Total Pageviews

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Amphidrome or amphidromes

You won't find the definition of Amphidrome or amphidromes or an article for either on Wikipedia.

You can find the word used in actual scientific papers using Google Scholar

You won't find the definition of Amphidrome or amphidromes or an article for either on Wikipedia.

Amphidrome, amphidromic system and amhphidromic all redirect to amphidromic point.  Considering the ignorance that dominates Wikipedia, there will be no fixing this one.

Friday, December 25, 2015

The reason for the wrong kind snow

A Christmas post of a different kind.

The article on the wrong kind of snow is worth reading, on Wikipedia.  Yes, it's something found on Wikipedia, and I just found it this Christmas morning, while looking at Types of snow.  (remember, Wikipedia is wonderful, no doubt about it)

The reason for the wrong kind of snow, which is rare in England, was the extreme cold.  Very cold air makes powder snow, something the railroads and plows are not used to.

This shows up even using the monthly data, which is remarkable.

When the air causing it to snow is very cold, the snow can be powder, instead of the wet stuff the British think of as snow.

This happened again, since the original story, and they are still using the term.

People always want to know the last time we had such heavy snowfall
Questions like this are practically impossible to answer accurately because every snow event is different. And some parts of the country are better equipped to cope with the stuff than are others. 
For instance, a ten-inch snowfall in London is not only much rarer than a similar fall in the Scottish highlands, but it will also affect a rather larger number of people.
The last occasions that London and the Home Counties were hit so badly were in February 1991 and January 1987. During the 1991 event level snow lay 12 inches deep in central London, and on January 12-13, 1987, the deepest snow was in south Essex, Kent, Surrey and south London with 22 inches reported in the Maidstone and Gillingham areas. Yesterday, central London had six inches while the Surrey suburbs reported 10 to 13 inches.

The important fact from all this is about what does "heavy snow" even mean?

It does not mean the weight/water content of the snow.  Heavy snow means lots of snow, which is almost always powdery snow, which is the light fluffy snow.  So heavy snow means light snow, but lots of it.

More on this to come.  Because heavy snowfall is not found on Wikipedia.

Did you know that was coming?

Heavy snow redirects, but makes no sense at all.

Heavy snow warming does exist, stating the NWS uses it for "snowfall rates of 4 inches (10 cm) or more in 12 hours, or 6 inches (15 cm) or more in 24 hours".

So both rate and amount are involved, but not the kind of snow falling.

Friday, November 27, 2015

The 15,000-Year History of a River in Oregon Rendered in Data

Art Meets Cartography: The 15,000-Year History of a River in Oregon Rendered in Data

When considering the historical path of a river, it’s easy to imagine a torrential flood that causes a stream to overflow its banks, or a drought that brings a body of water to a trickle. The reality of a river’s history is vastly more complex, as the artery of water gradually changes directions over thousands of years, shifting its boundaries imperceptibly inch by inch.


Thursday, November 26, 2015

Bråsvellbreen ice wall

The Great Ice Wall

Bråsvellbreen is a wall of ice that stretches for over 100 km along the southern coast of Nordaustlandet. 

Writing on the wall - Understanding global warming is fine, the point is to stop it

The November 27th New Scientist Editorial
issue: 2214, volume: 164, year: 1999, 
pages: 5 - 5

Writing on the wall
Understanding global warming is fine, the point is to stop it

CONSENSUS is a dangerous thing in science.
The notion that researchers can ever prove their
theories is long gone--they can only wait for
others to knock them down. This means that to
be healthy, science needs an opposition, and
when politicians ask scientists to reach a common
view, it pays to be wary.

For a decade now, the UN's Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has had the task
of moulding adversarial science into a consensual
form. Its third assessment of climate change
science, now circulating in draft form for
comment, is an impressive example of the art,
dealing as it does with a controversial matter of
utmost importance to the whole world.

As we reported last week, the IPCC says there is
now little room for doubt that global warming in
the past 25 years is our fault. With the help of
increasingly successful climate models, it lays out
our likely future in awful detail. We have
probably already signed death warrants for
several low-lying Pacific islands, casualties of
rising sea levels. And if we let concentrations of
greenhouse gases increase more than 50 per
cent above present levels--which could happen
by the middle of next century--the Amazon
rainforest will simply shrivel up and die.

Of course, committees charged with reaching a
consensus may gloss over contentious details,
and simplified models of the real world still leave
plenty of room for improvement. We know little
about how clouds created by extra evaporation in
a warmer world will influence temperature. And
there is an alarming fuzziness about atmospheric
mechanisms that could turn small changes in
solar radiation into large temperature swings
here on Earth. But the IPCC's draft report is
honest on these points, stressing that uncertainty
should be a cause for more concern, not an
excuse for delaying action.

Among other uncertainties, it asks whether
melting Arctic ice will dilute the waters of the
North Atlantic, shutting down a massive "pump"
that is driven by salty waters sinking to the ocean
floor. If this happens, it would reduce the ocean's
uptake of carbon dioxide and accelerate global
warming. Perversely, it would also cut off the
currents that warm Western Europe, so London,
Paris and Madrid would shiver while the rest of
the world sweltered. In this issue we report the
first evidence from the Atlantic that this
hypothetical event may be starting to happen.

In the few years since the world woke up to the
threat of climate change, science has made
impressive strides in describing how Earth's
life-support systems work. At a meeting in Bonn
earlier this month, where more than 160
governments discussed targets for cutting
emissions of greenhouse gases, NOT ONE VOICED

But can you have too much of consensus? The
IPCC must guard against this. It makes a point of
drawing sometimes hostile sceptics into its
deliberations. The latest report, for instance,
includes major contributions from researchers
studying the potential impact of changes in solar
radiation on our temperature. It has also set up a
group specifically to search for scientific surprises
that could upset its calculations.

Dangerous it may be, but the IPCC has turned
consensus into a virtue. It is now time for
governments to show that they can act as one to
halt the coming nightmare.