full_frontal_occlusion

Surely that should read ffO land? I'm not sure if the animations were explicit enough! I could always try again...... :lol: ffO (sorry, FFT.... no. ffO doh!)

Tell me about it! At that point someone has to override all arguments and impose a decision to remove the deadlock - at the global level with GW, that decision can only be taken by governments sometimes unilaterally. Unfortunately some decisions are unpalettable and will not be accepted by everyone (some of the people some of the time...). And where does that leave Joe-public struggling to know who to believe, unwilling to compromise their hard grafted lifestyles for a government they didn't vote for in the first place? Couple that with the compromises of governmental short-termism and appeasing the taxpayer and little wonder there is inertia. ffO

That's the proverbial nail on the head. Climate scientists do (or should) have access to the big picture but not necessarily the depth of knowledge to know the limitations of any given technology or measurement technique. On the other hand physicists, chemists etc. will know the limits of their discipline but do not necessarily possess the big picture and so may not be best placed to judge the appropriate weighting given to any other discipline. A few may be interested enough to take a helicopter view and gain credence by publishing at that level. Nothing wrong or against that. It's the same with other sciences and professions that cut across many disciplines: Take engineering for example (something close to my heart since it's my profession). Aerospace designers have a broad range of knowledge cutting across structural, materials, avionics, control, aerodynamics, safety, ergonomics, power etc. Within these dsciplines pretty much all of them will need detailed knowledge of physics, mathematics etc. Planes still fly however and its a team effort with the systems engineers pulling it all together. Same type of hierarchical organisation runs throughout industry: Construction, corporate enterprise, medicine, armed and emergency services, crime detection you name it. But none of this is to say any one discipline outranks another in importance. The truth is all are valid and necessary to draw a final conclusion and there is nothing to stop anyone forming a view. But unlike pure mathematics say where the answer is right or wrong, climate science is based on a balance of probability which is somewhat fuzzy. Until physics overcomes Heisenbergs uncertainty-principle (sometime never) and quantum computers remove the constraints of limited processing bandwidth, we're stuck with probability. It's therefore a team effort - sorry if that sounds touchy-feely. ffO

Continuing from the previous post, this next animation demonstrates how a sine wave graph might be constructed from sunspots. (Ignore the animation title). Time is measured along the bottom of the graph. The falling dots represent when the sunspots occur. Notice that the majority of dots happen at the centre of the timescale and less frequently towards the extremities. The graph plots the frequency of spots against time and builds with the ever increasing number of samples. Running the FT with sunspot data will produce a graph with multiple peaks if there is any periodic content hidden in the raw data. Have fun. ffO

Hi Noggin, Perhaps thinking about it in reverse first might help? Sorry if this is very basic, but others with less formal maths knowledge might also be interested and you really don't need to go into the maths to picture what's happening. The link below is for an animation showing how to get a square waveform from pure sine-waves. Ignore the equations. The key thing is it starts with a sine((n=0), then adds another sine at 2x the frequency (n=1 + n=0) of the first. Then add another sine at 3x the frequency (n=2 + n=1 + n=0) to the first and second. Keep adding sines at whole multiples of the primary frequency. Notice how the original waveform gets closer and closer to a square wave as more sines of multiple integer frequencies of the fundamental are added? (you can hear the difference audibly in the animation). The perfect square wave is only achieved when n=infinity but the approximation to a square wave gets better and better. Fourier et al proved that any waveform can be approximated by adding sine waves of the appropriate frequency and amplitude. Most importantly, that which can be achieved in one direction can also be reversed. The Fourier Transform is the reversal of this process. So with the above example the square wave is reconstituted into discreet sine waves. FFT is a term coined to describe the computation of that reconstitution at such speed and repetitively that it can be used in real time - Spectrum analysers and waveband scanners are good examples. For the solar flares, think of the timing data as analogous to the square wave. The reconstitution of sines using a FT gives an indication if the data contains any periodic cycles. One should see the 11 and 88 year cycles at least from this. Wysiwyg's example shows an example of a completed transformation in a graphical form. Hope this helps. ffO.

Interesting footage considering the impact was at an altitude of 153 nautical miles. Clicky here Anyone for a sweepstake on when a Russian satellite mysteriously develops a fault and needs to be shot down to prevent catastrophe? 'Mein Fuhrer, I can valk!' ffO

They are all real not doctored. This is one of my favourites - not very aesthetic but the technical accomplishment is staggering. It shows the Internationation Space Station and The Space Shuttle Atlantis just prior to docking and both transiting the face of the sun. You need one hell of a good telephoto lens (read telescope), be at the right place on earth to within a few hundred mtrs with a less than 1 second window of opportunity, perfect weather and a very steady hand! A literal case of blink and you miss it! http://www.astrosurf.com/legault/iss_atlantis_transit.html ffO

Because he (laserguy) doesn't believe the AGW theory and has drawn a different conclusion from that article. It's human nature for everyone to have their own evidence-threshold before acceptance. He's entitled to his opinion, which is not me saying I think AGW is incorrect, just protecting the right have a different viewpoint. ffO. EDIT: Sorry OON, posted before I saw your comment. Please feel free to remove as you wish.

Will these do? http://www.fookes.com/gallery/moon/image03.html http://flickr.com/photos/atillavibes/449784415/sizes/l/ http://flickr.com/photos/jpro747/746035615/sizes/l/ ffO

For anyone interested, the Space Shuttle Atlantis will be landing at the Kennedy Space Centre in about 6 minutes. Live coverage: Here ff0

HI Cookie. As others have said, fog, mist and clouds are all the same phenomena. That is, the air temperature has dropped such that it can no longer hold water in gasseous form. This means two things are in play: temperature and pressure. If temperature is held constant, the water vapour held in the air condenses out at as the air pressure reduces. This explains clouds and hill fog formation since air pressure drops with altitude. At altitude the air is forced to give up its water vapour because the pressure is not sufficient to support it. Similarly, if pressure is held constant, water condenses out if the temperature drops (radiative). Ground fog is therefore most common when static air pools and cools or when a cold mass of air meets warmer air with a high moisture content. (advection) The cooling forces the water vapour to condense. (Steam on a cold window effect). At dusk on clear nights, the air cools and gets heavier. If the air is also still (as with static high pressure) it will sink and typically collects in valleys where it gets trapped. Its temperature continues to drop and its water vapour is forced to condense. Valleys also tend to be damp places because water runs off from the hills and also collects there. This is also true of streams and rivers or the sea or after a downpour of rain - anywhere the moisture content is higher. In urban areas, the condensation is compounded by the presence of pollutants. Particulates in suspension (hygroscopic nuclei) the by-products of combustion - soot from fires, exhaust fumes, factory fumes etc, create dense and sometimes choking fogs as condensing water vapour forms much larger droplets around these particles. So called Smog, or smoke-fog. London smogs in the late 1800's gave rise to the term 'pea-souper' to describe the density and colour of such fogs. As others have noticed, with the general improvements in air cleanliness, thick fogs form less frequently because one of their anthropogenic mechanisms has been substantially reduced. ffO.

Great view of both the ISS and Shuttle yesterday early evening and bang on time. Both from central London (Canary Wharf). The ISS was by far the brightest object in the sky with the Shuttle still visible but much less so until it reached about 600 azimuth, when it brightened considerably. Astronauts on both vehicles are going through their morning wake up procedures and then preparation for rendezvous and docking scheduled for 1725 hrs GMT today (Sat 9 Feb). The next visible pass for both vehicles will be this evening 1813 to 1818 hrs GMT passing directly over Southern England (London peaks at 1816hrs) after they have docked. Full live TV coverage can be viewed here. Atlantis launch video

20 minutes to go. Time to find a good spot for the ISS and shuttle fly-over. On target for 1755hrs with the shuttle 19 minutes behind. Skies are clear so you should see this even from city centres. ffO.

The US administration are pushing ahead with the Constellation programme with the goal of a manned Lunar return and permanent settlement within 10 - 12 years. The added pressure of not having a suitable manned re-entry vehicle after the Shuttle retirement and until the Orion launch vehicles are certified in 2014, has left a somewhat embarrassed administration. Between 2010 to 2014, the entire US and European manned programmes are dependent on Russian vehicles and co-operation. However as with all things driven to tight schedules, extending the Shuttle service life will also ease pressure on the Orion and increase the likelihood of delays, cost overruns etc. The Shuttle is also showing signs of increasing unreliability and hence increasing risk of failure. Any loss of life or even a post launch aborted mission will also kill the Shuttle programme and severely curtail the ISS programme not to mention American pride. Update on Shuttle-ISS pass timings The current weather synoptics looks good for clear skies over the southern half of the UK for tonight (Friday 8 ) and pretty much the whole UK for tomorrow night. Both the Shuttle and the ISS will be visible from pretty much anywhere south of Glasgow / Edinburgh although at these locations, elevation will appear much lower, still tracking west-east but passing due south at the apex. Brightness will also be reduced at around -1.0 magnitude. The following pass details are for ISS observation from Oxford which will also cover most of England and Wales. Start a few minutes early to allow for error and your eyes to become accustomed to the reduced light. NB, the further north you are from Oxford, the ISS and Shuttle will not appear directly overhead. The Shuttle will be independently visible tonight only, lagging the ISS by 19 minutes but on exactly the same track. ISS 8 Feb Mag -2.4 Start 17:53:01 look due west ISS will appear about 100 above the horizon. Max 17:55:50 look straight up Ends 17:58:21 look due east ISS will disappear about 130 above the horizon Shuttle only 8 Feb Mag -2.4 Start 18:14:04 As above Max 18:16:12 As above Ends 18:16:56 As above Shuttle docked with ISS 9 Feb Mag -2.5 Start 18:13:43 As above Max 18:16:34 As above Ends 18:18:22 As above 10 Feb Mag -2.4 Starts 18:34:24 As above Max 18:37:14 As above Ends 18:38:22 As above Enjoy. ffO.

Space shuttle Atlantis launched successfully from the Kennedy Space Centre today (7 February) at 1945 hrs GMT, on its primary mission to deliver the European Space Agency Columbus laboratory to the International Space Station. STS-122 is the 24th Space-shuttle mission to the ISS and the 121st Space-Shuttle flight. The mission will also return Expedition 16 Flight Engineer Daniel M. Tani to Earth, who will be replaced by Léopold Eyharts, a French Flight Engineer representing ESA. The flight also marks the final scheduled visit by Atlantis to the ISS. Docking is expected 1724 hrs GMT on Saturday 9 February. The completion of STS-122 will leave ten flights remaining in the Space Shuttle program until its retirement in 2010. Both the Shuttle and the ISS will be visible from the UK for the next 11 - 14 days (dependent on mission extension to be determined after rendezvous) at dusk and weather permitting. The ISS will pass directly overhead London tomorrow Friday 8 Feb. Look due west from 1753 hrs, the ISS will pass directly overhead at 1756 hrs and continue due east. It will be one of the brightest objects in the sky at an estimated -2.4 magnitude. If we are lucky, both the Shuttle and the ISS will be visible one after the other prior to docking. I currently don't have an estimate of how far apart but I would guess 5-10minutes on exactly the same tracks. Full story here Follow the mission progress here Check times of passes for your location here Columbus lab details here ISS information here ffO.

The only thing with 100% certainty is that climates change, they have always done so and always will. Natural forcings for the very large part of our planets history, have been the only source of propagating climate change. Anthropogenic forcing is real and is increasingly superimposing its effect over that of natural forcings - how much and how fast still has a good margin of error. Using the best brains and science we have at our disposal we can extrapolate all we like, but at present we can only roughly estimate the trajectory of GW. We are not yet masters of the science of prediction. Scientists and increasingly governments may have reached consensus, but there is much public confusion; like the interchangeability of the terms www and Internet, most people confuse Climate-Change with Global Warming and hence that the only way for temperatures at any given location is up. Whichever way it is looked at, by doing nothing or doing something about AGW, on a global scale we are conducting an uncontrolled experiment. One which if carried out in a laboratory, would be breaking all the rules. Those least responsible for AGW are also those who will potentially suffer the most if we do nothing. ffO.

Not similar at all: The rail gun uses electromagnetism to accelerate each projectile. Metal Storm uses explosive combustion to provide acceleration for the projectiles. The electronics part controls the timing of ignition but, unlike conventional guns, has no moving parts. ffO.

Crowborough, East Sussex 170mASL 51o3'N, 0o6'E Temperature 6.9°C (44.4°F), Average windspeed (ten minute) 38.4 mph Wind Direction (ten minute) SW (225°) Maximum Gust (last hour) 62.1 mph at: 09:36 Rainfall (since midnight) 1.6 mm (0.06 in.) at 10:11 DewPoint 4.9°C (Wet Bulb :6.0°C ) Humidity 87 %, Humidex 6.2°C Barometer corrected to msl 1005.2 hPa Pressure change -1.8 hPa (last hour) Trend (last hour) FALLING Pressure change (last 12 hours) -20.1 hPa Pressure change (last 6 hours) -11.2 hPa ffO.

The Meto are professional forecasters and will only put out a warning when they have a high confidence in an outcome. The range the warnings so far given, are too early to predict with any accuracy mesoscale features such as polar-low development. This early warning should therefore not be taken as their final word and will change either way as we approach the immediate timeframe. ffO.

Many years ago (at least 15) when on business in Germany, a pedestrian became very irate with me because I let my car engine idle for more than 30 seconds whilst stopped at a set of traffic lights. I later found out that (unkowingly) it was a traffic offence. Indeed in some German cities, the traffic lights at important intersections have an additional light called umweltampel (environment lamp) to tell drivers when to turn their engines off. ffO.

Agreed sort of. The most predictable aspect of climate-change is that globally climates have and always will change. Not meaning to play with semantics, including the 'A' in AGW by definition must mean AGW is invented - but I do know what you mean! I do believe there is truth in the AGW argument and that globally it cannot be wrong to ween away from fossil fuel reliance and become far more environmentally conscious, energy efficient consumers. I also believe there is a fortuitious (if that is not an oxymoron) coincidence in the timing between the impact of CC and the exhaustion of fossil fuels. i.e. what if fossil fuels were nowhere near running out but we still have accelerating CC? The supply-demand economics in that scenario, would simply make the argument for costly change away from fossil fuels near impossible. The AGW-CC argument persuasively opens a range of options from economic sanctions, increased taxes and infrastructire development (nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen etc). Military options to protect supply during the transition years must be justified in a different way and is a by-product of the war on terror. All of which would be far less palatable and again near impossible if governments were simply to say we need to go to war to protect the supply of oil. Consistently governments have learned to use their own form of demand-supply argument to justify actions that would otherwise be unpalatable. i.e. Create the perception of a problem to which action demanded by the public, is aligned with the policy governments have already decided they want to implement. I know, I know, that reads like a script for Sir Humphrey - many a true word etc. Of course none of this will ever be known in our lifetimes, only when historians look back at this period of history will the truth be outed. ffO

For better or worse, economics will dominate any response to a perceived national or international threat - er probably because the world is now a largely capitalist system or is that a bit obtuse? There are a few incontrivertable facts that at present, cannot be disentangled from the AGW argument since future prediction can only be based on a balance of probabilities :- a. Capitalist based economies need consumer demand to sustain growth; b. The world is currently almost totally reliant on finite sources of fossil fuels; c. Globally, energy demand will continue to outstrip supply for generations; d. Western economies now produce less (and falling) than 20% of the global oil total, but consume in excess of 65%; e. Following the old models for production and supply of services and goods, will continue to shift wealth away from the established western economies to the rapidly growing economies of Asia, China and Russia. With it will also shift the balance of power in favour of the new economies; f. Globalisation means the ability to rapidly shift the centres of production and labour and hence monetary supply. g. Military projection by both the west (Gulf-style conflicts), OPEC, Asia and China will also continue to increase as the dwindling supplies of fossil fuels make protection of these resources not only vital to global economic stability, but also to dissuade others from using military force to curtail independent development and hence reliance on the west. These points all represent a 'clear and present danger' to western economies, which can only be adressed by significantly reducing exposure to the volatile (pun intended) reliance on fossil based fuels. It seems to me therefore that irrespespective of the truth or otherwise of AGW and Climate-Change, Western governments can generate new ecomonic growth through inciting demand for sustainable fuels, energy efficiency and cleaning up the environment. All to alleviate the destabilising control exerted by the OPEC and potentially Russia. To generate demand from the voting public and consumers is absolutely the key. AGW and CC will therefore be used for everything and anything and will invade every aspect of our lives and lifestyle choices. And yes of course now is a good time to jump on the bandwagon to justify expenditure of transit systems that would otherwise be impossible. AGW and CC cannot be used directly to justify military action. However, directly related causes will; the establishment of miltary projection in the Gulf-States and using the war against Islamic fundamentalism as a justification; those who use the argument to develop nuclear technology may find themselves in direct military confrontation with the US and the west; AGW and CC provides the demand and motivation to decouple the west from the inevitable economic crippling of fossil fuel reliance. It provides the justification to act now and before the oil runs out when it will be too late. Is the response to CC dangerous? Categorically yes. The alternative 'do-nothing' is unthinkable. ffO.

Just witnessed that one from the HSBC building in Canary Wharf. Very dark and ominous, lashing rain, hail, several flashes of lightning and cracks of thunder. Interesting to see the light-sensitive street lights going on in the city it was that dark. ffO.

The South East Water website has a page on general cold weather tips, but nothing suggesting they have 'advanced' information regarding a cold snap. Methinks this is nothing more than a catch-all seasonal reminder and a bit of free publicity. ffO.

Absolutely correct. The laser is not even a close analogy for the greenhouse effect, in fact the actual glass greenhouse mechanism is also a poor analogy. Incoming solar radiation is a band-spread of electromagnetic radiation; The incoming energy is has a spread of wavelengths from roughly well below 250nm to above 2500nm i.e. high energy beyond ultraviolet, x-rays etc to infra red at a much lower energy. Visible light comprises wavelengths between 400 - 700nm approx. Most of the energy received by the Earth falls within the visible and infra-red ends of the spectrum. Atoms (atmosphere and ground / sea etc) absorb the incoming solar radiation which affects either their spin, vibration, quantum state etc. The bulk of the atmosphere: oxygen (O2) 21%, nitrogen (N2) 78% and argon (Ar) <1%; do not interact with infrared radiation significantly. While the oxygen and nitrogen molecules can vibrate, because of their symmetry these vibrations do not create any transient charge separation. Without such a transient dipole moment, they can neither absorb nor emit infrared radiation. In the Earth’s atmosphere, the dominant infrared absorbing gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone (O3). The same molecules are also the dominant infrared emitting molecules. Much of the band-spread of solar radiation reaching the Earth is absorbed at the surface or the sea and re-radiated at lower infra-red wavelengths. Carbon dioxide absorbs IR radiation. Molecular collisions transfer this energy to heating the surrounding bulk gases - Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon. Other CO2 molecules are vibrationally excited by collisions. The greenhouse effect due to CO2 exists because this vibration is easily excited by infrared radiation. The key thing to note is short wavelength incoming solar radiation reaching the ground is converted to longer wavlength infra-red radiation which is more easily absorbed and transfered to the rest of the atmosphere by the GHG's. Another key point which both Stratos and I made earlier is that the shorter wavelength energy absorbed at the surface (ground) is given up very rapidly to the atmosphere as re-radiated longer wavelength infra-red. The transport mechanism from the oceans to the atmosphere is primarily through evaporation. Once in the atmosphere, the bulk of the heat transfer is via convection and conduction. By this particular measure, water vapor can be thought of as providing 36% of the greenhouse effect, and carbon dioxide 9%. However water vapour stays in the atmosphere for far less time than CO2. Doubling CO2 effectively doubles the amount of infra-red energy capable of transfer to the atmosphere. Higher temperatures increase evaporation into the atmosphere which is also a much more efficient GHG. However this is a feedback mechanism and requires elevated temperatures whereas CO2 is a primary mechanism creating the conditions to increase temperature. In this way increases in incoming solar radiation will also heat the Earth, however there will be a significant lag before atmsopheric temperatures rise. CO2 and other GHG's begin work immediately at creating a more efficient mechanism for transfer and retention of thermal energy. This later reasoning is why the IPCC believes it gives the most plausible account of the rate of increase of temperatures which even significant increases in solar radiation alone cannot account. Open the gates and unleash the dogs of war! ffO.