Mr Sleet
-
Posts
380 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by Mr Sleet
-
-
In the 'natural' situation, yes, I'd agree 100%...But that doesn't alter the FACT that we are adding CO2 that otherwise wouldn't be there. And that that additional CO2 will then inevitably exacerbate the positive feedback mechanism you highlight??
Yes you are right. But a doubling of C02 levels will most likelyo nly raise global temps up to 2.7degC.
See these pieces of work. Interesting that the energy input to the atmoshere of a doubling in CO2 is about 4 watts per sq metre.Most of these climate models include adjustments to energy flows of 100 watts per sq metre. Food for thought.
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15726
Interesting,any links to info?ThanksWith pleasure
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/j...f?sessid=6006l3
-
Sorry to keep on with this but it would seem that the above statement is becoming increasingly dated as the evidence that AGW IS affecting the frequency and ferrocity of Tropical cyclone activity across the world. Both Penn State university and Mass. Inst. of technology have published research this week which indicates that we had things wrong with our 'understanding' of the AMO and its affects on storm formation. Both M. Mann (assoc. proffessor in meteorology & Geosciences) of Penn State and K. Emanuel (proff of atmospheric sciences) at MIT have apparently studied the record of global sea surface temperatures,Hurricane frequency,aerosol impacts and the 'so called' Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation to find that only the tropical sea surface temps (and not the whole oceanic temp. regime) affects the frequency/strength of Hurricanes and that this was being tempered by the cooling affects of some lower atmospheric pollutants. The Cooling from the 1950's to the 1980's had given the impression that the AMO did affect the number and strength of storms but when this 'cooling period' was removed (1950-1980) the AMO became 'indistinguishable' from the background statistical noise. It would appear the 'man made cooling' between 1950-1980 (anthropogenic production of tropospheric aerosols) gave the impression that it was part of the natural AMO cycle. Better pollution controls since 1980 has led to a resumption in the Tropical sea surface temperature rises. They go on to state that " If the AMO, a regional effect, is not contributing significantly to the increase, then the increase must come from general global warming, which most researchers attribute to human actions"
So it would appear that we were mis-informed as to the function of the AMO in Tropical storm formation and as such any 'historical' records as to frequency/strength of Hurricanes are now becoming outdated as we continue to heat up the globe and radically change the 'playing field'.
I always had a problem with the AMO as I couldn't quite grasp the factors that were driving it (and their infrequency), it makes much more sence to me that it is (the AMO) just part of the imagination of a bod who would 'like ' it to exist. You can find patterns throughout nature but do they have to be more than just a pretty pattern?
So they had the AMO wrong before - what is to stop them being wrong AGAIN ?
-
I think the reason behind that is there is a lag between what we do and the effect on the Earths atmosphere-if you take a boiling pan of water off the cooker the water isn't cold in seconds. Any changes to our outputs take time to effect the Earth. What bugs me is the Earth has been much warmer AND much colder in the past-who's to say this isn't just a nother shift? No doubt our emissions have had an effect on the climate BUT what caused the massive shifts in climate and global temps in the past? You can't blame us as we weren't around then! The UK has been tropical and burried under ice in the past(as far as we know).
Point is though the temp rises then the CO2 starts to go up. CO2 solubility decreases as water temp rises.
-
Thanks to all who have taken the time to contribute.I do not have an agenda but am getting a bit exasperated at the current " it's definitley man-made warming, done and dusted" fashion.
I have noted that the recent rise in temps started before the CO2 level began to rise-this is something that ahs happened in the
past as well.
I found this piece with a simple Google search.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
I expect someone will tell me this site is dodgy too !
-
-
I'm pretty sure the second half has been colder then the first Reef. Also good to see that we've breched 100MM now, probably won't see much more rain though as a much drier set-up seems to be in the offing from now on in, could be the last decent sustained rainfall till Autumn I think.
Not quite sure how you work that one out.
Just a hunch I guess. -
There will be another ice age, as sure as eggs is eggs. In fact, we are still in one. 90% of the Earth's history has been totally ice free , and I mean totally.
The definition of ice age is the presence of ice somewhere on the surface of the Earth, even if it is a 5 square metre patch in the middle of the Antarctic
. If anyone has a different definition, I'd love to hear it.All this was on a rather good Geology programme ( British) on Beeb 2 a couple of years ago.
-
Maybe people should look after others more though. I mean how difficult is it to pop around to someone round the corner and ask how they're keeping?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Hey do we have another Aldershot Town fan ? B)
-
I have been a big critic of these new BBC forecasts since they came out in May.
Now with the advent of proper thunderstorm lightning, wind directions and force, synoptic charts more frequently, and a graphic for fog, I have to say that I think overall the forecast is better now than what went before .Addressing these glaring negatives alllows one to appreciate the positives e.g. on saturday I was expecting rain to Reach Thame at 3:30 pm , sure enough it did, almost on thE dot so I was able to plan my fishing trip around it. Sure we could do with more time but oh well.
Well done to all on this forum for lobbying and well done to Microburst for your assistance.Thanks.
-
I agree, something definately needs to be done. Unless the forecaster says the word "Thunderstorm", you wouldn't know there were going to be any, it's going to be the same with frost and fog. :lol:
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Just more regular synpotic charts would be nice. It seems so hit and miss. I'm sure that since Mr Grade went on Breakfast TV saying that he couldn't understand synoptic charts the frequency of their use has dropped significantly.
-
I've been watching the evening forecasts for two weeks now and there are still hardly any synoptic charts shown. How hard can it be to have a bit of a flash to denote Tstorms?
The situation has not noticeably improved.
-
Ok, I'd be interested in some opinions here - assuming that the BBC is highly unlikely to increase time allocations to forecasts in the near future, what is the alternative?
Personally I think the alternative is the internet, as I said on the previous thread, so what can net-weather do to fill the void that in many of your opinions the lack of time etc on the BBC is leaving?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
OK- How about tilting the Home page a bit and having a brown background. Oh and remove all synoptic charts.
Seriously, Net-Weather provides all the info I need, and I am not going to criticise a free service which people put a lot of their spare time into.
As a constructive suggestion, it can be a bit untidy;after a year of visiting I just about know where everything is, but newbies may not, and they may be coming on here because they are nonplussed by the Beebs latest offering. How about a medium term look at a more user friendly layout, easier to find things.
It's what Metcheck have done, quite successfully ( when the server is up)
Mr Sleet
-
I quite liked the new forecasts from day 1, the changes made have addressed the main complaints, and also the reintroduction of temperatures contours also helps. the regional forecasts are now longer than they used to be and are considerably better than ever before. IMO the next 24 hours are also presented better with more detail of the weather and when it is likely to happen. After the 24 hours though, the outlook charts are not brilliant.
Countryfile is starting to improve, and to be honest shows what can be done if the forecast length was suitable.
One final point the BBC Weather website is far better than before and gives much more information than before.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Hi Jackone.At the risk of being dubbed the " Victor Meldrew of Net-weather" ,I have to say that personally I think the website is worse too.
Poorly drawn and labelled synoptic charts, low res rain radar that is usually well out of date, summaries that are often wrong ( last friday a good case in point; full sun symbols over Thame when it had been cloudy all morning and we were in the throes of a violent thunderstorm).
No sorry, whoever has got hold of the weather service has buggered it up big time.
PS The classic one this morning was Helen Willets showing the cloud/rain moving through last night and this morning. The caption : "EARLIER" in massive letters in a box.The dumbing down knows no bounds.
-
Yes thats what I am confused about, because the Euro lightning detecter shows the South/southwes of the UK getting it and not Wales
Marcus
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think the storms are definitely NOT over N Wales
(yet) -
Torrential rain and a fair bit of lightning has just moved over Barnstaple, North Devon. It has not shown up on the lightning detecter though!? Can anyone else local to this area confirm this? Is this just because there is a lag time? Anyway
Storm lasting from 1600-1640, Barnstaple, North Devon. Moving ESE towards Croyde/Woolacombe area.
Marcus
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
According to the lightning detector on this site, all the storms are over N Wales
-
Some quite heavy altocumulus here now.No sun and a moderate south easterly.
Anyone know what is up with the lightning strike part of this site ?All hell is breaking loose over North Wales according to Meteorologica, but rain radar shows nothing !
-
I'm more with you JH, the graphics have improved and to be honest they weren't bad immediately after the changeover, there are impressive now in IMO.
Nearly every forecast lately on BBC Wales has had wind arrows, UV Levels, and the regional forecast is considerably better then with the old graphics.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Fair enough, but all you quote are wind arrows and UV levels ( obvious anyway at this time of year , surely).Apart from the wind arrows , very little has changed from day one.
I fear that what is happening is that you are getting used to it , as the memory of the old style fades.This is exactly what the BBC are counting on.
I do agree with JH though that the time allowed is derisory and not helping a broader look at the situation.
-
Mr Sleet
We will have to disagree on this. I'm certainly no 'pushover' in this instance. I've campaigned for years, both before and since I left the Met Office to get the time slot back to 3 mins + not less than. That is the main problem whatever the forecaster has available to try and illustrate the forecast.
The graphics is not as you describe it and it is slowly improving. I don't deny there are still areas for improvement which is why I keep making constructive comments not sweeping negative remarks. Have you written to Countryfile as MB suggested? I am in the process of doing that. Every little helps.
regards
John
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So where do you think exactly the graphics/forecast has improved?
-winds arrows ( sometimes)
-slight retilt
I'm open to suggestions.I really cannot see any major improvements.Really.
John, I can only comment on what I see.I have listed my constuctive comments to the BBC but the forecast is still woeful.
Thank God for sites like this
-
hi
Come off it, there is a distinct improvement, and that, or some of it, has to be put down to comments and complaints flooding into the BBC, from this site, and others, letters etc. But, improvement there has been, so give credit where its due. My thanks to MB for the effort she has obviously put in on our behalf. We are still not totally happy, the contructive posts about the main problems are there for you to see in this thread. But, yes, you are entitled to your comments the same as anyone else, but you do no justice to the problem by your bland statement:-
'but apart from a few cosmetics here and there the changes amount to diddly squat in practise and the whole exercise is still a top class bodge up'
regards
John
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well John I think that you are simply just getting used to it, that is all.
Apart from wind arrows ( sometimes) and a slight retilt, what exactly has changed ? (And I'm talking about the daily forecasts here.)
I think my statement on the situation sums the situation up quite well.I don't think it is bland , in fact it is quite descriptive. Definitely not staid and boring.Sorry if this disenfranchises you.
. I have fed my constructive feedback to the BBC. If things are really better in three months time then I'll start the applause.But as it stands it's definitely a balls-up. -
Mr S,
You have to understand that the technical advancements of digital and analogue televison broadcast and run side by side do bring forth presentation problems. It is a fact of life! What looks good on one, fails on another and it is down not just to the weather department to manage these graphics but engineering technicians and others.
Everyone is working hard on these things at the moment. What we have achieved through the consultation through the expertise and goodwill from the people of this site has been good in the past 4 weeks and the results have been seen on screen.
I do not agree with you at all that the whole exercise is a bodge up. Like all cars with engine problems ..... a few trips to the garage are required! Please be patient and a bit more understanding. Ta
MB
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It's not that I don't appreciate your efforts, but apart from the odd wind arrow and occasional poor graphic synoptic chart , I can't see much improvement, sorry
-
Green Blobs!!
Hi all,
Had an e mail overnight from weather in response to questions about the depiction of lightning/ rain intensity on the new graphics. It looks like the green blobs are going to continue for the time being. No other explanation was given.
Any further thoughts then please let me know.
MB
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well I refer back to my previous mail where we were told that the graphics could do anything.Well either they can't or it's pure stubbornness by the BBC.
Thing is , the main reason given for the change was that they wanted to make the weather easier to understand - the green blobs quite clearly do not portay a thunderstorm risk which quite clearly is one of the most dangerous of weather phenomenon.
I take your point about them listening and making changes, but apart from a few cosmetics here and there the changes amount to diddly squat in practise and the whole exercise is still a top class bodge up
-
Hey Andy,
No, there is a definite move away from static symbols. Heaven and earth was moved to get wind arrows which have now be made permanent the lightning will be incorporated as an animation I understand - similar and in a bit more clarity to that used on Sky News.
MB
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Thanks for the info MB. Problem is , wasn't it predictable that lightning flashes would be needed ?We were told that these new graphics could do anything-why does it need heaven and earth to be moved to get wind arrows FGS. It suggests that the thought processes that led to these new graphics are a bit off kilter to put it mildly :o
Just a hunch I guess.
. If anyone has a different definition, I'd love to hear it.
What If It's Not C02 ?
in Space, Science & nature
Posted
But where is your DATA snowman ?