Hi to those who have recently joined this ezine, where you will find regular bulletins of weather to come and a forum for topical comment on climate and environment. Unlike most meteorologists, and at the risk of getting up their noses, this author believes weather is created by the moon. The official forecasters tell us accurately about weather yesterday, today and tomorrow; but this space tries to look a little further ahead. I do not have all the answers, nor do I claim 100% accuracy, but then, neither does the metservice.
95bFM report (Tuesdays)
Coming up, there could be a shower or two over the next couple of days-it's still raining up north and in Gisborne-but there's now hardly any front or depression left over the North Is. I am picking a fine Saturday but an iffy Sunday, with nasty weather next week leading up to and after June's New Moon on Thursday 21st.
Last week we said that around Thursday or Friday should see earthquake activity. Full Moon in southern declination is a potential earthquake combination. On Vanuatu there was a volcano eruption and Washington and Turkmenistan had over magnitude 5 shakes on the weekend.
On Monday night Jim Hickey TV1 got a bit carried away, saying snow would come to Henderson and Papakura the next day. Oops. The southern declination (moon furthest point south for June) was reached last Friday night, meaning southerlies would cover the country after that, which they did resulting in massive snowdumps in the lower South Is up as far as the Desert Rd. Next falls: 15th (North Is.).
Monday's NZ Herald featured a front page report about how scientists have a cure for global warming: shift the earth using comets. Yeah right. But the interesting part was "then there's the vexed question of the moon. Scientific American points out that if the moon was pushed out of its orbit the moon would be stripped away from Earth, RADICALLY UPSETTING OUR CLIMATE." Well now!
13th: average
14th: good
15th: average
16th: average
17th: average
18th: bad
19: bad
20th: average
21st: excellent
Cam pictures of the skifields
www.snow.co.nz
Global warming website
www.globalwarming.org
Changes to polar ice caps
http://polar.jpl.nasa.gov/
One of NASA's sites
http://www.sepp.org/
NASA does present both sides of the argument. Some quotes from
seldom-reported spokespeople:
1. 'Everyone wants to ask whether the warming trend in Greenland can be
attributed to a general warming of the globe. Drinkwater and Long are
certainly in the position to see the first effects of global warming,
however, they are not ready to blow the whistle.
"We don't know if this particular cycle is normal, unusual or caused by
man," Long said. "Nobody can say that with any degree of certainty".
2. 'Perhaps explaining in part why many U.S. politicians oppose the
climate change treaty signed this week, Hansen notes "The United States
hasn't had much change."
New York City, for instance, has been affected by both droughts and wet
years in the past four decades. "There's no trend there," Hansen says'.
3. And from Fred Singer
There is general agreement that the global climate warmed between about
1880 and 1940, following several centuries of the "Little Ice Age," which
in turn was preceded by the "Medieval Climate Optimum" around 1100 AD.
There is less agreement about the causes of this recent warming, but the
human component is thought to be quite small.Ý This conclusion seems to be
borne out also by the fact that the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975,
just as industrial activity grew rapidly after WWII. It has been difficult
to reconcile this cooling with the observed increases in greenhouse gases.
To account for the discrepancy, the 1996 IPCC Report has focused attention
on the previously ignored (direct) cooling effects of sulfate aerosols
(from coal burning and other industrial activities), reflecting a portion
of incident sunlight. But this explanation to support the "discernible
human influence" conclusion is no longer considered as valid. Leading
modelers [Tett et al., 1996; Penner et al., 1998; Hansen et al., 1998] all
agree that the aerosol forcing is more uncertain than any other feature of
the climate models. Models have not yet incorporated the much larger
indirect cooling effects of sulfate aerosols (by increasing cloudiness),
or the quite different optical effects of carbon soot from industrial and
biomass burning and of mineral dust arising from disturbances of the land.
The temperature observations since 1979 are in dispute. On the one hand, surface observations with conventional thermometers show a rise of about 0.1°C per decade. On the other hand, satellite data show no warming trend between 1979 and 1997 in the lower troposphere, and could even indicate a slight cooling [Christy and Spencer, 1999]. Direct temperature measurements on Greenland ice cores show a cooling trend between 1940 and 1995 [Dahl-Jensen et al., 1998]. It is likely therefore that the surface data are contaminated by the warming effects of "urban heat islands."
The large discrepancy between model results and observations of temperature trends (whether from satellites or from the surface) demands an explanation. The twenty or so models developed around the world by expert groups differ among themselves by large factors. Their "climate sensitivities" vary from as low as 1°C to as high as 5°C; the IPCC gives a conventional range of 1.5°C to 4.5°C. An intercomparison of models has established that a major uncertainty relates to how clouds are treated [Cess et al., 1990, 1996]. Since they cannot be spatially resolved, they must be parameterized in some fashion. In many models, clouds add to the warming, but in others, clouds produce a cooling effect. The situation is even more confused with respect to water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, contributing over 90% of the radiative forcing.
Once again, methane hits the headlines, as a coalition partner makes noises about imposing an animal tax. NZ was once teeming with birdlife. They're gone. The US was covered with buffalo. Europe had mammoth and mastoden. All gone. In Africa wildlife has been hunted almost to extinction. There are less animals now than there have ever been on this planet, which is why we have the notion of endangered species. Less animals means less methane than ever. Odd that the climate seems to have coped in the past with all those f*rters running around. Perhaps it's because methane is inflammable and gets immediately destroyed by lightning..
The new evening AND morning star is Mars, still visible in the sky at 7am near the southwest and rising early in the evening around 6pm. It will continue to do so until the end of the month.
Hi
Given the current publicity of your weather forecasting activities and
your statements discrediting the scientific findings on global warming I
feel I have to respond lest the public become even more misled on what are
very serious issues for the future.
I do not disagree that there are clear mechanisms, particularly tidal
forces, that could link the moon to the weather.Ý Many people have looked
for these actual relationships in weather data and how these relationships
could provide forecasting methods, but invariably without useful results.
Those who persist seem to be remarkably reluctant to publish DETAILS of
their findings and their forecasting methods.Ý Why is this??????
(That's a little unfair. There is such a thing as intellectual property.
My methods have taken years. Why should I just give it away? The day I am
employed by the public purse will be the day I share what I have hard won.
Until then I must fund my endeavour by writing books or selling forecasts.
The metservices sell theirs too, just by the way, through 0900 numbers.
They also charge for data. To date I have run up a bill of $4000 for
past-year observations. A weathermap search and fax from them will set you
back $60. It's a double standard to not criticise them also for being
commercial. Having said that, I think I do give much away and point
people's noses in the direction of doing it themselves.)
In your forecasts you say to allow plus or minus 1 day for the forecast to
be true.Ý Because on average NZ weather varies significantly from
day-to-day even a RANDOM 'forecast' will have a good chance of scoring
correct on this rule. Thus if you forecast rain
for, say, Wednesday there are actually three days (Tuesday, Wednesday and
Thursday) for which your forecast is deemed to apply, and there is a fair
chance in NZ that in ANY sequence of three days, it will rain on one or
more of them.Ý So you get a much higher 'hit rate' than you deserve.Ý
(My problem is that I am looking at a span sometimes of 40 years. I don't
know which side of midnight my past dates have the most relevance. So I
suggest a 2-3 day window. If you read my website at the end of April you
would have seen my early predictions for snow on most skifields to be on
May 15th and 28th, which is indeed what happened. I don't have the luxury
of a scientific team or expensive software. Given time and resources I
could almost wipe out that 24hr error or at least minimize it.)
You make a grossly incorrect statement that as carbon dioxide is heavier
than air it cannot rise to a level that would cause global warming.Ý In
any mixture of gases it is a well-established factÝ that molecular motion
and molecular collisions result ultimately in all constituents becoming
and remaining uniformly mixed, regardless of their density.Ý The heavier
gas does NOT fall to the bottom!! It is true as you have pointed out that
some of the carbon dioxide dissolves in the sea, but by no means all of it
goes into the sea and substantial amounts remain in the atmosphere.
(0.035% of the atmosphere is a substantial amount?)
It is equally misleading to assert that since carbon dioxide is only a
very very small proportion of the atmosphere that it cannot have any
effect. And the ozone hole!!Ý I admit that this is widely misunderstood,
but I never thought it would be misunderstood to the level that you seem
to have achieved!!!Ý I have never heard of anyone suggesting that the sun
shines through that lower ozone region back northwards to areas such as NZ
to result in more cancer-producing UV rays here!!!!!!Ý
(Oh dear. Where have you been?! I get that all the time. In my talks I ask
my audiences at the outset if that is indeed the picture they have been
painted and they nod enthusiastically. I ask children in schools if that
is the scenario and they tell me in so many words. I am very careful to
check that this is what the media has suggested to them. Of course it is
ludicrous. I find it written on school blackboards - "the sun shines more
strongly through the ozone hole above Antarctica which increases skin
cancer in NZ..")
These comments are by no means an exhaustive criticism.Ý There could be
much more!!!!! However I hope you will take them aboard in good faith and
perhaps tone down some of your claims.
(Dr) Don T.
Wellington NZ
(Tone down my claims? Why? If it works this is the most important
discovery, or rather rediscovery of our time; that we can predict weather
way into the future. We could prepare for floods, for droughts, famines
and severe earthquakes. We could save lives.-K).
Ý
Hi Ken
CO2 DOESN'T mix. Recipe for a b52 cocktail = pour into a shot glass 1/3
khalua then carefully step 1/3 of triple sec then on top step 1/3 baileys.
If done right it comes out like an alcoholic traffic light;
brown/clear/tan in colour. If you stir it up it'll mix, but no matter who
stirs it or how,Ý you will never get the khalua to form the top layer.
Mike F.
Sydney
Australia
Contact
Editor: Ken Ring
Phone: land. 09-817-7625, fax. 09-817-2203, mobile 021 970-696
Postal: P.O.Box 60197 Titirangi, Auckland 7, New Zealand.
E-mail: ken@weatherman.co.nz
Internet: http://www.predictweather.com
Subscribe: Send a blank email to weather-subscribe@topica.com.
Contributions: The editor reserves the right to include or exclude contributions
submitted. Comments or questions for Q's and A's should be addressed to
ken@weatherman.co.nz
Disclaimer: The contents of this document are the views and opinions of the editor and/or associates only, and carry no guarantees as to accuracy. No responsibility will be undertaken by the editor or webmaster for actions or outcomes on the part of readers as a result of information contained herein. Opinions expressed by contributors and reprinted are likewise their own and may or may not reflect the views of the editor or the webmaster.
Copyright: This e-zine is subject to international copyright laws but may be freely distributed to all interested parties; except for purposes of unauthorized
commercial gain. All Rights Reserved (c) Ken Ring 2000 - 2001.