The Penguin
-
Posts
1,196 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by The Penguin
-
-
Ahem. Glagow Southside notwithstanding.
Would these be at all useful?
(Could do a deal on a job lot.)
-
07:00
Damp
8/8 Cloud
Light Breeze from South
10degC
-
Actually, bird flue is a good case in point. Just because the last serious epidemic developed from the bird variety, the press get hold of the latest outbreak in Asia and blow it up into the End Of The World. There was, and is, no particular reason why this instance of that disease should prove to be apocalyptic, but some people were frightened by the tales of doom and the press continued to build the story. Ultimately of course, time alone will tell but I’ll bet a pound to a penny the whole thing will be forgotten in a year at most.
I think I’m a rational optimist and I refuse to be bothered by inconclusive scare mongering. Besides, bird flue can’t hurt me. I’m a helicopter.
-
That’s a perfectly valid opinion. Mine is that nobody involved in this discussion will be around long enough to prove their point one way or the other. In the meantime, I’d rather be a happy fool than a miserable old git. In an environmentally responsible kind of way, you understand.
-
"I think your chum is as guilty as anyone else of rigging. For instance, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is the one that relates radiative energy transfer to surface temperature, assuming black body radiators. For our high-albedo planet, the black body assumption is wrong, and we have to assume a figure for 'emissivity' (I presume related to what they're calling lambda). That figure depends almost entirely on ice cover. If the UN and others are assuming total loss of ice in quoting their high values of degrees per watt, then that's fair enough. They should have said so in their report, but I wouldn't bank on this Telegraph guy to have reported them fairly. There must certainly be justification for assuming total loss of ice, considering how fast it's disappearing.
I could well be missing something, but is the reflective quality of ice at the poles not a bit of a moot point. The energy received in those regions is minimal because of the tangential angle at which the sun's 'rays' hit the earth's surface. Or rather glance off it. Therefore whether the poles are covered in ice or not can't make much of a difference in the context of overall global warming.
-
07:30
Dry
7/8 Cloud
Calm
12degC
-
07:30
Dry
2/8 Cloud, high & thin
Calm
2degC
08:45 (Johnstonebridge, Annandale)
Dry
1/8 Cloud, high & thin
Calm
-1degC
09:15 (Dumfries)
Dry
2/8 Cloud, high & thin
Calm
1degC
-
07:30
Dry
6/8 Cloud, high & thin
Calm
2degC
-
Moniaive, Dumfries & Galloway
07:30
Dry, sunny
0/8 Cloud
Calm
2degC
-
07:30
Dry
8/8 Cloud
Calm
6degC
-
So what's new? By using two pieces of common office equipment I can already transport my bum across the world. And keep the original.
-
Have we asked all the questions?
Not if this forum has anything to do with it, we haven't.
-
07:30
Dry, overcast
7/8 Cloud
Calm
6degC
-
07:30
Raining; sustained, moderate
8/8 Cloud
Light breeze from SW
9degC
-
A ‘flat bit’ of a year or two is completely irrelevant. Looking at the historical average temperature records, both global and CET, the one (and quite possibly the only,) clue to be taken in relation to future temperature patterns is that there will never be an extended period of no change. The current upward trend is merely a replication of what has previously occurred, though perhaps not from quite so high a starting point, and there are plenty of downward trends of similar amplitude and duration. Also, the sudden flattening out of a rising trend doesn’t necessarily mean that the ‘top of the hill’ has been attained, although it might.
Isn’t it interesting how looking back down a temperature record graph, with all its spiky ups and downs, tells us so little about the future? If only we understood the driving forces better, and had more faith in the raw data and manipulation of it, and could look at climatic theory in isolation and from a motiveless perspective, we may just move some way to accurately and rationally predicting future trends. If not specifics.
As you and I have discussed before P3, recording the results from coin tossing or dice throwing can’t tell us what will happen on the next throw unless or until we understand why what happened previously happened.
-
Yes, but it's also risen by (only) 0.6C in the last thousand years.
I suppose the view on future climatic developments depends on whether the observer belongs to either the Chamberlain (WW2) or the Bliar (WMD)camp, ie, believes there is no immediate danger when there is, or believes there is an immediate danger when there is not.
Also, I wouldn't look to politicians, business or insurers for an impartial guide to the future when all of them will have figured out a way to make a quick profit out of the uncertainty we find ourselves in.
-
That'll be what you call a trend then? (Not that a trend has any significance other than as a historical train of events,)
-
Do we have time to wait?
:)P
This is a question that the more panic stricken global warmists often ask, 3p, and while I certainly do not count you in their number, I’ll repeat for your consideration a summary of my standard reply. “Are we better rushing in with an incomplete understanding of whatever solution is currently fashionable, irrespective of what downstream consequences that may have in a political, humanitarian, economical or environmental outcome, or should we wait until we understand the full ramifications of the problem and effective practical solutions?”
-
Time to throw a spanner in the works! . . . . . ,
I think it’s fairer to say that increased CO2 increases heat retention at a limited range of atmospheric levels, than your rather more general proposition, 3p.That notwithstanding, as far as we’re concerned here at ground level, you’re superficially correct. However, as Pielke points out, there have been various historical underestimations of elemental influences in relation to heat retention in the atmosphere and my feeling is that there is yet to be an absolute definition of the roles played by the many various inputs, retainers, and dampers involved in the process of global climate fluctuations.
-
It is conclusive. It might not have been 10, even 5, years ago. It is now.
Without trying to play word games in any way, the Merriam-Webster definition of conclusive is “putting an end to debate or question especially by reason of irrefutability”. That's just a fact.
At any level, West, your statement is wrong. Looking at the great number of useful links people like P3 have posted, even where the findings of the studies are in general agreement with the principal of global warming, the one recurring aspect of the work is that there is an author's warning regarding scope or context, which limits the validity of the findings. Plus, there is an obvious lack of irrefutability in a situation where opposing views are taken and expressed in reasoned scientific argument, and here I would look possibly at the various potential outcomes of massive fresh water ingress to the North Atlantic system for proof of inconclusive science.
So not only do I completely disagree that the science concerning global warming is conclusive, I am firmly of the opinion that it won’t be for many years yet, if it ever is. Which is not to say that the measured indicators of global warming are not conclusive, just the science connected with the mechanics and prediction of the subject.
-
Is this not a bit like recording the incidence of heads and tails being thrown with a coin? We know that the result has to be one or the other but no matter how well we record historical results, the record is no use whatsoever in predicting the next outcome. Also, just because the last few tosses show up as heads doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s something wrong with the coin.
-
07:30
12C
996mb
8/8 cloud
dull, been wet
zero wind
-
Basically, they did a shedload of different model runs, with different initial conditions, and they all came out with different results, BUT, having done their analysis, they reckon that the THC will slow down by 25% by 2100.
There you go. Snow for you grandchildren, perhaps...
:)P
Steady 3p, the editor's summary actually refers to "up to 25%", which in the context of widely varying projections is pretty meaningless really.
-
Whatever else this shows, to me the pertinent points seem to be, 1, average global temperature appears to be regulated within the range 12C to 22C, and 2, there must be other factors constraining this regulation to a far higher extent than CO2 does.
Of course, we’ll have to keep an eye on this for the next 600 million years or so to see if the present trend continues or a currently subjugated trend arises.
Wednesday November 8th 2006
in Weather reports
Posted
07:30
Light Rain
8/8 Cloud
Moderate Breeze from Southwest
11degC