Ubuntu 19.10.1 for Pi3 & Pi4, 32 & 64 bit

To be fair, I didn't notice a lot going on when I was a modeller, but then I sort of followed Andy Crisp's approach; "there's no point in looking at the weather because when you get to the contest its the same for everybody", though I did notice slowly increasing temperatures in France and progressively wetter summers in the UK over the period from the early '70s until around 2003.

However, gliding is rather more weather-dependant because if the weather isn't good enough to stay up for several hours and isn't likely to be soarable over a fairly area you don't even think about attempting that

300km cross-country task. As a result I now take a lot more interest in forecasts and actuals than I ever did when I flew models competitively and, since I now log all glider flights along with notes about them, its easy to check back and see what I did and when. As I said previously there is now a lack of the steady cold Northerlies with bright sun on the ground that we used to get in the mid-April to mid-May period during the noughties. These were excellent for long flights up the east coast. Thats also when the jetstream used to come south as far the UK in winter and be well north of us in summer. Now its over the UK in summer and way down over Spain and the south of France in winter. Right now the forecasts show the jet stream crossing France and extending down across the Mediterranean into Libya before swinging back north across Egypt.

FWIW, all global climate models from the earliest useful ones to the present have consistently predicted that the mid -lattitudes, i.e. us, would get wetter and we're certainly seeing that now.

2003 was way warmer than any summer I remember In France through the '80s and '90s. For a good graphical representation of what the global climate has done over the last 20,000 years, look at this:
formatting link

Indeed, but the Northern jety stream didn't used to go nearly as far south over Europe as it is at present.

--
Martin    | martin at 
Gregorie  | gregorie dot org
Reply to
Martin Gregorie
Loading thread data ...

There actually are some well documented effects - just not the ones you might expect or necessarily know about.

In the three days after 11/09/2011, when all civil air transport was grounded in the USA the mean temperature across the continental USA

*rose* by about 2C The effect was attributed to the lack of jet contrails, which normally lower the average temp by preventing sunlight from reaching the ground during the day and prevent it radiating into space at night. Here's a summary:

formatting link

--
Martin    | martin at 
Gregorie  | gregorie dot org
Reply to
Martin Gregorie

No. we are not.

--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a  
kind word alone. 

Al Capone
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

So, where's all the 2018/19 flooding come from? Do you think thats all mismanagement, i.e. failing Victorian era dams and not dredging rivers?

--
Martin    | martin at 
Gregorie  | gregorie dot org
Reply to
Martin Gregorie

I find it very hard to believe that there's enough contrail coverage to have that effect.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays 
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun 
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see 
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/
Reply to
Ahem A Rivet's Shot

So did I at the time, but it was much discussed amongst US glider pilots when those numbers were published and the consensus among them was that it was about right. IIRC some of then went soaring during the shutdown and thought conditions were pretty good. The shutdown didn't affect GA and sailplanes, much as the UK shutdown due to the Islandic volcano didn't affect GA and gliding here.

FWIW One of my gliding club's members, an airline pilot at the time, flew a cross-country triangle, during the shutdown, with Stanstead and Luton as turnpoints just because she could. She knew that would probably be her only chance to do it and to talk to their towers while doing it. I bet she knew the controllers too, which would have made it irresistible.

--
Martin    | martin at 
Gregorie  | gregorie dot org
Reply to
Martin Gregorie

One clever cartoon deserves another:

formatting link

--
Robert Riches 
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net 
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
Reply to
Robert Riches

I cant recall 2018/19 being any worse than usual, and yes most of the flooding where I am is down to that. If you must use water meadows it behoves you to attend to their drainage schemes.

Worst flooding I can rember was 1967.

(And pressure to build on flood plains).

Wher I am is reclaimed land apart from where I live which is a terminal moraine from the ice age. It is managed to prevent flooding. It doesnt flood catastrophically.

Odlly enough many degrees of warming 10,000 years ago allowed civilisation to flourish.

--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is  
true: it is true because it is powerful." 

Lucas Bergkamp
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Oh, there is.

Why didnt you say 'I can hardly believe there is enough CO2 to have that effect'?

I mean 380ppm to 400 ppm and its the end of the world?

Not.

--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They  
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them" 

Margaret Thatcher
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Hmmm.

That seems to be a rather more complex question than "how much difference does a reflective contrail make" which boils down to "how much energy does it reflect into space". People have talked about deploying reflectors of some kind to control climate and they've always seemed to need to be unreasonably large, it's surprising to me if the combined contrails makes a large enough reflector to have such an effect. Many true things are surprising though, so it may well be the case.

The thought that occurs to me is that if normal US domestic air traffic really does reduce the temperature over the US by two degrees (by reflecting sunlight of contrails or any other mechanism) then we have the solution to global warming without even considering the causes. All we have to do is arrange sufficient contrails to dial in the temperature we want with fast (three days made it show clearly) response.

Of course reasoning from a single data point and an untested theory is a good way to go very wrong, but I would find it hilarious if it were proven and the next move was to encourage widespread air travel in order to improve the climate.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays 
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun 
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see 
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/
Reply to
Ahem A Rivet's Shot

Depends on how you view it. If contrails weren't a by-product but the purpose for all those planes the cost would be ridiculous.

r to

I expect that just making existing trails denser and more visible for the existing flights would not be hard problem to solve.

--




/ \  Mail | -- No unannounced, large, binary attachments, please! --
Reply to
Axel Berger

Are you perhaps a photographer who used to set exposures manually?

One stop is HALF the radiation. A typical cloud cuts radiation by a

stops...

Clouds are the elephant in the climate change room.

Clouds are not a percent or two change in incident radiation. They are a massive order of ten change. Even wispy contrails make a significant difference.

Clouds are not modelled in climate change models. They are 'parametrized'. Average values are assumed.

Clouds transfer heat from the surface to high in the stratosphere above most of the CO2, where they can radiate away to space without being 'in the greenhouse'.

Conversely high level cloud is an excellent greenhouse itself, reducing ground level radiation by reflecting it back, by far more than CO2.

The only significant climate change gas is water vapour.

Svensmark et al propose that cloud incidence is modulated by the impact of particular sorts of cosmic rays whose density is modulated by the position in the galactic plane and the suns radiation. A theory of climate change that has been vilified for not being 'on message'.

Water vapour is however supposed to be the mechanism for the invisible and never detected 'positive feedback' that it is necessary to introduce to the basic science of CO2 re-radiation in order to get steep enough rises to match the 1950-1998 rises.

Unfortunately those steep rises stopped in 1998, although CO2 rises did not, and the other effects of alleged water vapour feedback - tropical hotspots in the stratosphere - were never detected.

Without the water vapour positive feedback CO2 induced climate change is negligible.

The fact that steep rises were detected in the late 20th century that have more or less halted in the 21st is an embarrassment to climate change purists. CO2 increase has not moderated at all. But climate change has. Ergo something other than CO2 must be doing a large part of it. But the scary predictions require that CO2 did ALL of the late 20th century warming. Without that proviso CO2 induced climate change is a boring inconsequential footnote.

1/. Just because it is warming, doesnt mean that CO2 is to blame.

2/. The fact that the rate or warming is not coupled to CO2 levels indicates that something else is going on. Big enough to cause all the warming, or to stop it dead in its tracks. Whatever.

3/. The supposed unprecendented rapid rate of warming is illogical: the proxies that are used to measure temeparures in the deep past do not have decadal resolutions. In short we dont know how rapidly climate changed in te past, althought mammoths frozen to death with undigested grass in their stomachs suggests that catastrophic rapid cooling has occurred.

Yes, but that doesn't allow you to make massive profits selling useless technology to solve a problem that doesn't exist, nor does it justify centralised control of the lifeblood of postmodern civilisation - energy.

Remember ClimateChange? is not about climate change. Its is about poower contr9l and transferring money from the pockets of citizens to the oligarchy. In short it is part of the post modern neo feudalism.

If the science was sound they wouldn't need Greta Thunberg.

Contrails certainly reduce overnight frosts.

--
?it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism  
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,  
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and  
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a  
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'  
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for  
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet  
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that  
you live neither in Joseph Stalin?s Communist era, nor in the Orwellian  
utopia of 1984.? 

Vaclav Klaus
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Our airfield has certainly been wetter during this and the previous two winters than I can remember since I first visited it in 2001 - and its the high spot in its local area.

Yes, thats certainly utter stupidity.

Global averages say that 10,000 years BC was about 1 C colder than the Little Ice Age in the 1600s.

The only warmer period since then was 7500 - 3500 BC which was a whole 1 C warmer that the Little Ice Age.

After that the global temp declined slowly until the Little Ice age and then stayed constant until 1900.

In the 100 years since then we've had a 1 C global rise - by far the fastest change in the last 20,000 years. This *should* be expected to raise rainfall because of increased evaporation from seas, lakes and especially [*] transpiration from trees combine with warmer air being able to contain more water vapour.

[*] recent work in the Amazon has shown that the transpiration water vapour release rate by trees vastly exceeds the evaporation rate from seas and freshwater. Both are, of course, temperature-dependent rates.
--
Martin    | martin at 
Gregorie  | gregorie dot org
Reply to
Martin Gregorie

I think not.

There have been three periods warmer than today since the last ice age - the Holocene optimum, the Roman warm period and the mediaeval warm period. Of course if you cherry pick the right proxies you can make them colder...but the anecdotal evidence is there.

It depends which wiki articles you read. The ones that have been 'efdited' by climate activits differ markjedly from teh onew with real source data..

No, it did not.

formatting link

shows a reasonable approximation. Note hopw all the proxies differe wildly.

Utter rubbish.

And none of the proxies would show that sort of rise in raise rainfall because of increased evaporation from seas, lakes and

No, Climate change is reposnible for drought, snow in the sahara, floods in the sahara, more ice in antaractica, ice melting in antarctica.

In fact there is nothing bad that climatete change is not resposble for.

Its better than God.

Of course there is a lot more sea.....

And evpaoration cools the planet. Transfers the heat to above te CO2 where it radiates out to space, and the warm wet air turns to ice snow and rain and cools it even more...

--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink... 
..I'd spend it on drink. 

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

CnH2n+x.O2= nH20 + nCo2

Increase the water, increase the CO2.

--
?People believe certain stories because everyone important tells them,  
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them.  
Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, one?s  
agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of  
one?s suitability to be taken seriously.? 

Paul Krugman
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Water as such is gaseous and invisible. What you see and what reflects incoming sunlight is condensed water, i.e. mist. Currently the exhaust is deliberately being diluted to prevent just that as much as possible.

--




/ \  Mail | -- No unannounced, large, binary attachments, please! --
Reply to
Axel Berger

No, it isn't.

--
?There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn?t true; the  
other is to refuse to believe what is true.? 

?Soren Kierkegaard
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

I think you'll find that the Roman and Mediaeval warm periods are local to Europe and the Mediterranean. I specifically said 'global averages' to exclude local effects.

And its reverse, of course. Its interesting that you're ignoring well-established physical science now. The variation of water vapour concentration in the atmosphere with temperature has been known since the days of Newton and Charles.

The impact of arboreal transpiration on atmospheric humidity has only been quantified recently: it turns out the water transport by moist winds over the Amazon is considerably greater than the flow in its rivers. It reasonable to expect the same effect to operate over temporal and boreal forests, but the size of the flow will, of course, vary with transpiration rates from the tree varieties in those forests and the temperature of the air they are living in and under.

So you think that climate change IS responsible for eveything bad! Careful with that Negation, Eugene!

--
Martin    | martin at 
Gregorie  | gregorie dot org
Reply to
Martin Gregorie

Disagree: exhaust dilution is a side effect of the steady increase in the bypass ratio in modern ATP jet engines. The engineers don't give a stuff about exhaust dilution. All they're interested in is increasing the thermal efficiency of their engines because that decreases fuel consumption and hence also reduces operating costs.

--
Martin    | martin at 
Gregorie  | gregorie dot org
Reply to
Martin Gregorie

I am not.

The variation of water vapour concentration in the atmosphere with

As has the inability oif air at a given temperatire to ghold more wiythout ut turning to water.

Its not that simple.

I see you are ignoring well-established rules of grammar.

>
--
     ?I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the  
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most  
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of  
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which  
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by  
thread, into the fabric of their lives.? 

     ? Leo Tolstoy
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.