts.
I also agree with this, and it seems to me that is also the approach taken by Segalstad; link above.
-
I don't think anyone takes Jaworowski's arguments seriously. The problems he mentions with ice-core data either don't make sense or have been dealt with well before he got his article published. http://www.ferdinand...jaworowski.html
http://forum.netweat...ce/page__st__20
Has Jaworowski done 1 climate or atmospheric science paper that doesn't mention CO2 and the words "fraud", "scam", "folly" or generally be about questioning the AGW theory?
I honestly believe this is less about taboo and more about the entire scientific community not feeling the need to answer questions that have already been dealt with or make no sense.
What I do find interesting is how the opinions of someone who is not an expert in ice core drilling, seems to hold more sway for you than the hundreds or thousands of actual experts.
Yes, I read that, and I found Prof Oeschger's letter very personal, emotive, and not what i would expect of a scientist. Jaworowski's work - done with two highly regarded Norwegians - was published in 1991 by the Norwegian Polar Institute. I'd say if anyone rubbishes Jaworowski, then they also rubbish the institute that was behind Amundsen's voyages. The Norwegian Polar Institute was certainly in 1991 one of the world's leading authorities on ice.
Anyway, in the meantime I found this by Segalstad, Jaworowski's co-author.
This is pretty powerful stuff, so perhaps you can present us with a paper that refutes Segalstad and Jaworowski and their long list of accomplished scientists in reference. By refutation I mean criticism of the underlying theory, and / or the mathematics and chemical calculations employed, and not Swiss huffing and puffing.
-
and also perhaps realise that runaway global warming that destroys life on earth is a figment of the imagination because at times of far higher CO2 concentration than now it hasn't happened as we are all here to prove.
I'd say that knowing about the atmosphere even in the not so distant past is one of the most contentious elements in the AGW debate. It seems to me Jaworowski originally made a very strong case back in 1991 that the ice core data is not valid, since when hardly anyone has challenged his views published by the Norwegian Polar Institute. He maintains the whole AGW agenda is the biggest scientific scandal of our times, while mainstream science simply ignores Jaworowski without refuting his very well presented arguments. If ever there was a taboo about AGW, it is Jaworowski.
Just out of interest - it really belongs in the climate science thread - do you hold that the IPCC's method of estimating past CO2 concentrations is valid? And how is it known that past CO2 concentrations have been as high as the supposed dangerous scenario forecast by AGW activists?
-
I'm not suggesting you have to read every document but if you are ruling out the media, which is mainly fair enough, to form a legitimate opinion you have to have read a number of papers and a few books, whether you are a denier, pro AGW or a bulverist. Unless of course you are taking someone else's opinion and that would never do.
Hmmm. Bulverism.
Maybe some people prefer not to read at all, but listen to others that have done the reading. Having listened they consider themselves sufficiently well advised to form an opinion.
If I understand you correctly, mcweather doesn't like the supposed consequences of AGW, and therefore holds the view that arguments supporting the idea of AGW are mistaken. Is that your point weathership? Only, it seemed to me he wasn't the least concerned about high CO2 concentrations, as he believes such circumstances have prevailed previously with little or no ill effect.
-
All I can say is they must have a lot of time on their hands, and access to countless academic journals, bcause the number of papers on the subject across various disciplines is mind boggling,
I suppose intuition plays a significant role in matters where people don't have time to read all those papers and journals; and anyway, they probably wouldn't understand all of what they read. The problem is that politicians have played their AGW cards, and that is largely what makes people suspicious. Can you name for me any other scientific topic that politicians these last 50 years have been so vociferous about?
-
It continues to puzzle me why anyone should refer to Newton's 1st Law of motion as the Law of Inertia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton.27s_first_law
Inertia is the natural property of mass to resist changes in its velocity. If a body has constant velocity then inertia is doing nothing because there is no change happening. Seeing how Newton's 1st law is all about bodies with constant velocity, it seems to me inertia has nothing to do with it.
In my view, it is Newton's 3rd Law that might better be called the Law of Inertia, because the 3rd law deals with equal and opposite actions and reactions, which is the manifestation of inertia.
Perhaps it is all about a bad habit, such as the one many engineers have of referring to the moment of inertia of lamina, plane figures that have no mass. What they really ought to put is second moment of area.
In my experience this sort of inaccuracy confuses students, and it ought to be put right. Does anyone else have a view on this?
-
i've earmarked this saturday as press day! i bought this little beauty http://www.wineworks...-spindle-press/
wine making sounds like something i'd like to pursue and that book looks like what i should invest in (crimbo pressie!).
cheers for the advice!
cheers for the advice
-
You can watch it here Alan.
Thanks for the link, but they don't show programs overseas.
I think you can't get iPlayer, so here is the gist.
From an experiment which has been running between CERN and a lab buried in the Appenines in Italy, it appears that some neutrino's have traveled faster than light, arriving in Italy sooner than expected.
A fair chunk of the program followed the idea that
A) Einstein saying that the speed of light is absolute was correct
and
anything with mass cannot achieve the speed of light.there was then an interesting discussion on how neutrino's are so small and chargeless they are very difficult to detect.
the possible solutions they came up with were to do with "String Theory" with our universe being (effectively) on a membrane (shortened to "brane") with other branes, which normal matter (us) cannot interact with. However there are other branes, the analogy being each brane is a slice of bread in a sliced loaf, which together make up "the Bulk".
The final hypothesis was that neutrino's MAY be able to move across branes (I've read books that feel the same may apply to Gravitons - the theoretical gravity particle) and therefore may jump out of our universe and then jump back in again. Doing this they could appear to travel faster (in this case) or slower than light (as in the case of some neutrino's from a supernova)
Or it could all be experimental error
Thanks for that.
-
Might a poor ex-pat request from those at home a brief synopsis of the BBC program yesterday?
-
Yeas this true and also I hear [from himself] that he forecast other ,sometimes very specific, weather events a long time before the forecas weather event ,typhoons,cyclones ,hurricanes,droughts,floods,hot periods ,cold snaps,average weather etc.I have not verified whether the events he apparently .Any thoughts on this and his self generalised methodology,ie the effect of charged particles on the earth with the interaction of the moon and the earths magnetic field.I ask on this post as this could have relevance in relation to A.G.W.
I don't think most the events you list are climate. I'd say they are weather. If you have details of how some hypothesize about magnetism's effect on climate, maybe you could let us see it in the thread on climate science?
-
Well, cider press arrived, apples pressed and juice now fermenting
. First real experience of foraging albeit for only one of the many types of fruit, nut berry etc which are available.Anyone know how long apples tend to be around for, hoping to get 4 gallons worth of juice done by end of this weekend?
Any suggestions for any readily available foragable(is that a word?!) fruit.
cheers
4 gallons? That'll take you all day!
What fruit press did you get?
It seems to me that you are the sort that could get into winemaking. There are literally hundreds of different recipes based on local produce; plums, cherries, pears, apples, parsnips, various flowers, the possibilities are almost endless. All you'll need is patience. It takes about 18 months for the wines to mature. I have done it, but I'm not so patient, so I stick to brewing ale.
Perhaps you can get from Amazon a copy of First Steps in Winemaking by C J J Berry. Excellent book, fully explained and hundreds of recipes using local produce.
PS.......keep the little black flies out of your cider, or else you'll get vinegar instead!
-
r2 is the coefficient of determination [1] - ie it determines goodness of fit between model and observation.
The problem with the temperature series was published in Nature, by Thomson et al, in 2008 [2] specifically that: "The most notable change in the SST archive following December 1941 occurred in August 1945. Between January 1942 and August 1945, ,80% of the observations are from ships of US origin and, 5% are from ships of UK origin; between late 1945 and 1949 only,30% of the observations are of US origin and about 50% are of UK origin. The change in country of origin in August 1945 is important for two reasons: first, in August 1945 US ships relied mainly on engine room intake measurements whereas UK ships used primarily uninsulated bucket measurements, and second, engine room intake measurements are generally biased warm relative to uninsulated bucket measurements"
Thanks.
Regarding buckets and seawater intakes, it sounds like baloney to me. In those days they only had spirit or mercury thermometers, and on ships they read accurate to within 1 degree C or so. I bet if I use the same thermometer, I will get exactly the same temperature from a sample in the cooling system strainer and from a bucket.
Do the members of this forum that disagree with the AGW theory believe that they still receive an unfair level of unfriendly and derogatory remarks against them by by other members?
As far as I can tell since joining in on and reading some of the debates is that the "stick" and "taboo" is more the other way around and that the anti-AGW members, in the climate and environment section at least, are in the majority.
What about the "don't knows" ? I'd say they are the majority.
-
We got it to the stage where r2 > 0.8,
Alas, my poor knowledge of science, particularly oceanography, and thermodynamics along with spending £10k on papers (knowledge isn't free, you know) ground the project to a halt.
Even to this day I think there is something there; this is not without evidence. Many of you will know that there was a problem with the global temperature around the middle of the last century - temperature readings were taken from buckets on ships next to the engine room.
I bow to your mathematics Sparticle; now what is r?
Regarding ship's engine rooms in the middle of the last century, they would probably not have been any warmer than they are today, namely 45 degrees C at the most. Also, boiler rooms were separate to engine rooms. Where was the bucket dipped in? Near the condenser discharge or near its intake? It must be clear that the engine room air temperature could hardly affect the sea water temperature significantly. What about where the ship was and seasonal temparture changes? I mean, the Arabian Gulf can well exceed 35 degrees C in mid summer, but in winter it can be a balmy 15 degrees. The variables are many, and no wonder climate scientists bicker over data.
anything with mass cannot achieve the speed of light.
. First real experience of foraging albeit for only one of the many types of fruit, nut berry etc which are available.
In The News
in Climate Change
Posted · Edited by Alan Robinson
No he didn't, that was Christensen and Boberg