7andY
-
Posts
74 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by 7andY
-
-
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101122172010.htm
Looks like another paper confirming that clouds are neither our saviour or as poorly understood as some folk would like to believe? As time goes on both our observations and models become 'better' and this is now the third paper we've seen (recently) showing that clouds will act as another positive feedback
.I must be reading something different. I see an investigation into what the clouds will do in response to GW - not the effect clouds have on GW. A subtle but important difference! Unless you can persuade me otherwise!!
To quote from the article:
"Having evaluated the model's simulation of present-day conditions, the researchers examined the response of simulated clouds in a warmer climate such as it might be in 100 years from now."
Cheers, 7&Y
-
Ice is less dense than water.
..but greater volume. So the weight is the same. Just by water freezing doesn't change its overall weight (volume x density)
Cheers, 7&Y
-
Important to note (or rather to emphasise) that this previous use of the leaky bucket, Cox et al 1999, does not use the leaky bucket the same way that we are using it. We, of course, are using the leaky bucket to model the total heat capacity of the entire planet, whereas Cox taks about its use within the Earth climate system.
(Just thought I'd underline that before anyone jumps up and says that the LI has already been discredited!
)I had assumed that an overflowing would occur at some point, since the peak temperature of the Earth appears to be around 22C (historically, the Earth has spent far longer at 22C than it has at its lowest point of about 12C - we're now at somewhere around 14C, I believe). It hadn't occurred to me that this would have any relevance to the LI in the temperature region that we're looking at, since it's well below the 22C "cutoff" point. But would a limiting factor at the top end cause other limitations, or different behaviour, further down the scale?
CB
That Carson 1982 thing is, indeed, a book - or rather it is a section within a book entitled "Land surface processes in atmospheric general circulation models" by PS Eagleson. The link below links to places (in the US) where you can buy it. Pre-owned off Amazon.com for around $80 - you can get a preowned copy from Amazon UK for about £80. Yikes! It's a better deal off Amazon US, but I don't know if it's worth chasing up.
Bit of a long shot, perhaps, but you could try your local Lending Libray. If it's in their system in the UK, you can order it through them.
7&Y
-
Churchdown - heavy snow, no rain! Struggling to settle, though...
7&Y
-
Just received this via works email...
"Wed 17th Feb - from information received via Police Contingency Group
The forecast this morning from our Professional Partners Met Office Advisor - Arwyn Harris is that we are expecting substantial & disruptive snowfall during Thursday 18th.
It will snow today, but this will not be significant and will thaw overnight. Rain early tomorrow will change to snow by 10.00 am, and it will continue snowing until approx 7.00 pm in the evening. This will result in up to 10 cm of snow even in low-lying areas through Gloucestershire and Gloucester City itself. It will not be windy so there will be no significant drifting.
The forecast is then that the temperature will become very cold for 2-3 days, therefore thaw is unlikely and the icy conditions will lead to significant disruption.
The Police are putting arrangements in place similar to during the snow event we had in January."
Interesting stuff!!
7&Y
-
I am on holiday!
The network went down at work, as this is my planning time and I basically cannot do it I was told I could go home early. So on will go the loud music and out will come the hoover, nothing like being paid to do your own housework.
Snow next week then? Is this going to be Tuesday? Planning lunch in Bristol next week and a bit of shopping so I want to avoid the snow if at all possible. Which day will be my best shot do you think guys?
...if you have your network go down, it is designed wrong!!! My school network has NEVER gone down in over ten years!!! except for power cuts, of course!!!
7&Y
-
Evening all...
Had some fairly heavy snow flurries in Bath earlier...
Wind has a bit of a bite to it tonight, as others have said...
I'm now the proud owner of a wireless weather station (birthday present from the missus)!
Spent most of Saturday putting it together and mounting it on a pole!...
Now trying to write my own .NET application to get a live data feed off it... But paying more attention to Mock the Week at the moment!...
Apparently it's 1.2°c here (dew point -2.2°c)... Time to bring on the snow!
Don't know what WX you've got, but Weather Display (www.weather-display.com) seems to talk to most. OK it's payware (about 30 quid) but works really well.
Cheers, 7&Y
-
It's also not clear as to how water vapour can increase without the air being warmed first?? Unless all that stuff about water vapour holding-capacity being some sort of 'dry bulb' temperature-dependent equilibrium thing is wrong??
But, that would make Air-Con tech wrong, also??
...perhaps it refers to an increase in water vapour in air that is below the saturation point. You can add water vapour to air until this point is reached - or are we saying that the atmosphere is permanently saturated :lol:
7&Y
-
I know it's been a while, just catching up on the thread, but I had to laugh. Ultimately didn't everything come from space? There are scientists out there who sidestep the question of how life began by suggesating that it was brought to earth by meteors! I was just grasping at straws, really, but is it not possible that if solar radiation is a main driver of the atmosphere and climate, then perturbations in the radiation caused by, for example, regular but infrequent comets, might have some effect. Probably only to the same sort of level as CO2 at most, but if we want to look at all of the possibilities then why not? I said the comment might merely reflect my lack of understanding, and apparently it does
Edit: Since the comment was otherwise totally ignored it was obviously not a useful suggestion. Fair enough
...Cheer up, SleepyJean, Oh what can it mean?...
It just means that replies don't come thick and fast on this thread. You have to wait - but it is an interesting thread nonetheless!!
Cheers, Andy E.
-
I think for many people there wont be a lot more snow this winter, as Philip Eden has said, that winters that start before xmas have usually ended by Feb!! I tend to agree with that, in my experience this has often been the case, sorry to be doom and gloom but I think we all have to be realistic!!
Curious. Last winter, it snowed somewhere every month from November to March!!!
-
...We're back to the fact that there's no demonstrable evidence that that Sun's variations are dominating global climate...
If solar influence is so small, can I take it that the Maunder minimum and the associated downturn in temperature is a coincidence, and nothing to do with the absence if sunspots?...
I learn something new every day!
-
Isn't it just the tiny bit curious that pro-AGW people are quite happy that a small change in overall CO2 can cause big climate changes, but a small change in solar output doesn't?? Hmmmm....
7&Y
-
AIUI, you could have ten Hundred Year events in a decade. You should not get another for a thousand years, just to set the averages straight, but even that's not guaranteed - it depends how many you had in the previous thousand years... :blush:
Cheers, 7&Y
-
I can't see where you are coming from, here, I'm afraid.
Has someone here said that all scientists are crooks?
Has someone here said it's all a communist plot?
Who is it that just believes the first blog they read on the internet, especially if it tells them what they want to hear.....that it is fine, you can carry on driving your 4x4 and eating your McDonalds etc.?
Who has questioned whether "idiot academics" (as you put it) can be trusted not to spot the obvious, or to hide it behind a commie plot?
I am a bit taken aback by your post and would appreciate it if you could enlighten me, regarding the questions that I have raised here.
On the other hand, maybe I have had a sense-of-humour bypass today and have missed the humour by a mile?
Or, is there some subtle message hidden therein and my perception, dulled by a heavy cold, is not as sharp as it could be? :lol:
Thanks for the clarification, stewfox.
I think - I hope - one has to read it with one's irony hat on full square
Cheers, 7&Y
-
I'm going to dip my toe in here, very gingerly!!
I am fascinated by RJS's input here. AIUI, the LI has a significant dependancy on sunspots, and RJS's theory seems to based around gravity fields and magnetic fields. Are the two not linked in some way. Do the changes in gravitic and magnetic fields impact on the Sun to regulate the number of sunspots? Is there some way to check if there is a relationship between these factors?
Feel free to ignore this if it's not relevant!!!
Cheers, 7&Y
-
I fell asleep so will have to re watch it the last 15%
To be fair although the standard inherent bias you know 1c warming since etc didn't mention the cooling since the 1000AD etc
I did find some things interesting
Items such as storing of CO2 in the Utah mountains which lets face it would be the only alternatively should a correlation between warming and CO2 been found.
The indians 'getting done' after they had 6 kids etc
It wasn't full of polar bears and melting ice flows so 4/10 maybe 5
As I said do need to watch the end
Ah - just one small thing, I watched a different programme!! I watched Horizon about how many people Earth can sustain - so, forget all the above !!!
-
I managed thirty seconds, before tossing the TV out of the window!!
...a bit precipitous, I think!! Whilst some of the content was 'deabteable', I thought the broad thrust of the sustainability angle to be very relevant, even if you didn't agree with their starting point.
The one issue that I thought was really interesting was about reducing birth rates. It has been found that the more educated girls become, the less likely they are to have babies young, and they are less likely to have many. Indeed in one state in India where education has been a major priority, the birth rate was well down, compared to a neighbouring state where education wasn't such a high priority, and the birth rate was higher.
No matter what your starting point re: AGW, climate change, 'denier' et al, for a sustainable future, these things are vital to know.
So, by fenestrating your TV after 30 seconds, you missed some very interesting information... :lol:
Cheers, 7&Y
-
Perhaps the 'equilibrium' you seek is in reality a rolling average. If you drive along a hilly road, you go up and down the hills, so you come to expect more of the same, a sort of average of the ups and downs. Suddenly you start up a mountain. 'Hey', you think, 'I wasn't expecting that!' Thus the equilibrium is no more. You're still driving the same vehicle, but things have changed. Of course, if you are now in the mountains, perhaps you might come to expect more mountains - an 'equilibium' is re-established, but at a different level, and so on.
So perhaps the 'equilibrium' is not a set level, but an average of the ups and downs over a set period. But should this be 30 years or 5 billion years? Ah, there's the rub :huh:
Make sense?...or am I spouting my usual gibberish
Cheers, 7&Y
BTW Can we pick a different word to 'equilibrium'? It's a really awkward word to type
-
This was a VERY stupid piece of legislation: -
It involves huge excessive amounts of beuracracy, too much government intrusion and a tax on virtually every citizen and also involving corrupt and debt-laden financial institutions (e.g. Freddie Mac) and no guarantee on job creation. More than 200 congressmen voted on the bill in circumstances where coercion, denial of copies to those who were not on the House Committee, etc took place. Very controversial. Heck, even democrat leaders and global-warming advocates like Dennis Kucinich voted against it, due to its impracticality and over-arching structure: -
...American democracy is alive and well, then!
-
Watched 'Rain' on BBC4 last night. They came up with the oft-quoted 'as the Earth warms, we will see more rain', and I got to thinking (always dangerous, I find!)
If the atmosphere is warmer, why should it rain more? We know that warmer air holds more moisture, but if that's the case, won't the air continue to hold more moisture even when it is raining, thus giving us roughly the same amount of rain as we have now???
Makin' my head hurt here...but if warmer air holds more moisture, surely roughly the same amount as currently will precipitate until the dew point (which will also be higher) rises past saturation point again, stopping the precipitation cycle, but at this higher temperature?
Or am I totally wide of the mark?
7&Y
-
Moment of force, moment of forcing, moment of inertia - NOT moment in time...How many more times?
Moment: a definite period or stage, as in a course of events; juncture: at this moment in history.
from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moment
Try as you might, you can't force a physics only definition on us...
-
<snip>
The upper range of sea level rise by 2100 might be above 1m or more on a global average, with large regional differences depending where the source of ice loss occurs", says Konrad Steffen, Director of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado, Boulder and co-chair of the congress session on sea level rise."
Does this mean that sea levels will rise more where the ice is melting? Interesting - water with hills!! I know the oceans differ in height across the globe, but these are caused by rotational forces, now we have ice-melt forces too!!
7&Y
-
Try telling those who earn money from driving jobs so they can feed their children.
...ahhh, yes. Emotional blackmail. When sound discussion fails, it's always a good one to fall back on...
So you're telling me that goods should be cheaper for families just because they have kids?
Your energy bill should be lower because of more cooking/heating for more people?
Should a bigger car be cheaper because you have to transport more bodies?
How about a rebate on your food shopping?
No, thought not.
Straw man argument...
It would mean that driving job would reflect its true costs to the transport infrastructure and taxation requirement. Why should I subsidise those with a driving job. No-one does that for my job (Network Manager).
7&Y
-
I still can't see the problem with scrapping Vehicle Tax altogether, and putting it all on fuel. More fuel you use, more road you use, more tax you pay.
Seems simple to me.
.
)
In The News
in Climate Change
Posted
...but you claim this shows clouds to be a positive feedback. I don't see it. I just see it saying clouds will be thinner if it gets warmer...
7&Y