|
|
Post by steve on Jul 21, 2009 16:51:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 21, 2009 19:17:15 GMT
While I think current climate models are so wrong that we'd be better off doing simple linear projections (which generally come up well short of model predictions)...I'm guessing that a roughly correct approximation of climate doesn't need to be able to predict the properties of individual raindrops. They would of course need to be able to predict the ocean currents and other large scale phenomenon. There's still, LOTS of work needs to be done before they're functional.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 23, 2009 16:30:24 GMT
Considering the "consensus" got it wrong for 60 years as to whether a rain drop freezes from the inside out or the outside in, does it give much comfort that climate modelers claim to know enough about weather processes and processes within processes to predict 10, 50 and 100 years into the future?
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 31, 2009 7:20:25 GMT
More stuff GCMs don't do. Could global warming be caused by over-fishing?
Nature 460, 624-626 (30 July 2009) | doi:10.1038/nature08207; Received 15 December 2008; Accepted 9 June 2009
A viscosity-enhanced mechanism for biogenic ocean mixing
Kakani Katija1 & John O. Dabiri1,2
|
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Jul 31, 2009 8:34:28 GMT
magellan.
Considering the "consensus" got it wrong for 60 years as to whether a rain drop freezes from the inside out or the outside in.
Well which is it? I don't have time to build a computer model to find out for myself:-)
Outside in would seem logical.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 31, 2009 9:37:22 GMT
magellan. Considering the "consensus" got it wrong for 60 years as to whether a rain drop freezes from the inside out or the outside in. Well which is it? I don't have time to build a computer model to find out for myself:-) Outside in would seem logical. The answer given was *probably* the surface. Apparently it's not entirely obvious because droplets can be well below freezing (down to -40C) and still remain liquid. Surface crystallization of supercooled water in clouds 1. A. Tabazadeh*,†, 2. Y. S. Djikaev‡, and 3. H. Reiss‡ PNAS December 10, 2002 vol. 99 no. 25 15873-15878 |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 31, 2009 13:13:09 GMT
magellan. Considering the "consensus" got it wrong for 60 years as to whether a rain drop freezes from the inside out or the outside in. Well which is it? I don't have time to build a computer model to find out for myself:-) Outside in would seem logical. The answer given was *probably* the surface. Apparently it's not entirely obvious because droplets can be well below freezing (down to -40C) and still remain liquid. Surface crystallization of supercooled water in clouds 1. A. Tabazadeh*,†, 2. Y. S. Djikaev‡, and 3. H. Reiss‡ PNAS December 10, 2002 vol. 99 no. 25 15873-15878 It was obviously not obvious for 60 years until it was shown the "consensus" view (inside out) violated 2LOT and proven by experimentation. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 31, 2009 13:34:33 GMT
The answer given was *probably* the surface. Apparently it's not entirely obvious because droplets can be well below freezing (down to -40C) and still remain liquid. Surface crystallization of supercooled water in clouds 1. A. Tabazadeh*,†, 2. Y. S. Djikaev‡, and 3. H. Reiss‡ PNAS December 10, 2002 vol. 99 no. 25 15873-15878 It was obviously not obvious for 60 years until it was shown the "consensus" view (inside out) violated 2LOT and proven by experimentation. Why do you think it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 1, 2009 15:33:02 GMT
Interesting but the air the raindrop was in was static with a single falling droplet. I can assure you that the drops hitting the ground here at the moment are not tiny little drops - perhaps that's because the drops are actually inside a convective cell with high downdraft (and updraft) speeds that are similar to or even in excess of the descent velocity of the raindrop. Downdraft (and Updraft) speeds in tropical convective cells can be well in excess of 100mph www.erh.noaa.gov/cae/svrwx/downburst.htm |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 1, 2009 18:13:50 GMT
Interesting but the air the raindrop was in was static with a single falling droplet. I can assure you that the drops hitting the ground here at the moment are not tiny little drops - perhaps that's because the drops are actually inside a convective cell with high downdraft (and updraft) speeds that are similar to or even in excess of the descent velocity of the raindrop. Downdraft (and Updraft) speeds in tropical convective cells can be well in excess of 100mph www.erh.noaa.gov/cae/svrwx/downburst.htmFascinating! Its interesting how the damage is similar to that Siberian event with all the trees laying in one direction. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 1, 2009 20:18:52 GMT
Interesting but the air the raindrop was in was static with a single falling droplet. I can assure you that the drops hitting the ground here at the moment are not tiny little drops - perhaps that's because the drops are actually inside a convective cell with high downdraft (and updraft) speeds that are similar to or even in excess of the descent velocity of the raindrop. Downdraft (and Updraft) speeds in tropical convective cells can be well in excess of 100mph www.erh.noaa.gov/cae/svrwx/downburst.htmFascinating! Its interesting how the damage is similar to that Siberian event with all the trees laying in one direction. I am not sure that the Tunguska incident was convective - most sources now seem to think that it could have been an icy asteroid. However, there are all sorts of phenomena with convective weather that can tend to higher extremes than people think. One of those is the 'Heat Burst' or 'hot macroburst' where dry air warms as it descends and the temperatures and winds are surprising... " Portugal, July 6, 1949: A heat burst reportedly drove the air temperature from 38 °C (100 °F) to 70 °C (158 °F) two minutes later (note that the highest temperature formally recognized on the Earth is 57.8 °C (136 °F) in Libya in 1922, and the former record has not been verified)" One of the extreme examples from Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_burstSee also www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/341/As airmen and seamen will attest - the power of nature is often underestimated. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 2, 2009 1:58:17 GMT
As airmen and seamen will attest - the power of nature is often underestimated. Its probably my experience with the ocean that started me out on the skeptic side. You respect the ocean or it will kill you. . . .its simply a matter of time. |
|
|
|
Post by tobyglyn on Aug 2, 2009 3:30:15 GMT
As airmen and seamen will attest - the power of nature is often underestimated. Its probably my experience with the ocean that started me out on the skeptic side. You respect the ocean or it will kill you. . . .its simply a matter of time. We ignore reality at our peril. "Freak waves are the stuff of legend. They aren't just rare, according to traditional views of the sea, they shouldn't exist at all. Oceanographers and meteorologists have long used a mathematical system called the linear model to predict wave height. This assumes that waves vary in a regular way around the average (so-called 'significant') wave height. In a storm sea with a significant wave height of 12m, the model suggests there will hardly ever be a wave higher than 15m. One of 30m could indeed happen - but only once in ten thousand years. Except they do happen with startling frequency. Since 1990, 20 vessels have been struck by waves off the South African coast that defy the linear model's predictions. And on New Year's Day, 1995 a wave of 26m was measured hitting the Draupner oil rig in the North Sea off Norway. Concerned shipping operators wanted to know what was going on. The largest wave marine architects are required to accommodate in the design strength calculations is 15m from trough to crest. If that assumption were to be proved false, the whole world shipping industry would face some very tough choices." www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/freakwave.shtml |
|
