snowsure
-
Posts
223 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by snowsure
-
-
Perhaps the size of Kasatochi is, in RJS opinion, not large enough to affect the weather. What if Kilauea were to erupt next? How would the combined emissions affect the weather?; is it cumulative?
-
MO summary of summer here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2008/summer.html
-
I wonder if the Met O will comment on their summer forecast issued in April 08?
In case the link doesn't work it says:
"UK forecast for Summer 2008
Temperature
Mean temperatures are more likely to be above the 1971-2000 average. However, there is a slightly enhanced chance of cloudier and cooler spells.
Rainfall
Rainfall is more likely to be either near average or above average. The risk of exceptional rainfall, as seen last summer, is assessed as very low at this stage."
Summer is classed by the MO as June, July and August.
-
Your valued opinion is requested:
It says here (http://bprc.osu.edu/MODIS/ ) that the longest floating glacier in the Northern Hemisphere is breaking up. The animation of the break-up seems a little curious though.
What do you think?
-
meaning, sorry to be thick
Hi Barry
My reply (calculation) was aimed at J07's reply (post #87). It has no meaning except to explain where J07 had got his figure from. I do not know the meaning behind J07's reply (I can guess though.)
Hope that helps.
-
Yep, one 80-millionth of the energy required to power a 100W light bulb for a second.
Just to show the working out:
100W = 100 joules per second
So energy required to light a 100W light bulb for 1 second = 100J
1eV = 1.602 x 10^-19 J
So 1J = 1/1.602 x 10^-19 eV = 6.242 x 10^18 eV
Making 100J = 6.242 x 10^20 eV
Divide this by 80 million gives 7.8 x 10^12 eV (one 89-millionth would be a better calculation in my opinion!)
This assumes that 1 trillion eV is 10^12eV (1,000,000,000,000eV)
-
I know it is off topic but surely this needs asking!
... The CET cyrrebtky stands ...
I assume that this word cyrrebtky is from "typing with your eyes closed." -
I see no link between the current lack of sun spots and the current lack of summer.
15.8*C
Glad the thread has been opened early this month; school holidays start today and there is no internet access where my holiday will be taken.
-
16.2 *C
June surprised me. I am more confident about July.
-
15.0*C is my guess for June
Aim for the stars and you might hit the moon
It could be less, it could be more
my tolerance is + or - 4!
-
Back in October I started this thread
So much for Geological time scales!
PS I got the CET for April bang on 40 days before the final figure. Do I feel good or what?
-
-
So, instead of looking for someone to tell you what's happening how's about hazarding a guess as to what might cause ice to melt?
Erm? Why would I hazard a guess regarding such a change when far more learned people than me are trying to do just that.
So to turn it round, rather than hazarding a guess as to what is causing the ice to melt, why not look into the research regarding what is causing the ice to melt?
-
I am having a slight problem regarding the use of glaciers as an indicator of climate change.
As ever, there is not a definitive answer (or consensus) on the net as to whether surging glaciers are caused by climate change. Their dramatic nature seems to transcend causal reasons. However we look for climatic responses and keep finding them! No suprise there then.
-
7.9*C
Early punt this month as I am going camping today until April. Quite a good chance for snow later this week for me!
-
It has both types of combustion - mostly complete! What comes out of the exhaust is mainly water, carbon dioxide and unused air along with unburnt petrol and some of the noxious gases you mentioned (reduced if the car has a Cat)
Might help if you are studying
Paragraph 1 suggests that incomplete combustion is prevalent in petrol engines thus causing primary pollutants (CO, not CO2). This suggests that the catcon has caused a decrease in CO but an increase in the CO2 emissions.
Do you have a reference regarding your above statement? Wikipedia is not referencing anything that backs up your comments.
PS I am not a student of this area. However I am a Physics teacher and would certainly not advise my students to get data from Wikipedia.
-
CO2 is a by product of burning hydrocarbons (petrol + diesel included). Cat converters just turn dangerous trace amounts of noxious gases into apparently less dangerous oxides.
I thought this was only the case in complete combustion. The internal combustion engine has incomplete combustion so only CO is produced, not CO2. However I agree with the 2nd part of your sentence.
-
My "finger of blame" is starting to twitch again.
Having looked at a schematic diagram of a catalytic converter I noticed that NOx, CO and HC are changed into CO2, H20 and N2. Therefore before 1974 cars did not produce CO2. This perhaps ties in with the greater concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last decade.
Perhaps we are not experiencing the delayed effects of the industrial revolution; Rather we are victims of yet another automotive attempt to make the world a better place.
-
7.9*C for me.
-
We cannot know for sure that AGW will scorch the earth; we cannot know for sure that this amount of CO2 or that is too much; we cannot know for sure that there is a tipping point from beyond which the situation might not be recoverable.
It is clear that human beings are not very good at assessing chances of things happening. Even though this paragraph from the OP is the best example of fence-sitting that I have read, it does not make our ability to understand probability any better.
I do not profess to be an expert here but this seems appropriate. "It is a truth very certain that when it is not in our power to determine what is true we ought to follow what is most probable." — Descartes
However, as long as people continue to believe that they have a good chance of winning the lottery (14,000,000 : 1) I think we have a problem.
This is a little enlightening but also perhaps a little distracting from the OP.
Perhaps SF's frustration is with the human condition of ignorance? Even if the entire climate and science industry agreed and then set the chances of passing a tipping point at 3:1, people would still continue to turn the grill up!
-
Hats off to Stratos Ferric, not only are the reservoirs full and the leaks diminishing, but the quality of drinking water is improving too.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statis...r/kf/iwkf14.htm
In terms of leaks diminishing it looks as though the distribution losses have been reduced whereas the supply losses have remained close to unchanged.
-
According to my analysis of nationwide UK snowiness, the issue isn't that the snowless winters are getting even more snowless (they aren't, e.g. no winter in the past 15 years was as snowless as 1991/92, which in itself was comparable to a few winters from earlier decades). The issue is that the winters on the snowy side of average are getting less snowy.
For example, averaged nationally, 1995/96 was the snowiest winter of the last two decades, yet the winters of the period 1978-87, and the decade 1950-59, were on average about as snowy as 1995/96 was. The decade 1940-49 was admittedly exceptional, boosted by severe winters in 1940, 1941, 1942 and 1947, but its winters were on average snowier than 1995/96. The 1940s and 1950s both contained a few snowless winters to rival the most snowless of recent winters, but there were also severe countrywide snow events that we just don't get nowadays.
Taking the more snowless decades 1920-29 and 1930-39, while the prevailing synoptics were similar to those of today, and there were a number of largely snowless winters during that decade, you'll find that what few snowy winters there were, tended to be much snowier than the "snowy" winters we get these days.
This is also highlighted in the Brocanica series, updated nowadays by Dave O'Hara, which shows quite a number of "Snowy" winters occurred up to 1985, but since then, only one winter made the "Snowy" classification.
Paragraph 1 is a good point. If a winter has no snow, it cannot get any less snowy.
Para 2: Perhaps it is better to look at 1970-79 and 1980-89 rather than looking at the snow paradise of 1978-87. Can you still draw the conclusion that they were comparable with 1995/96? Looking at bonacina I assume not.
What effect has the urban heat island had on our ability to have sustained cold?
-
That's right, but at least they DID happen at least occasionally. Let's not delude ourselves. There hasn't been a snow event in my recent memory - and arguably right back to 1997 - that comes anywhere near the events recalled on here. Before 1988 more winters had decent events than did not, and some winters had more than one.
http://www.netweather.tv/index.cgi?action=...r;type=winthist could be an interesting point to consider.
I do not wish to question the integrity of the link (Written by D.Fauvell and I.Simpson) What I do wish to do is question peoples false memories regarding the winters of our youth.
This states clearly that 1970-1976 had very little snow. (Did the 3-day week affect the weather patterns in the early 70's?)
1980's had 4 snowy winters
1990's had 4 snowy winters
2000-2006 has had 3 snowy winters.
Also note this story from 2005 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1819000,00.html
When I was 10 I used to visit a house with a huge pond. 25 years later, I re-visited the pond. It was tiny. My memory of it was based on my 10 year old world. I hope that you see my point.
-
All this talk of specific cold events prove that it was remarkable to get a large snow event. If it was the norm then you would not remember it because it would be, well, normal.
I propose that we do not remember the normal stuff; ergo it was not always as cold as we think it was.
Count how many severe winters we have had since 1947. In 60 years we have had less than 10. Therefore we are chasing a golden age of winter that never existed.
I assume that this word cyrrebtky is from "typing with your eyes closed."
Asteroid Impact Tomorrow
in Space, Science & nature
Posted
Thanks tundra. Like many on here, I look at this web site every day (in my case at about 5.30am each day) so you have given me a reason to wake up even earlier tomorrow to watch the story unfold.
I like to use the JPL 3d orbits in my physics lessons to make Space an even more exciting subject; the pupils just love knowing that there is a rock out there with our name on it!