Winter 2010/11 forecast!

[thursday 1]

I'm not posting on this thread. It's just silly.

[Jynxx 4]

Hey, GN, I like the stuff you write about meteorology and the perspective coming from that background. Can dig it cos I did physics and stuff like adiabatics, thermo dynamics, fluid dynamics, mathematical modelling is core to that subject. But we have to understand that the scientific models are just that. No one knows what's really going on. We just live on a surface covered with breathable gas, on the skin of a molten planet that has something very heavy in its core. Our science strands are very localized.

About Snowdude, he has made no claims other than in his own words " I believe the world is going into a cooling blah blah" and he can believe in whatever he likes, teruteru-boh-zu, jelly fish ...

I agree it becomes problematic when people takes words out of science and uses in different context. Even within area of science, {ie) metallurgy and medicine : fracture, segrigation, incursion } it can be confusing.

And there are people who doesn't understand the difference between StarTrek and physics, science and scientology, but in this case, Snowdude is just being himself like you are. No worries.

 

Rob is deffo a policeman.

[Jynxx 4]

Oh, Oh, i didn't read that coming from Snowdude....

[Jynxx 4]

Hey, snowdude.

If you do your research right, we do have sampling problems and errors even done from oceans that goes back to the late 1800's. Of course not much have being done back then. But for instance, people were using buckets or temperature measurement from ship's water intake ports for the engine before the 70's. You know how inaccurate that is? Temperature is not stable when water is baled by canvas buckets. What about the depths it came from and the number of times the sampling has been done? If we have an error of +/_ 5% can we state that the temperature has risen/lowered by 5% over a period of that time. mmmm... I wonder.

 

quote/ I come to my conclusions in a logical way not a biased scientific way.../unquote

 

I have a problem with that statement. Science is a logical step, and hence the bias is based on that method not being able to factor in the data that is not collectable.

What cannot be explained logically does not exist is the weakest point of all who claims that they are scientists. Oh, excuse me, sceptics.

Scientist are people who are open to all possibilities IMHO

[RobBright 35]

But then scientists don't like being proved wrong.

[Jynxx 4]

They have personal issues...

Lot of them lack communication skills. When I was at Uni, a German professor recommended me not to specialize. He said they don't understand each other because they were so specialized in their own field, they don't know what is happening as a whole.

He said " even we have our office next to each other"

[Slippery Jim 65]

Jaysus, all I want is a decently accurate one-week in advance clue on where to find powder.

Until any of yous can give me that, it's just a shuck & jive.

[Jynxx 4]

Man! If anyone can do that, all your mates will be ringing you all day, you'd be offered a radio show, you 'd be hitting power every session, moving from here to there ...

The best can only see it coming the next few days and at a particular localized area. Tex is a Hangy (hang glider pilot), he'd know about winds where he knows his area. Like that...

[panhead_pete 27]

Originally Posted By: RobBright

But then scientists don't like being proved wrong.

Nor do school teachers by their students.

[RobBright 35]

Originally Posted By: panhead_pete

Originally Posted By: RobBright

But then scientists don't like being proved wrong.

Nor do school teachers by their students.

Depends on what culture you are brought up in - Confucian backgrounds accept the teacher is right, and the thought of questioning the teacher is dismissed. Whilst in Western backgrounds, the questioning of the teacher is deemed conducive to learning.

If the teacher is wrong, then the teacher hasn't studied what they are teaching.

[Tex 3]

Originally Posted By: Jynxx

Tex is a Hangy (hang glider pilot), he'd know about winds where he knows his area. Like that...

Yes and over the years have gotten pretty good at it and can extrapolate my experiences to other areas, which brings me to my next point.

Micro-meteorology: pretty good at that as well. The tools one can use now for soaring weather are awesome, it is more than just SKew-T's these days, though it does take the guess work out of it.

How much does micro-meteorology have a part in snow fall? A lot I reckon. In my very limited experience with Japan I would postulate the example of how Niseko seems to get snow when Rusutsu doesn't. Maybe that is Nano-meteorology. So on a GLOBAL scale are we really missing the little picture? That is; what is going to happen where we are. We need cold moist air systems to push in as frequently as possible. Will the global affects influence that as much as or more than standard seasonal variations?

I think, with or without global warming / cooling it is still seasonal variations that have the most impact. I know the contrary argument... seasonal variations are affected by the global dilemma BUT from one year to another that cannot, or has yet to prove to, be such a dramatic change to be overbearing on seasonal considerations. Essentially it is the way the weather patterns set up locally this season that will have the biggest influence. The part the global aspect plays is minor.


I am really enjoying everyone's point of view and various arguments, but would like to see it stay on the point rather than the person.

[RobBright 35]

Originally Posted By: Jynxx

quote/ I come to my conclusions in a logical way not a biased scientific way.../unquote

I have a problem with that statement. Science is a logical step, and hence the bias is based on that method not being able to factor in the data that is not collectable.
What cannot be explained logically does not exist is the weakest point of all who claims that they are scientists. Oh, excuse me, sceptics.
Scientist are people who are open to all possibilities IMHO

Sorry but his logical step in an unbiased way does make sense, as has been proven with the recent global warming controvesy of the secret email hacking.

Scientists can be so closed mind in their insistence of being right or the first to discover something that they may miss, or even omit, vital data that contradicts their hypothesis or theory. And seeing as how scientists rarely work independently nowadays, instead working for massive corporations who fund their studies, they can risk hundreds of thousands of pounds in revealing important scientific data.

[Go Native 70]

Quote:

And this BS about increasing green house gases, the amount of so called green house gases used to be much higher than now in fact. If the warming is caused by man made green house gases then who was responsible for the rise in green house gases Co2, before humans were even on this earth?? Let me guess the dinasours?

 

You may claim to be unbiased snowdude because you have looked at both sides of the argument but the statement above shows a rather astonishing lack of understanding of our climate history and processes and shows me that you have spent very little time at all attempting to understand even the most basic scientific concepts in climatology.

 

No climate scientists claim that there is no such thing as natural variation. In fact they are very much aware and understand reasonably well how climate varies over time completely independently of human activities.

 

You would know (I hope) that temperature and GHG's (greenhouse gases) in the past are inextricably linked to each other. During periods of warmth CO2 levels are also high and conversely are low during periods when it is cool. In the natural historical record CO2 has lagged behind an increase in temperature suggesting it is not the initial cause of the heating. The science around the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere though is very well understood and other feedback mechanisms notwithstanding can only have a warming effect on the lower atmosphere.

 

Most of the previous natural fluctuations can be at least partly explained by the Earth-Sun geometry. Factors like the eccentricity of the Earths orbit, where the Earth is situated on it's elliptical course around the Sun (near perihelion or aphelion) and the precession of the Earth's axis. Other factors over time are of course the activity of the Sun itself, the location of the continents and things like massive meteorites or volcanic eruptions.

 

The reason we refer to gases like CO2 as 'greenhouse' gases is that they act in the same way as the glass over a greenhouse. Incoming radiation from the sun is shortwave radiation and when it hits the Earth the surface is heated and in turn radiates long wave energy away from the surface. This longwave radiation does not pass back out through the glass as easily and is trapped inside hence why greenhouses or just the inside of your car become much warmer than the surrounding air temperature. Greenhouse gases act in a similar way, the long wave radiation reacts with the molecules of the gases and radiation is re-emitted back towards the surface thus trapping the heat in.

 

The science surrounding this greenhouse effect has been understood for over 150 years. The first scientific paper on it was by Joseph Fourier back in 1824. The so called 'skeptics' out there like to claim that because the climate has varied greatly in the past without any influence of mankind then this is some sort of proof that we could not possibly be affecting it now or what is happening now is mostly just a part of the natural cycle. This of course ignores some very basic laws of physics. For a moment take out all external factors and think of our atmosphere as a closed system. If we increase the GHG's in this system it will warm up. That cannot be debated, it is fact. It is also fact that currently mankind is at least significantly responsible for gases like CO2 increasing in our atmosphere. This has a warming effect on the lower atmosphere, there can be no rational scientific debate against this.

 

Now lets take into account some of the external factors. The very ones that you mentioned indicate that we should be cooling currently. The total solar irradiance from the Sun is at it's lowest currently since the Maunder minimum that precipitated the Little Ice Age. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation has moved back into a negative phase which also has a cooling effect on the Earth. These two things combined should have seen global temperatures decreasing over the last 20-30 years. The thing is global temperatures have been increasing with 2000-2009 being the warmest decade in recorded history. 2010 is on track to be close to the warmest year on record. Referring to some coldest temperatures recorded in some isolated areas (due to unusual local weather) does not make any difference to the big picture globally. So why then taking into account these natural factors affecting our climate are we not cooling? How do you explain this? Quite simply it is very easily explained by the greenhouse effect due to increased GHG's in our atmosphere.

 

I know in the end you are going to believe what you want to believe regardless of what I say here but I would ask you to do something in regards to the sites you currently get your climate information from. Find out who runs the sites. What are their qualifications? Have they been published in credible scientific journals? Are they respected scientists in the climate science community? Are they scientists at all?

 

One of the things with the internet is that anybody can create a site or blog and say anything they want. There is no oversight of their claims whatsoever. This differs greatly to science that is published in credible scientific journals. These papers go through a fairly rigorous process of peer review to check that the data, methodology and conclusions are based on sound scientific principles. Once published scientists from around the world can also comment and criticise the work. This process is pretty effective in weeding out the bad science.

 

The problem for the lay person unschooled in the sciences is that it's near impossible to make informed judgements on what is good or bad science. It is why I would suggest getting your science from credible journals rather than internet blogs. How can you make any rational and sound judgement about the veracity of a scientific claim if you do not understand even the most basic concepts of that science? How can you just believe an internet blog over the vast bulk of the world's most eminent scientists in the field? To me it just makes no sense. If you truly want to be a skeptic you need to be skeptical of everything you are reading and have a basis for determining the veracity of the various discussions out there. Without a sound scientific background and a reasonable amount of research into the field of climate science it is extremely difficult to do so. I for instance do not get involved in scientific debates on say astronomy or quantum physics because I just don't have enough knowledge about these subjects to make any informed opinion one way or the other. For some reason though people with no science background and lacking any study or research in the field of climatology seem to think they have some special insights into the field that the people who've spent lifetimes of study in it do not. And this after only an hour or two of reading some internet blog! It's truly astoundingly arrogant is it not?

[skiwi 0]

Great post GN. Summed up the situation perfectly.

[Go Native 70]

Originally Posted By: snowdude

Did you also know that many of the worlds temperature reporting stations are actually in built up areas or areas where heat builds up. Very few temperature stations are actually in an open area where there would be less influence from other sources, other than natural.

Just in regards to this climatologists are more than aware that the temperature record is not homogenous for many reasons, including the urban heat island effect. When looking for long term trends the raw data is adjusted to take these factors into account.

This following link gives a good explanation of how the US's climatological record is adjusted and the reasons why. All nations apply similar methods to adjusting the raw data for trends to be detected.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html

[Tubby Beaver 209]

Originally Posted By: Go Native

Quote:

And this BS about increasing green house gases, the amount of so called green house gases used to be much higher than now in fact. If the warming is caused by man made green house gases then who was responsible for the rise in green house gases Co2, before humans were even on this earth?? Let me guess the dinasours?

You may claim to be unbiased snowdude because you have looked at both sides of the argument but the statement above shows a rather astonishing lack of understanding of our climate history and processes and shows me that you have spent very little time at all attempting to understand even the most basic scientific concepts in climatology.

No climate scientists claim that there is no such thing as natural variation. In fact they are very much aware and understand reasonably well how climate varies over time completely independently of human activities.

You would know (I hope) that temperature and GHG's (greenhouse gases) in the past are inextricably linked to each other. During periods of warmth CO2 levels are also high and conversely are low during periods when it is cool. In the natural historical record CO2 has lagged behind an increase in temperature suggesting it is not the initial cause of the heating. The science around the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere though is very well understood and other feedback mechanisms notwithstanding can only have a warming effect on the lower atmosphere.

Most of the previous natural fluctuations can be at least partly explained by the Earth-Sun geometry. Factors like the eccentricity of the Earths orbit, where the Earth is situated on it's elliptical course around the Sun (near perihelion or aphelion) and the precession of the Earth's axis. Other factors over time are of course the activity of the Sun itself, the location of the continents and things like massive meteorites or volcanic eruptions.

The reason we refer to gases like CO2 as 'greenhouse' gases is that they act in the same way as the glass over a greenhouse. Incoming radiation from the sun is shortwave radiation and when it hits the Earth the surface is heated and in turn radiates long wave energy away from the surface. This longwave radiation does not pass back out through the glass as easily and is trapped inside hence why greenhouses or just the inside of your car become much warmer than the surrounding air temperature. Greenhouse gases act in a similar way, the long wave radiation reacts with the molecules of the gases and radiation is re-emitted back towards the surface thus trapping the heat in.

The science surrounding this greenhouse effect has been understood for over 150 years. The first scientific paper on it was by Joseph Fourier back in 1824. The so called 'skeptics' out there like to claim that because the climate has varied greatly in the past without any influence of mankind then this is some sort of proof that we could not possibly be affecting it now or what is happening now is mostly just a part of the natural cycle. This of course ignores some very basic laws of physics. For a moment take out all external factors and think of our atmosphere as a closed system. If we increase the GHG's in this system it will warm up. That cannot be debated, it is fact. It is also fact that currently mankind is at least significantly responsible for gases like CO2 increasing in our atmosphere. This has a warming effect on the lower atmosphere, there can be no rational scientific debate against this.

Now lets take into account some of the external factors. The very ones that you mentioned indicate that we should be cooling currently. The total solar irradiance from the Sun is at it's lowest currently since the Maunder minimum that precipitated the Little Ice Age. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation has moved back into a negative phase which also has a cooling effect on the Earth. These two things combined should have seen global temperatures decreasing over the last 20-30 years. The thing is global temperatures have been increasing with 2000-2009 being the warmest decade in recorded history. 2010 is on track to be close to the warmest year on record. Referring to some coldest temperatures recorded in some isolated areas (due to unusual local weather) does not make any difference to the big picture globally. So why then taking into account these natural factors affecting our climate are we not cooling? How do you explain this? Quite simply it is very easily explained by the greenhouse effect due to increased GHG's in our atmosphere.

I know in the end you are going to believe what you want to believe regardless of what I say here but I would ask you to do something in regards to the sites you currently get your climate information from. Find out who runs the sites. What are their qualifications? Have they been published in credible scientific journals? Are they respected scientists in the climate science community? Are they scientists at all?

One of the things with the internet is that anybody can create a site or blog and say anything they want. There is no oversight of their claims whatsoever. This differs greatly to science that is published in credible scientific journals. These papers go through a fairly rigorous process of peer review to check that the data, methodology and conclusions are based on sound scientific principles. Once published scientists from around the world can also comment and criticise the work. This process is pretty effective in weeding out the bad science.

The problem for the lay person unschooled in the sciences is that it's near impossible to make informed judgements on what is good or bad science. It is why I would suggest getting your science from credible journals rather than internet blogs. How can you make any rational and sound judgement about the veracity of a scientific claim if you do not understand even the most basic concepts of that science? How can you just believe an internet blog over the vast bulk of the world's most eminent scientists in the field? To me it just makes no sense. If you truly want to be a skeptic you need to be skeptical of everything you are reading and have a basis for determining the veracity of the various discussions out there. Without a sound scientific background and a reasonable amount of research into the field of climate science it is extremely difficult to do so. I for instance do not get involved in scientific debates on say astronomy or quantum physics because I just don't have enough knowledge about these subjects to make any informed opinion one way or the other. For some reason though people with no science background and lacking any study or research in the field of climatology seem to think they have some special insights into the field that the people who've spent lifetimes of study in it do not. And this after only an hour or two of reading some internet blog! It's truly astoundingly arrogant is it not?

dunno what any of this means, BUT we are gonna have a MEGA SNOWY WINTER!!!!!

[Jynxx 4]

Actually, a very good post by GN. Simple, precise and clear.

 

First lesson when you go to Uni to study science.

Which web sites can you trust for information? .edu

 

It's crazy some people believe everything they read on the newspapers and websites.

 

I also agree with GN talking about getting educated in science.

I felt I just got an introduction to physics after 3 years full time. Before I went, I couldn't understand what was written when reading something about physics. After, I could and the maths behind it. That's all.

I cannot imagine anyone claiming to understand quantum physics just because of reading a few books written for a layperson.

Even while I was at Uni, during a solid state physics class, I was told that I'm just stringing words together. Damn. It sounded right, but it was flawed.

And that's a point to consider when you read some bad science sites.

[Tubby Beaver 209]

Originally Posted By: Jynxx

Actually, a very good post by GN. Simple, precise and clear.

First lesson when you go to Uni to study science.
Which web sites can you trust for information? .edu

It's crazy some people believe everything they read on the newspapers and websites.

I also agree with GN talking about getting educated in science.
I felt I just got an introduction to physics after 3 years full time. Before I went, I couldn't understand what was written when reading something about physics. After, I could and the maths behind it. That's all.
I cannot imagine anyone claiming to understand quantum physics just because of reading a few books written for a layperson.
Even while I was at Uni, during a solid state physics class, I was told that I'm just stringing words together. Damn. It sounded right, but it was flawed.
And that's a point to consider when you read some bad science sites.

who cares!! as long as it dumps this winter!!!

[RobBright 35]

It better do!

[Jynxx 4]

OK. Right on!

No arguments there ...

 

Yeah, bring it on !

[Tex 3]

OK nothing new that relates to this coming winter: the thread topic. Seeing how as everything seems to have gone cold (very punny) on that matter here is my spin on it...

 

La Nina: Last time it was predominate in the 2005/2006 season Japan had some of the coldest average temps for the last couple of decades. Seems like a similar situation coming up. Was that a good season? If so expect something similar.

 

Don't expect authorities / citations / or peer review approval of this. It is just the world according to Tex (I even just googled some stuff).

[Go Native 70]

A deepening La Nina through the northern autumn has been shown to correlate to a stronger east asian winter monsoon so I think you're onto something there Tex!

[thursday 1]

WTF?

[Go Native 70]

La Nina in autumn = cold, snowy winter (probably)

 

Simple enough now for you thurs?

[thursday 1]

No! I want a mega post like that one above.