climate change forecast?
brin
Posts: 1,122
saw this posting on a non-cycling forum......hope they are wrong 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I wouldnt worry about this volcano (Eyjafjallajökull) its the neighbor volcano (Katala) that could be triggered,
In the past, all three known eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull triggered subsequent Katla eruptions.
if that one goes off id get my thermals out for some cold summers and bad winters
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I wouldnt worry about this volcano (Eyjafjallajökull) its the neighbor volcano (Katala) that could be triggered,
In the past, all three known eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull triggered subsequent Katla eruptions.
if that one goes off id get my thermals out for some cold summers and bad winters
0
Comments
-
to true?
MT St Helens all over again
I blame the Americans - 8% of the worlds population - 27% of the world's carbon emissions
but then who needs a reason to make sure they cop for it anyway?http://veloviewer.com/SigImage.php?a=3370a&r=3&c=5&u=M&g=p&f=abcdefghij&z=a.png
Wiliers: Cento Uno/Superleggera R and Zero 7. Bianchi Infinito CV and Oltre XR20 -
brin wrote:saw this posting on a non-cycling forum......hope they are wrong
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I wouldnt worry about this volcano (Eyjafjallajökull) its the neighbor volcano (Katala) that could be triggered,
In the past, all three known eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull triggered subsequent Katla eruptions.
if that one goes off id get my thermals out for some cold summers and bad winters
Those thermals might come in handy anyway in winter:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100414/ ... 0.184.html0 -
I would not worry about it. The fact is scientists have not a clue what is going to happen next week never mind years into the future.It’s the most beautiful sport in the world but it’s governed by ***ts who have turned it into a crock of ****.0
-
johnfinch wrote:wicked wrote:I would not worry about it. The fact is scientists have not a clue what is going to happen next week never mind years into the future.
Wrong.
Oh goodies, a nice new flame :twisted:
Okay, lets pin one, just one, down.
Anyone post an "experts" opinion on what will happen in the next 12 months.
12 months from now we will see if he is right.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
daviesee wrote:johnfinch wrote:wicked wrote:I would not worry about it. The fact is scientists have not a clue what is going to happen next week never mind years into the future.
Wrong.
Oh goodies, a nice new flame :twisted:
Okay, lets pin one, just one, down.
Anyone post an "experts" opinion on what will happen in the next 12 months.
12 months from now we will see if he is right.
I could tell you when the moon and sun will rise and set and where all the planets will be in relation to the earth...if i was an expert. But I'm not.0 -
daviesee wrote:johnfinch wrote:wicked wrote:I would not worry about it. The fact is scientists have not a clue what is going to happen next week never mind years into the future.
Wrong.
Oh goodies, a nice new flame :twisted:
Okay, lets pin one, just one, down.
Anyone post an "experts" opinion on what will happen in the next 12 months.
12 months from now we will see if he is right.
OK, well seeing as this thread will be dead and gone by then, let's look at a few past examples - scientists managed to predict the comet hitting Jupiter a few years back. Also managed to predict the existence of Pluto and the Kuiper belt before being able to observe them directly.
Is that enough to be going on with? (OK, I know the second example isn't a future event, but pretty impressive all the same)0 -
Not convinced an eruption would lead to bad weather necessarily. Just look at the weather we're having at the moment!Scott Scale 20 (for xc racing)
Gary Fisher HKEK (for commuting)0 -
OK, I'm obviously the person you need to blind you with science.
Now what is the message there? The message is that there are no "knowns." There are thing we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns.
Oh sorry, had a funny turn there. What I meant to say was:
1. Some things are very predictable, e.g. there is a near 100% chance that the sun will still be there when I wake up tomorrow.
2. Some things can be predicted with a probability that is less than 100%, but still quite close, e.g. according to the met office, there is a high (close to 100%) chance that I will be able to see the sun at some time tomorrow morning where I am; but it is definitely less than 100% certain
3. Some systems are chaotic and unpredictable enough that accurate forecasts are impossible, e.g. the met office says there will be showers developing around midday tomorrow, but it would be foolish to say whether it will be raining or not at precisely the moment I bite into my lunchtime roll.
Science is in the business of trying to understand the complex and chaotic systems that are so far resisting analysis. A lot of people don't believe it - on what evidence I don't know - but weather forecasts are actually getting better over the years.
So here are my predictions for the next 12 months:
1. It will rain in Scotland
2. It will rain more in Perth than Dundee
3. A Man U player will get sent off at 4:20pm on 26/03/20110 -
Weather predictions from the Met for last year,
A barbeque summer
A mild winter
:roll:None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
daviesee wrote:Weather predictions from the Met for last year,
A barbeque summer
A mild winter
:roll:
Weather is something that is particularly difficult to predict - so many factors. Especially for a country with a geographical location and climate between oceanic and continental. Continental climates are much easier to predict and the forecasts are more accurate.0 -
I seem to recall they quoted some probabilities for each of those predictions. So they didn't state with 100% certainty that these outcomes would happen.daviesee wrote:Weather predictions from the Met for last year,
A barbeque summer
A mild winter
:roll:
So if you want to do the :roll: thing then perhaps you should dig out the source material so you know what you're talking about before coming to a conclusion.0 -
not intending to be a scaremonger but..........
Eyjafjallajökull and Katla
Eyjafjallajökull lies 25 km[17] west of another subglacial volcano, Katla, which is much more active and known for its powerful subglacial eruptions and its large magma chamber. Each of the eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull in 920, 1612, and 1821-1823 has preceded an eruption of Katla.[18] Katla has not displayed any unusual activity (such as expansion of the crust or seismic activity) during the 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull, though geologists have been concerned about the general instability of the larger volcano since 1999. Some geophysicists in Iceland believe that the Eyjafjallajökull eruption may trigger an eruption of Katla, which would cause major flooding due to melting of glacial ice and send up massive plumes of ash.[18][19] On 20 April 2010, Icelandic President Ólafur Grímsson called on European and international experts to draw up plans to deal with a possible eruption of Katla.[20]0 -
Looks like it will be sunny tomorrow.
Cycling weakly0 -
Seanos wrote:
I seem to recall they quoted some probabilities for each of those predictions. So they didn't state with 100% certainty that these outcomes would happen.daviesee wrote:Weather predictions from the Met for last year,
A barbeque summer
A mild winter
:roll:
They were 100% wrong though. :?
They should have just said, "Meh, it might be be hot, it might be cold, we`re really not that sure, your guess is as good as ours".Smarter than the average bear.0 -
daviesee wrote:Weather predictions from the Met for last year,
A barbeque summer
A mild winter
:roll:
That forecast was the best available using the information available at the time, and in fact the summer did turn out to be warmer than average - wasn't it some bright spark in the publicity department who came up with the phrase "barbecue summer"?the forecast was based on probabilities which showed there was a 50 per cent chance of the temperatures in June, July and August being above average, a 30 per cent chance they would be average and a 20 per cent chance they would be below average.
I take it that the cynics are saying that meteorologists (or scientists in general) should just not bother giving a forecast if they can't gurantee it'll be 100% reliable; or that they know some better way of forecasting.0 -
Correct.
Although I will settle for 80%.
Originally I was asking for something out of the norm that scientist will say "see, we said that would happen" but I want to hear about it before it happens.
Slightly warmer, colder, drier, wetter is the norm and not enough.
My main problem is that some scientists are presenting probabilitypredictions as facts.
Any percentage of doubt means it is not a fact.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Example?daviesee wrote:My main problem is that some scientists are presenting probabilitypredictions as facts.
(I think that you'll find that your problem is with the media/ PR firms, who sensationalise or misrepresent the usually quite cautious and circumspect scientific announcements.0 -
What the met office did was forecast a hot summer based on past statistics, now that`s just stupid IMHO. You may have noticed they don`t give long range predictions anymore because it`s just guesswork not science, the best they can do is a few days ahead. It never reached 70 degrees here all last summer BTW.Smarter than the average bear.0
-
antfly wrote:What the met office did was forecast a hot summer based on past statistics, now that`s just stupid IMHO. You may have noticed they don`t give long range predictions anymore because it`s just guesswork not science, the best they can do is a few days ahead. It never reached 70 degrees here all last summer BTW.
Rubbish, Antfly you don't know what you're talking about.
What the Met Office did last year was used an experimental model based on North Atlantic Oscillations to generate a set of long range probabilistic forecasts, what happened then was the the output was taken and used to publish a general set of forecasts which created the Barbecue Summer nonsense. Some PR guru coined the phrase and it stuck, but it was based on probability forecasts for southern England NOT the UK. The difference between the North of Scotland and Southern England is vast. Mistakes yes but of the PR variety not the science type.
They won't issue seasonal forecasts but long range forecasts still exist and are used regularly. Accuracy is a issue, if all you look at is the BBC UK forecast then it'll be very general, if you look at a more local forecast it'll be better.
Without research into new models you can never move forecasting forward but it has to be done properly. However when governments pay for research and demand results you have external pressures which cause PR cock ups like that one.
...and BTW warmest temperature recorded officially in the UK in 2009 was 32.4 degrees celcuis or 90.32 degrees fahrenheit0 -
You seem quite knowledgeable, do you work for the met office?
BTW when I said here I meant where I live, not in the whole of the UK, i`m sure someone had a hot day somewhere.Smarter than the average bear.0 -
antfly wrote:You seem quite knowledgeable, do you work for the met office?
BTW when I said here I meant where I live, not in the whole of the UK, i`m sure someone had a hot day somewhere.
Yes0 -
Oh. I must have been misinformed then but I hope you`re not relying on that expiremental model this year because it doesn`t seem to work.Smarter than the average bear.0
-
Seanos wrote:
Example?daviesee wrote:My main problem is that some scientists are presenting probabilitypredictions as facts.
(I think that you'll find that your problem is with the media/ PR firms, who sensationalise or misrepresent the usually quite cautious and circumspect scientific announcements.
Like this?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... swKyK39gOA
Quote
"IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri defended his organisation's Bangladesh predictions Thursday, warning that "on the basis of one study one cannot jump to conclusions.""
So, no conclusions then but a fear inducing report is ok.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Slapshot wrote:antfly wrote:You seem quite knowledgeable, do you work for the met office?
BTW when I said here I meant where I live, not in the whole of the UK, i`m sure someone had a hot day somewhere.
Yes
What about performance related pay based on accuracy? :P
It is hard to take even daily forecasts seriously though, I seem to recall the forecast every morning for a 2 month period last year was sunny spells with a chance of showers and they sometimes displayed the chance of rain as a percentage. 60% chance of rain?! wtf does that mean, how do you arrive at that figure? Why not 58%? 70%? how much more critical is that extra 10%?0 -
verylonglegs wrote:
What about performance related pay based on accuracy? :P
Yeah right, don;t believe everything the Daily Mail tells you, personally i haven't had a pay rise at the rate of inflation for 5 years never mind PRP and bonuses
It is hard to take even daily forecasts seriously though, I seem to recall the forecast every morning for a 2 month period last year was sunny spells with a chance of showers and they sometimes displayed the chance of rain as a percentage. 60% chance of rain?! wtf does that mean, how do you arrive at that figure? Why not 58%? 70%? how much more critical is that extra 10%?
What forecast? Where for? it might have been exactly that, sunshine and showers. Read what I said earlier, if you are going to watch a BBC or ITV general forecast then you'll get a general forecast. What you get in the public is what people/the Media/government departments are willing to pay for, a basic general forecast.
50%, 60% people can handle those numbers easier that say 56.37%!! how much difference, it can ruin your day if you under one of those "60% chances of a shower"0 -
Slapshot wrote:verylonglegs wrote:
What about performance related pay based on accuracy? :P
Yeah right, don;t believe everything the Daily Mail tells you, personally i haven't had a pay rise at the rate of inflation for 5 years never mind PRP and bonuses
Woah there, just a jest..wasn't aware anything had been written about it.0
