"Pete B" wrote in message
...
"Alan Murphy" wrote in message
...
"Togless" wrote in message
...
"Alan Murphy" wrote:

Time to re-evaluate the work of Lorenz and Chaos Theory, perhaps,
in view of the amount of ordnance that's been chucked about recently.

Spoken as one who vividly remembers the 1947 winter as an 11 year
old. We were assured then that the recent atomic explosions at the end
of WW2 couldn't possibly affect the weather as their energy was
insignificant compared with storm systems. Curiously no one disputes
that Krakatoa changed the weather for several years.

Large volcanic eruptions put sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere
where they can stay for several years and thus affect the global
climate. As I understand it, our small and occasional atomic explosions
wouldn't be capable of doing that - any material thrown up by the
explosions would stay in the troposphere and just get rained out within
a few days. On the other hand if there was a nuclear war accompanied
by many explosions and huge fires then that would probably be enough to
get a significant amount of material into the stratosphere and then it
would be a different matter.
Are you familiar with the work of Lorenz vis-a-vis weather?

Alan


I'm not familiar with this work either, I shall search it out and read it
though for interest.

But what I am knowledgable on is that the individual nuclear weapon tests
of the mid/late '40's and '50's produced nothing other than a very short
burst of intense energy in a very small area in the overall scheme of
things. The idea that this minute (on a Global scale) energy spike can
have any affect on the Earths general climate is even more ludicrous than
the idea that the annual introduction into the atmosphere of several Giga
Tons of a gaseous chemical known to have a sharp measurable infra red
absorption peak can.

As the other poster correctly points out, volcanic aerosols of sufficient
level to affect anything involve the introduction of several mega Tons of
sulphates and fine dust into the Stratosophere, combined with an
explosion that dwarfs that of a nuclear weapon. For example, Mt Pinatubo
in 1991 threw an estimated 25 mT of sulphates into the Stratosphere where
they spread out to cover much of the Globe, were dense enough to cause
some spectacular sunsets and it took 2 - 3 yrs for them to gradually
'fall' out. Krakatoa was even bigger.

I don't think it's been in print now for decades but an excellent book by
Frank Lane (The Elements Rage) discussed the overall energy involved in
normal atmospheric weather phenomena such as hurricanes, tornadoes,
thunderstorms etc and how it dwarfed the energy produced by a few large
fireworks created by Man. That is well worth a read if a copy can be
found.

--
Pete

Thanks for the above replies. The work of Lorenz on the
chaotic nature of weather was to suggest that very small
changes in the initial conditions of a chaotic system could cause
huge and unpredictable variations on the final outcome. Amazing
that his work has fallen out of fashion so quickly :-)

Alan

On 21/12/2010 10:50, John Hall wrote:
In ,
Dave writes:
John Hall wrote:
There's a piece by Philip Eden on the BBC website entitled "Time to
spend more money preparing for colder winters?":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12042733
--------------------
Brilliant article, as I would expect. I agree with it and thought these
two points were well made.

"The first thing to say is that it is essential to place current events
in proper historical and scientific contexts.
The last three winters have appeared to be cold and snowy only in
comparison with the relatively mild and snow-free winters of the last
two decades.
Were we able to pick them up and transplant them into, say, the 1940s
or 1950s or 1960s they would not have looked out of place at all."

"What can be said with very little doubt is that, once this cluster of
cold winters has finished, we will have another lengthy run of mild and
rainy ones, and if we spend piles of cash on snowploughs and de-icing
equipment, we may come to regret it."

Dave
Yes. I do wonder, though, if there might be a tendency for the jetstream
to have become weaker, and hence more erratic, because GW has increased
temperatures in polar regions more than in the temperate zone, thus
reducing the temperature gradient that presumably "drives" it.

Trouble is, whenever there is a run of two or three extreme seasons, it
is all too readily put down to climate change. And people's memories
are very short.

Remember the run of hot summers in the early 2000s? Those of us in
South-East England were told we would soon have to plant cacti if we
wanted anything to survive Summer in our gardens. Some of us would love
to see one or two of those summers again!

Then there were the serious floods a few years back and we were told
there would be more mild, wet winters. Now the government are asking if
there are going to be more cold ones!

While I find it hard to argue against AGW - I don't see how you can
artificially double the concentration of a critical trace gas in the
atmosphere without it having some effect - there is no doubt that some
people are going overboard with the possible consequences. And, by
doing so, they are damaging their own argument as once the latest
"fluctuation" has passed then they have to move to another one.

And - as others have pointed out - severe as this spell of weather has
been, it is not as if winter weather like this has not been seen
before. One thing that has possibly changed is that our more
"developed" society (with its higher expectations and centralisation of
vital services so we have to travel more to shop and go to work and
school) is more vulnerable to the conditions. And in 1963 there were
not the vast hordes going on foreign holidays, etc to expose the
performance of the airports - and, of course, there was no "Eurostar"!

--
- Yokel -

Yokel posts via a spam-trap account which is not read

"Yokel" wrote in message
...


And - as others have pointed out - severe as this spell of weather has
been, it is not as if winter weather like this has not been seen before.
One thing that has possibly changed is that our more "developed" society
(with its higher expectations and centralisation of vital services so we
have to travel more to shop and go to work and school) is more vulnerable
to the conditions. And in 1963 there were not the vast hordes going on
foreign holidays, etc to expose the performance of the airports - and, of
course, there was no "Eurostar"!

And there was only a very limited motorway netwok and far fewer cars
on the roads. The only comparable transport network was the railways,
how did they cope? I've certainly seen plenty of photos & footage of
trains being dug out of the snow in 62/63, massive snowdrifts across
lines, disruption must have been tremendous.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

On Dec 21, 8:09*pm, Yokel wrote:
On 21/12/2010 10:50, John Hall wrote:





In ,
* Dave *writes:
John Hall wrote:
There's a piece by Philip Eden on the BBC website entitled "Time to
spend more money preparing for colder winters?":
*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12042733
--------------------
Brilliant article, as I would expect. I agree with it and thought these
two points were well made.

"The first thing to say is that it is essential to place current events
in proper historical and scientific contexts.
The last three winters have appeared to be cold and snowy only in
comparison with the relatively mild and snow-free winters of the last
two decades.
Were we able to pick them up and transplant them into, say, the 1940s
or 1950s or 1960s they would not have looked out of place at all."

"What can be said with very little doubt is that, once this cluster of
cold winters has finished, we will have another lengthy run of mild and
rainy ones, and if we spend piles of cash on snowploughs and de-icing
equipment, we may come to regret it."

Dave
Yes. I do wonder, though, if there might be a tendency for the jetstream
to have become weaker, and hence more erratic, because GW has increased
temperatures in polar regions more than in the temperate zone, thus
reducing the temperature gradient that presumably "drives" it.

Trouble is, whenever there is a run of two or three extreme seasons, it
is all too readily put down to climate change. *And people's memories
are very short.

Remember the run of hot summers in the early 2000s? *Those of us in
South-East England were told we would soon have to plant cacti if we
wanted anything to survive Summer in our gardens. *Some of us would love
to see one or two of those summers again!

Then there were the serious floods a few years back and we were told
there would be more mild, wet winters. *Now the government are asking if
there are going to be more cold ones!

While I find it hard to argue against AGW - I don't see how you can
artificially double the concentration of a critical trace gas in the
atmosphere without it having some effect - there is no doubt that some
people are going overboard with the possible consequences. *And, by
doing so, they are damaging their own argument as once the latest
"fluctuation" has passed then they have to move to another one.


--
* - Yokel -

Yokel posts via a spam-trap account which is not read- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Another example is storms, by which I mean high winds and rain.
There was a windy spell 1986-1993 in the UK but since then there has
been little out of the ordinary. Some journalists (non-scientific
ones) are still hanging on to that and think we are all going to be
blown away.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey

In article ,
Pete B writes:
But apart from the wider 'more developed' Society aspect, locally,
schools, workplaces etc didn't shut down in Jan/Feb 1963 like they do
now though. The extra travelling bit may be more applicable to those
working in Cities such as London, Birmingham etc but there is still a
large amount of local (20min travel time) workers in very many towns
like Malvern etc and many of the children walk to the 2 main local
schools so why do they close for days on end?

A good question. I never missed a single day's schooling in 1962-3, even
though it involved an eight mile coach journey, though admittedly the
worst of the snow came in the Christmas holidays.

One factor is that many teachers now seem to live a substantial distance
away from the schools where they teach, and struggle to make the journey
in bad weather. Another is our health and safety culture, and the fear
of schools that they might be liable if a pupil had a weather-related
accident at school or just outside the premises. Of course the pupils
are actually likely to be safer at school than they would be if they had
the day off, when they would probably be out playing unsupervised in the
snow.
--
John Hall
"I look upon it, that he who does not mind his belly,
will hardly mind anything else."
Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-84)

On 21/12/10 21:34, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Dec 21, 8:09 pm, wrote:
On 21/12/2010 10:50, John Hall wrote:





In ,
Dave writes:
John Hall wrote:
There's a piece by Philip Eden on the BBC website entitled "Time to
spend more money preparing for colder winters?":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12042733
--------------------
Brilliant article, as I would expect. I agree with it and thought these
two points were well made.

"The first thing to say is that it is essential to place current events
in proper historical and scientific contexts.
The last three winters have appeared to be cold and snowy only in
comparison with the relatively mild and snow-free winters of the last
two decades.
Were we able to pick them up and transplant them into, say, the 1940s
or 1950s or 1960s they would not have looked out of place at all."

"What can be said with very little doubt is that, once this cluster of
cold winters has finished, we will have another lengthy run of mild and
rainy ones, and if we spend piles of cash on snowploughs and de-icing
equipment, we may come to regret it."

Dave
Yes. I do wonder, though, if there might be a tendency for the jetstream
to have become weaker, and hence more erratic, because GW has increased
temperatures in polar regions more than in the temperate zone, thus
reducing the temperature gradient that presumably "drives" it.

Trouble is, whenever there is a run of two or three extreme seasons, it
is all too readily put down to climate change. And people's memories
are very short.

Remember the run of hot summers in the early 2000s? Those of us in
South-East England were told we would soon have to plant cacti if we
wanted anything to survive Summer in our gardens. Some of us would love
to see one or two of those summers again!

Then there were the serious floods a few years back and we were told
there would be more mild, wet winters. Now the government are asking if
there are going to be more cold ones!

While I find it hard to argue against AGW - I don't see how you can
artificially double the concentration of a critical trace gas in the
atmosphere without it having some effect - there is no doubt that some
people are going overboard with the possible consequences. And, by
doing so, they are damaging their own argument as once the latest
"fluctuation" has passed then they have to move to another one.


--
- Yokel -

Yokel posts via a spam-trap account which is not read- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Another example is storms, by which I mean high winds and rain.
There was a windy spell 1986-1993 in the UK but since then there has
been little out of the ordinary. Some journalists (non-scientific
ones) are still hanging on to that and think we are all going to be
blown away.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey


1998-2000 also featured a fair few windstorms.

"Alan Murphy" wrote:

....
The work of Lorenz on the
chaotic nature of weather was to suggest that very small
changes in the initial conditions of a chaotic system could cause
huge and unpredictable variations on the final outcome. Amazing
that his work has fallen out of fashion so quickly :-)

I think perhaps we're getting mixed up here between weather and climate (I
know that's a bit of a cliché now). When Krakatoa and to a lesser extent,
Pinatubo, had a detectable cooling effect on the planet for several years,
that was a change in climate (albeit relatively short-lived).

The work of Lorenz you refer to is probably more to do with the chaotic
nature of day-to-day weather, popularised by the term 'butterfly effect'.
On the basis of the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions that you
mentioned, a nuclear explosion in one part of the world could conceivably
result in a storm somewhere else that wouldn't otherwise have happened, but
that's still just weather.

I'm not sure that long-term climate is chaotic in the same kind of way - I
think it's more deterministic, which is why scientists can make projections
of climate climate 50 or 100 years away, but weather forecasts are limited
to a few days. The beat of a butterfly's wing might change the weather but
it won't change the climate.

That's how I understand it, anyway.

"Togless" wrote in message
...
"Alan Murphy" wrote:

...
The work of Lorenz on the
chaotic nature of weather was to suggest that very small
changes in the initial conditions of a chaotic system could cause
huge and unpredictable variations on the final outcome. Amazing
that his work has fallen out of fashion so quickly :-)

I think perhaps we're getting mixed up here between weather and climate
(I know that's a bit of a cliché now). When Krakatoa and to a lesser
extent, Pinatubo, had a detectable cooling effect on the planet for
several years, that was a change in climate (albeit relatively
short-lived).

The work of Lorenz you refer to is probably more to do with the chaotic
nature of day-to-day weather, popularised by the term 'butterfly effect'.
On the basis of the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions that you
mentioned, a nuclear explosion in one part of the world could conceivably
result in a storm somewhere else that wouldn't otherwise have happened,
but that's still just weather.

I'm not sure that long-term climate is chaotic in the same kind of way -
I think it's more deterministic, which is why scientists can make
projections of climate climate 50 or 100 years away, but weather
forecasts are limited to a few days. The beat of a butterfly's wing
might change the weather but it won't change the climate.

That's how I understand it, anyway.
I was very careful not to mention climate in my
posts - only weather!

Alan

"John Hall" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Alan Murphy writes:
The work of Lorenz on the
chaotic nature of weather was to suggest that very small
changes in the initial conditions of a chaotic system could cause
huge and unpredictable variations on the final outcome. Amazing
that his work has fallen out of fashion so quickly :-)

I don't think that it has done. I've seen it referred to in at least one
TV documentary recently. And isn't chaos believed to be why computer
models can't forecast the weather more than a finite time ahead?
--
John Hall

Exactly so, John. I'm just exploring possible causes and effects.
After WW2 the weather was unsettled for a long time and many
people blamed it on the munitions used. The standard refutation,
prior to Chaos Theory, was that the energy in storm systems was
many orders of magnitude greater than that of nuclear explosions
and that these, therefore, had no affect on the weather.

Alan.

On 22/12/2010 14:37, Pete B wrote:
"Alan Murphy" wrote in message
...
"John Hall" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Alan Murphy writes:
The work of Lorenz on the
chaotic nature of weather was to suggest that very small
changes in the initial conditions of a chaotic system could cause
huge and unpredictable variations on the final outcome. Amazing
that his work has fallen out of fashion so quickly :-)

It hasn't.

I don't think that it has done. I've seen it referred to in at least one
TV documentary recently. And isn't chaos believed to be why computer
models can't forecast the weather more than a finite time ahead?

Yes. It is also worth pointing out here that in a chaotic systems some
future paths are more clear than others (less sensitive to the exact
choice of initial conditions). For instance once a blocking high becomes
well established it takes a fair whack to shift it - and medium range
predictability is improved.

Conversely if the atmosphere is hopelessly unstable and the various
ensemble models all diverge then predicting more than a couple of days
ahead becomes difficult. At least these days there is some chance the
forecasters will spot that their predictions are very uncertain.

Exactly so, John. I'm just exploring possible causes and effects.
After WW2 the weather was unsettled for a long time and many
people blamed it on the munitions used. The standard refutation,
prior to Chaos Theory, was that the energy in storm systems was
many orders of magnitude greater than that of nuclear explosions
and that these, therefore, had no affect on the weather.

Alan.

But isn't that part of the confusion?

The effect of munitions (nuclear or otherwise) or other energy/dust
producing sources on the "weather" may mean a localised storm, fog etc
following the weapon(s) detonation but no discernable long term effect
beyond a few hrs. There is no doubt that there were probably small
effects on the localised weather immediately after such events. but how
long did this last?

It does have some nasty short range weather effects. The Japanese
thriller "Black Rain" has this as a part of its underlying back story.

However, to get a truly global effect on weather that persists for a
year or so takes a volcano in the class of Krakatoa (nacreous displays
seen 1884,5,6) or Tamborra (year without summer 1816).

You can see small dips in the CRU data that correspond to a few other
very big volcanic events in the past 150 years. Mount St Helens for
instance barely made a dent whereas Mt Pinatubo (sp?) in 1991 did:

http://denali.gsfc.nasa.gov/research/so2/article.html

Similarly, to say the entire NH circulation in early 1947 following a
couple of nukes in 1945 followed by a couple of further tests in 1946
was in any way linked is very doubtful. Isn't this time distant/area
widespread claim to a link years later becoming a "climate" effect
rather than a "weather" one anyway?

It might have created a radioactive fallout rainstorm somewhere downwind
of the test site but that is about it.

As I said originally, although I'm in no way stating a preference one
way or the other or getting anywhere near politics of it, from a purely
physics point of view, the idea that the introduction of many
GTonnes/annum of a known infra red absorbing 'trace' gas into the
atmosphere affecting the overall global energy in/out balance and
therefore climate is far more plausible.

And this can be tested by Earth orbit satellite observations independent
of ground based temperature measurements.

Regards,
Martin Brown