| Welcome to Natural Hazards Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Severe, Extreme or Inconvenient? Let's have a meeting! by Simon Keeling. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 18 Jun 2013, 02:18 PM (61 Views) | |
| Audi-Tek | 18 Jun 2013, 02:18 PM Post #1 |
|
Severe, Extreme or Inconvenient? Let's have a meeting! By Simon Keeling in Wombourne, Staffs 10:00hrs 18/06/2013 Temperature: 15.6 Weather: Sunny spells Apparently our weather is now 'extreme'. Yup, a few wet summers and cold winters now put us into that category. And what better to do if you are so short sighted that as a scientist you declare the current weather patterns as 'extreme', than gather together other like minded people and talk about it? Well, that's exactly what the UK Meteorological Office are doing today, and they have even rolled out some of their heavy-weights to support it through radio and television interviews. I am not quite sure what game they are playing just yet. Is it trying to secure funding when global temperature have apparently stopped rising, publicity seeking perhaps for a possible future privatisation, panic that should human induced climate-change not be going the way they want they sense the end is nigh before they reach retirement. However, I do hope it's simply ineptitude in letting a regular, un-noteworthy meeting of research scientists gathering to discuss they future research get hijacked by an over zealous press department? Whatever it is, this is the sort of story which destroys my profession, and I wonder that those fanning the flames will be long gone when the ramifications of such nonsense are really felt. Regular Weatherweb users will know that I neither describe myself as neither pro or anti human induced climate change. I am a climate realist and I do swing between seeing the dangers of human influence on the atmosphere on the pro side, and the knowledge that what we experience now has happened before and that mother Earth can cope, with our without us. I've heard talk this morning of changes in arctic sea ice influencing our climate, shifting jet stream patterns etc... Well, sea ice does affect our weather, of course it does, and it is useful to carry out research to find out why. But to suggest it is influencing our climate right now and in some way we can measure after on thirty or so years of comparable sea ice data records is laughable. Sir Brian Hoskins, Prof of Meteorology at the University of Reading (a University with strong links to the Met Office) was interviewed on Radio 4's Today programme this morning. This is the same Sir Brian who at a Royal Met Society meeting last year suggested that the flattening out of global temperatures in recent years was not a problem to be concerned with. There was a chat about Arctic sea ice in this mornings programme and how the dwindling amounts of sea ice may be influencing our weather. Well, sorry to throw a spanner in the works but take a look at this chart. This is total Arctic Sea Ice extend of 15% coverage or greater from the NERSC. Now, the problem for the Prof, and others here is that this shows Arctic sea ice running almost exactly at 2009 levels, and apart from that greater than any year since, and including 2007. Sticking with more facts, the ice extent is below the 1979-2006 average, but this could simply be because there was an abnormally greater extent of sea ice in the early part of this period and this has skewed the means. Oh sorry, there I go again with a fact! ![]() A comparable year by year chart is not available, but this one shows the extent of the Antarctic covered by at least 15% sea ice compared with last year (dotted line) and the 1979-2000 average (grey bold line). Oh, errr, it's greater again...damn those statistics!!!! ![]() Now, even showing you such data and comparing to averages, when it only extends back to 1979 leaves me uncomfortable. How can we possible draw conclusions for decades ahead when the observed data is so time-limited. What about global temperature? Well, can you believe that different parts of the world experience different weather each day? (sorry to be do sarcastic). Somewhere gets a flood, whilst another place gets a drought. Some are hot, some are cold. Let's think why that could be? The sun emits a finite amount of energy (this varies a little but total energy released is basically quite static). The Earth intercepts this energy and so there is only a finite amount to be used. This energy balances itself out. After all, didn't once say that energy can neither be destroyed or created? Boy that was inconvenient truth! Physics huh? get's in the way of everything. Now, how's about global temperature? Well, this one is uncomfortable for those whose jobs rely on human climate change. You see, that darn temperature just will not rise! See how the temperature anomaly since 1998 has, well, stabilised. It wasn't supposed too. It was supposed to rise and rise! ![]() What about CO2? Well, that continues on it's upward trend. The latest global CO2 monthly mean showing almost 3 parts per million greater than last year. The arguments are whether this is man made CO2 (accepted by most scientists) or whether it is natural (a minority subscribe to this), or a bit of both (scientists, including me think this is the case). However, the fact is that the rise seems to be continuing, although temperatures have stabilised. ![]() Now, unusual weather? Really? Looking back through the records, severe weather events (yes, I prefer the word severe to extreme), tend to occur is cycles, pretty much like everything else to do with weather and climate. Dry periods tend to cluster together, as do wet, cold and warm spells. The very act of creating a warm zone, tends to mean somewhere else is cold and the interaction between these two areas leads to severe weather along their boundary. Eventually this boundary becomes fuzzy as the atmosphere distributes energy around the globe and so when and why an particular period of weather starts to occur is difficult to pin down. A look back at our ancestors weather readings shows that severe weather is nothing new. A glance at the early 1800's reveals a period of excessive rainfall events, but great variation from region to region in the UK. There were a few dry summers, but not many. Martin Rowley's excellent Booty weather site also stats that the years from 1750 to 1761 were the wettest in a record beginning in 1697 with the 10-wet summers producing rainfall of 127% above the modern era means. As humans we learn to adapt to such severe weather. For our ancestors weather was a matter of life and death, and indeed it is in some parts of the world now. But in areas where the weather pattern shifts and life becomes unsustainable, populations will migrate to newly flourishing areas where the weather is more conducive to human existence. There is nothing new in this! And of course we now have 24-hour news. Stories such as the flooding in central Europe this month would not even have made the news several years ago. The immediacy of our reporting, and the dramatic images which can be shown merely serve to manipulate the myth of severe weather events. So whatever you hear of this meeting, and statements from it in the coming days, please remember the above. This isn't to be a sceptic, but simply to keep a realistic view on the wonders of our weather and climate. ![]() Source ....... http://www.weatherweb.net/wxwebtvsimonnew.php?ID=778 |
![]() |
|
| Audi-Tek | 19 Jun 2013, 05:11 PM Post #2 |
|
Warmists change of tactics? 'Out' those who question? By Simon Keeling in Wombourne, Staffs 10:00hrs 19/06/2013 Following my comments yesterday about 'unusual' weather and the link back to climate-change, I have receive a few interesting emails and forum comments. These tend to be polite and ask basic questions of climate change. But the intention of the emails is clear; to lay a trap for a statement to be made that can then be waved as evidence of the author being a climate-denier. Of course, the vast majority who ask questions do so for perfectly legitimate reasons. I am wondering if this is part of a new trend to try to 'out' those scientists/commentators who even remotely question anthropogenic climate change (AGW)? If so it leaves a very bitter taste as how can science possibly progress if questions cannot be asked? There was a time a few years ago when my students were visibly frightened to question AGW; great and glorious names in meteorology and climatology had made their minds up and students feared if they did not conform that they would not progress in their academic careers. This 'none-shall-pass' attitude appeared to ease with the coming of the Climategate scandal and students began to ask questions, not for the purposes of rubbishing AGW theory, but revisiting some of the research which had been done, refining and improving it. I am now sensing a more fearful climate (excuse the pun) returning. I do not want students, who could provide many answers to AGW and climate-change, to be worried about the consequence of their research. Minds should be open to all possibilities and it is up to the supervisors of students to advise if a theory is acceptable or crackpot (i.e. the moon is made of cheese!). So if you are a warmist or a denier, vigorously debate the topic,ask questions, but please do it in an environment that is open to ideas and backed by the data. For the record, and to avoid confusion, I once again state my current thoughts (which are changed almost daily by the latest research and data): 1. CO2 concentrations have increased significantly since the industrial revolution to be close to 400 ppm today. 2. Global mean temperatures increases significantly during the last half of the 20th century. 3. Global temperatures appear to have stabilised for an increasing period from the late 20th Century to the present day. 4. The correlation between CO2 and global temperatures appears to be a good one, although this link appears to have weakened in the last decade, a major question is why? 5. There are many cycles in the atmosphere and ocean of which we have very limited understanding, together with external factors such as solar variability. 6. AGW and climate-change research is still very early stage. We are using extremely limited data sets to reach conclusions which have dramatic impacts on society and would not be accepted in other scientific disciplines. I am more than happy to debate the topic, and look forward to reading many peer reviewed papers in the years ahead. Open minds are the key to success! ![]() Source ............. http://www.weatherweb.net/wxwebtvsimonnew.php?ID=779 |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Climate change · Next Topic » |











9:57 AM Jul 11