Meteorologists are getting better at forecasting "extreme weather events"

James_S wrote:
In October 1987, UK weather forecaster Michael Fish famously dismissed fears that a hurricane was on the way, only to be proved disastrously wrong just hours later.

While technically not a hurricane, the storm that battered southern England was the worst for nearly 300 years, causing 18 deaths and £2bn worth of damage.

But such forecasting catastrophes are now a thing of the past, meteorologists would have us believe.

The UK's Met Office says its four-day forecast is now as accurate as its one-day forecast was 30 years ago.

And Louis Uccellini, director of the National Weather Service, part of the US government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, says: "We can now predict extreme weather events five to seven days in advance.

"Twenty years ago we would only have been able to look one day ahead."

These improvements have only come about after investing billions in better satellites, weather stations and supercomputers.

But with more than a third of the world's total economic output affected by weather, according to US data specialists Weather Analytics, such investment was essential.

Read more:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29256322
http://www.scienceclarified.com/Ca-Ch/Carbon-Dioxide.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/natural-disasters

HarveyH55 wrote:
Wow, wish they would send some of the advance equipment to Florida. Two days, with fair confidence around here. Three days and more is wishful thinking. They predict severe thunder storms, and we get a light rain. Of course, during the rainy season, it can go either way. During hurricane season, they can track a storm, and predict a path, but you still have to watch constantly, landfall can still change by the hour, even turn and ride the coast a while longer. We can't predict whether a storm is going to form or not, until it does. We had 18 named storms, but only 6 hurricanes, 3 major.

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Wow, wish they would send some of the advance equipment to Florida. Two days, with fair confidence around here. Three days and more is wishful thinking. They predict severe thunder storms, and we get a light rain. Of course, during the rainy season, it can go either way. During hurricane season, they can track a storm, and predict a path, but you still have to watch constantly, landfall can still change by the hour, even turn and ride the coast a while longer. We can't predict whether a storm is going to form or not, until it does. We had 18 named storms, but only 6 hurricanes, 3 major.

What I plan on researching could actually have an effect on this. I guess with having lived in both Norway and Florida, I am aware of what affects their weather.
And as it happens, that also affects Europe's weather.

edited to add: it will rain in Seattle tomorrow. And in Olympia, it will be foggy.

James___ wrote:
Of course it always rains in Seattle and is always foggy in Olympia.

James___ wrote:
Predicting the weather there is like getting up in the morning.
Did you set your alarm clock?

James___ wrote: One subject I plan on researching is short term (3 - 5 year) weather patterns. From France to Norway I think I've observed a possible trend and it's cause.

IBdaMann wrote:
There is no such thing as a weather "pattern"

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
There is no such thing as a weather "pattern"

Thank you!! Yes, "changing weather patterns'' is becoming quite the buzz word phrase and soon it will need a seat at the right hand of the great godess Climate.

IBdaMann, could we get a link to the Manual please?

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
There is no such thing as a weather "pattern"

Thank you!! Yes, "changing weather patterns'' is becoming quite the buzz word phrase and soon it will need a seat at the right hand of the great godess Climate.

IBdaMann, could we get a link to the Manual please?

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
There is no such thing as a weather "pattern"

Thank you!! Yes, "changing weather patterns'' is becoming quite the buzz word phrase and soon it will need a seat at the right hand of the great godess Climate.

IBdaMann, could we get a link to the Manual please?

Ask and ye shall receive.

James___ wrote: In the northern hemisphere it is well known that the jet stream influences weather patterns. It also can direct warm air from the Gulf Stream to England.

James___ wrote: It is interesting because if the jet stream follows the Gulf Stream north then the likelihood of an extreme weather event in England increases.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: In the northern hemisphere it is well known that the jet stream influences weather patterns. It also can direct warm air from the Gulf Stream to England.

Sure. All roads lead to Rome but all Climate leads to England. I hope you weren't expecting Climate to somehow wander into Scotland to cause haggis forcings and bagpipe feedbacks.

James___ wrote: It is interesting because if the jet stream follows the Gulf Stream north then the likelihood of an extreme weather event in England increases.

The article you cited doesn't mention "extreme weather." I was hoping the article would have defined that.

.

James_S wrote:
In October 1987, UK weather forecaster Michael Fish famously dismissed fears that a hurricane was on the way, only to be proved disastrously wrong just hours later.

While technically not a hurricane, the storm that battered southern England was the worst for nearly 300 years, causing 18 deaths and £2bn worth of damage.

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
There is no such thing as a weather "pattern"

Thank you!! Yes, "changing weather patterns'' is becoming quite the buzz word phrase and soon it will need a seat at the right hand of the great godess Climate.

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
There is no such thing as a weather "pattern"

Thank you!! Yes, "changing weather patterns'' is becoming quite the buzz word phrase and soon it will need a seat at the right hand of the great godess Climate.

It already is and has been for some time, ever since the Church of Global Warming started using 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' as their favorite buzzword.

Roj475 wrote:If you believe GW has been replaced, then this is an oversight on your part or is not inkeeping with your long term goal of never moving from a set position regardless.

Roj475 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
There is no such thing as a weather "pattern"

Thank you!! Yes, "changing weather patterns'' is becoming quite the buzz word phrase and soon it will need a seat at the right hand of the great godess Climate.

It already is and has been for some time, ever since the Church of Global Warming started using 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' as their favorite buzzword.

GW still exists in text but for the general population that are unable to grasp it will still snow if a temperature average increased from -10 to -8; then CC was needed to assist the education gap.

Roj475 wrote:
If you believe GW has been replaced,

Roj475 wrote:
then this is an oversight on your part or is not inkeeping with your long term goal of never moving from a set position regardless.

Roj475 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
There is no such thing as a weather "pattern"

Thank you!! Yes, "changing weather patterns'' is becoming quite the buzz word phrase and soon it will need a seat at the right hand of the great godess Climate.

It already is and has been for some time, ever since the Church of Global Warming started using 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' as their favorite buzzword.

GW still exists in text but for the general population that are unable to grasp it will still snow if a temperature average increased from -10 to -8; then CC was needed to assist the education gap.

If you believe GW has been replaced, then this is an oversight on your part or is not inkeeping with your long term goal of never moving from a set position regardless.

IBdaMann wrote:
What is the unambiguous definition of Global Warming that does not defy physics on its face?

Does Global Warming involve an increase in the average planetary temperature?


I'm here to learn from experts like you. I come to this website with no credentials and bearing only math and science. I seek your wisdom and your genius.
.

Into the Night wrote:
Define 'education gap'. This is a meaningless buzzword. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You are still denying and discarding the 1st law of thermodynamics.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Global Warming was losing traction, as the weather wasn't cooperating, even trending toward cooling in key areas. They just re-branded, and expanded to all extreme weather events.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Global Warming was losing traction, as the weather wasn't cooperating, even trending toward cooling in key areas. They just re-branded, and expanded to all extreme weather events.

duncan61 wrote:
One of the issues I have with global warming is when did it start! 1970 or 1850.I hear tales of .25.C a decade which takes us back to 1982.There is masses of land area in Australia Africa and Mongolia that have no land thermometers.Satellites can read light emitted and only when in position and no clouds.Makes it all a bit sketchy.Can you still have human induced C/C without the warming?

duncan61 wrote:
One of the issues I have with global warming is when did it start! 1970 or 1850.I hear tales of .25.C a decade which takes us back to 1982.There is masses of land area in Australia Africa and Mongolia that have no land thermometers.Satellites can read light emitted and only when in position and no clouds.Makes it all a bit sketchy.Can you still have human induced C/C without the warming?

Into the Night wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
One of the issues I have with global warming is when did it start! 1970 or 1850.I hear tales of .25.C a decade which takes us back to 1982.There is masses of land area in Australia Africa and Mongolia that have no land thermometers.Satellites can read light emitted and only when in position and no clouds.Makes it all a bit sketchy.Can you still have human induced C/C without the warming?

Satellites are incapable of reading temperature at all.
The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It cannot be measured.

duncan61 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
One of the issues I have with global warming is when did it start! 1970 or 1850.I hear tales of .25.C a decade which takes us back to 1982.There is masses of land area in Australia Africa and Mongolia that have no land thermometers.Satellites can read light emitted and only when in position and no clouds.Makes it all a bit sketchy.Can you still have human induced C/C without the warming?

Satellites are incapable of reading temperature at all.
The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It cannot be measured.

I concur

Roj475 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
What is the unambiguous definition of Global Warming that does not defy physics on its face?

Does Global Warming involve an increase in the average planetary temperature?


I'm here to learn from experts like you. I come to this website with no credentials and bearing only math and science. I seek your wisdom and your genius.
.

You claimed they changed their 'buzzword' from Global Warming...

I am merely informing you that both are used.

Whether I believe in this, or do not believe in this is irrelevant for this point.

Just clarifying that there is no replacement of Global Warming.

Appreciate the wisdom and genius references but cant take credit, it was a simple search engine check but, this may be considered wisdom and genius by some I guess.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Roj475 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
What is the unambiguous definition of Global Warming that does not defy physics on its face?

Does Global Warming involve an increase in the average planetary temperature?


I'm here to learn from experts like you. I come to this website with no credentials and bearing only math and science. I seek your wisdom and your genius.
.

You claimed they changed their 'buzzword' from Global Warming...

I am merely informing you that both are used.

Whether I believe in this, or do not believe in this is irrelevant for this point.

Just clarifying that there is no replacement of Global Warming.

Appreciate the wisdom and genius references but cant take credit, it was a simple search engine check but, this may be considered wisdom and genius by some I guess.

Global Warming wasn't replaced, the focus was broadened to Climate Change. Which includes Global Warming, and any other noteworthy extreme weather event, that gains attention and concern. People don't piss and moan about mild winters. Harsh winters kind of cancels the Global Warming hype and hysteria. The climate-terrorists needed to expand, so it was a concern all year long. Some where on the planet, there will be some sort of natural catastrophe, every month or so. Least something a little hype, and spin can be made scary. It's all about generating fear. We don't know the future. The magic-models, only show what they are programmed to show. You feed them garbage data, you get a garbage forecast. Climate Change data is mainly generated, not collected. Measurements haven't been around that long, and this is our first inter-glacial, where we measured, and record. There is no past data to compare with, just fear and speculation.

duncan61 wrote:
Yes I did and what outages do you speak of.

HarveyH55 wrote:
There is no past data to compare with, just fear and speculation.

Roj475 wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
There is no past data to compare with, just fear and speculation.

It's like telling some people dinosaurs exist and when you hold up a bone, they have an answer why it is fake.

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
There is no past data to compare with, just fear and speculation.

It's like telling some people dinosaurs exist and when you hold up a bone, they have an answer why it is fake.

Explain.

Roj475 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
There is no past data to compare with, just fear and speculation.

It's like telling some people dinosaurs exist and when you hold up a bone, they have an answer why it is fake.

Explain.

Harvey does not believe there is past data to compare with.

Roj475 wrote:
Is it the movement Age in Genesis that believe the Earth to be 6000 years old.

Roj475 wrote:
There is data available for both these points, however the returning response would likely be the same.

Roj475 wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
There is no past data to compare with, just fear and speculation.

It's like telling some people dinosaurs exist and when you hold up a bone, they have an answer why it is fake.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Roj475 wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
There is no past data to compare with, just fear and speculation.

It's like telling some people dinosaurs exist and when you hold up a bone, they have an answer why it is fake.

More like boring a deep hole in the ice. And from the core, we get highly accurate annual global temperature measurements for the past 160,000 years... Which, we can adjust slightly, and integrate with the manual thermometer readings since 1896. And the satellite readings since the seventies. Oh, almost forgot the tree growth rings, so accurate. That's pretty much the conglomerate climate data, since the beginning of time. Well, a lot longer, since time is a man
made concept... The ice age, is mainly speculation, unless you have a time-machine. Much of our current inter-glacial, is similarly speculation, since no one had the capacity to measure or record for a few thousand years.