Tidal heights changes caused by 18.61 years cycle of lunar 'wobbles'

[franksingleton]

I'm sure he is. I also get the impression that he's the sort who started out staring at clouds and trying to find patterns, rather than the sort who models physics into a working weather solution. The former knows that when we see certain conditions, a certain kind of weather generally follows, but not necessarily why. The latter understands that changing input parameters in one model grid square will change the predicted weather, and that those output parameters are the input for the neighboring grid square. Some of us build enormous data simulations, and some of us consume them.

In fact, in a sense, I have done both. I have worked as a forecaster without using NWP models. I have worked as a forecaster using models. I have actually put data into models. I have worked with modellers on data assimilation into models. I have watched with interest the development of data analysis programs. I have seen new data sources, eg Radio occultation, come on lune.
Now, tell us your experience working with hydrodynamical models. What is your background? What is your experience? My impression is that you are flying kites. I am being open. Are you?

 

[lustyd]

My background is working for a global tech company on big data analytics, modelling and simulations across various industries. Yes, I'm being open, and also open minded to new ideas and thoughts. There is always more to learn if you're open to it, and shouting people down with credentials gained through rote learning isn't the way to achieve a growth mindset. I'm going to choose to stop this now as you're clearly not here for open discussion, especially after your creepy decision to start following me on this forum. Yes, it flags this behaviour to discourage stalker behaviour.

 

[franksingleton]

My background is working for a global tech company on big data analytics, modelling and simulations across various industries. Yes, I'm being open, and also open minded to new ideas and thoughts. There is always more to learn if you're open to it, and shouting people down with credentials gained through rote learning isn't the way to achieve a growth mindset. I'm going to choose to stop this now as you're clearly not here for open discussion, especially after your creepy decision to start following me on this forum. Yes, it flags this behaviour to discourage stalker behaviour.

Fine words but, clearly you do not understand NWP models nor the way in which the atmosphere works. You talk about closed minds. I suggest thst your mind is closed in that you are probably equating your kind of models with those that describe the physics of the atmosphere. In particular, your claim that changing values at one grid point would have an effect. Clearly, you do not know that NWP models filter out small detail. This is to avoid spurious developments and the possibility of computational instability.
Your reference to learning by rote jars. Most operational meteorologists and those developing NWP models learn by experience. That is how models are developed. That is how the science and its application advance.
I do not expect a reply. I am just trying to correct your assertions.

 

[Beneteau381]

Fine words but, clearly you do not understand NWP models nor the way in which the atmosphere works. You talk about closed minds. I suggest thst your mind is closed in that you are probably equating your kind of models with those that describe the physics of the atmosphere. In particular, your claim that changing values at one grid point would have an effect. Clearly, you do not know that NWP models filter out small detail. This is to avoid spurious developments and the possibility of computational instability.
Your reference to learning by rote jars. Most operational meteorologists and those developing NWP models learn by experience. That is how models are developed. That is how the science and its application advance.
I do not expect a reply. I am just trying to correct your assertions.

I did ask the question a while back, are you a scientist?

 

[Kerenza]

Browse the menu

• Home
• For Scientists & Science Technicians
• For Employers
• For Professional Bodies
• For Registrants
• Search the Register
• About us
• Equity, Diversity & Inclusion
• Policy
• News, blogs & events
• Application Portal
• Contact us

Home > About science > Our definition of a scientist
Our definition of a scientist

A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.
A scientist can be further defined by:

• how they go about this, for instance by use of statistics (statisticians) or data (data scientists).
• what they’re seeking understanding of, for instance the elements in the universe (chemists, geologists etc), or the stars in the sky (astronomers).
• where they apply their science, for instance in the food industry (food scientist).

However all scientists are united by their relentless curiosity and systematic approach to assuaging it.

 

[lustyd]

I did ask the question a while back, are you a scientist?

No. Scientists don't "learn by experience". It's not flipping burgers, it's physics. Complex physics, for sure, but physics nonetheless. Experimentation is what pushes the field forwards, but as with many fields there is also a requirement to scale out. That's where weather people come in to tell the masses what's probably going to happen, based on the work of the scientists.

 

[Beneteau381]

No. Scientists don't "learn by experience". It's not flipping burgers, it's physics. Complex physics, for sure, but physics nonetheless. Experimentation is what pushes the field forwards, but as with many fields there is also a requirement to scale out. That's where weather people come in to tell the masses what's probably going to happen, based on the work of the scientists.

Aha, is that why he doesnt answer the question?

 

[lustyd]

Aha, is that why he doesnt answer the question?

It doesn't really bother me. A few people on the thread have engaged with the discussion and that has been interesting. A few have tried to shut it down and pretend everything is fine, I think it best to ignore those who aren't open to discussion or new ideas. We're going in circles here, it's like talking to climate deniers 20 years ago and nothing short of directly measurable consequences will open their minds, and even then they'll be looking in the other direction singing "la la la" with fingers in their ears. Best to just let the thread drop.

 

[franksingleton]

I did ask the question a while back, are you a scientist?

Yes. See my website. Training, maths degree, MSc level course st Imperial College and Met Office. Some research experience including writing a stratospheric weather model, incredibly simple by modern standard but groundbreaking then. Probably better suited to operational application, hence I was a Met Office senior forecaster for 10 years. Would have liked longer but got kicked upstairs.

 

[franksingleton]

No. Scientists don't "learn by experience". It's not flipping burgers, it's physics. Complex physics, for sure, but physics nonetheless. Experimentation is what pushes the field forwards, but as with many fields there is also a requirement to scale out. That's where weather people come in to tell the masses what's probably going to happen, based on the work of the scientists.

Developing NWP models is very much about experience. That is why forecasts have improved over time. More powerful computers allow better application of physical principles.

 

[Beneteau381]

It doesn't really bother me. A few people on the thread have engaged with the discussion and that has been interesting. A few have tried to shut it down and pretend everything is fine, I think it best to ignore those who aren't open to discussion or new ideas. We're going in circles here, it's like talking to climate deniers 20 years ago and nothing short of directly measurable consequences will open their minds, and even then they'll be looking in the other direction singing "la la la" with fingers in their ears. Best to just let the thread drop.

My aim was to open meaningful debate. I think we succeeded

 

[franksingleton]

My aim was to open meaningful debate. I think we succeeded

I would like to think that we have taken the discussion forward but am always concerned when I see undefended statements such as.

The idea that a butterfly doesn't have an effect is naive. It obviously does, based on everything we know about physics. The level of that effect locally may be very small but could well snowball in the grand scheme.

First, yes, a butterfly will nave an effect, albeit minimal. The last sentence is not based on any evidence. Going up several orders of magnitude, a single large thunderstorm will affect a large area at the time but have no lasting effect. It will dissipate and its energy will cascade down over a period of a few hours and be lost, out to space by radiation, as is all energy from the sun as shown at

Were there no increase in GHGs there would be balance between incoming and outgoing energy disturbed only by natural processes.

Then

In the case of a butterfly, it's quite likely that the effect is equalised very quickly within the local environment due to its small size. In the case of windfarms which represent a large area of the north sea, that equalisation will be on a much grander scale and will have measurable knock on effects.

I do not know what is meant by “equalised”, a more accurate word is “lost”. There is no doubt that wind farms will have a local effect. Papers that I have read recently suggest that effects are statistically significant but generally small and within about 30km of the site. I have seen no suggestion that they will be measurable further away. As I said in an earlier post, even if all global energy demands were met by wind farms, the total energy extracted would be small compared to natural variability.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

And the main point being that any effect of wind farms is gonna be snall beer compared to insulating ourselves with GHGs and warming the planet by several degrees, melting glaciers and polar caps. Just remember, guys, in that waterworld scenario, you’re all doomed. But I have a trimaran, like Costner. Actually no, I’m doomed too.
My angry reaction was due to the rather obvious agenda against wind farms and solar energy. They may not be perfect, we can’t achieve that without an almost total cull of humanity and reverting to being cave dwelling hunter gatherers. Renewables of all varieties are just a better solution than polluting and insulating the planet til death us do part. Negative fake news about renewables is put out by conspiracy theorists, and gratefully repeated by vested interests, ie fossil fuel companies.

 

[Beneteau381]

I would like to think that we have taken the discussion forward but am always concerned when I see undefended statements such as.

First, yes, a butterfly will nave an effect, albeit minimal. The last sentence is not based on any evidence. Going up several orders of magnitude, a single large thunderstorm will affect a large area at the time but have no lasting effect. It will dissipate and its energy will cascade down over a period of a few hours and be lost, out to space by radiation, as is all energy from the sun as shown at

Were there no increase in GHGs there would be balance between incoming and outgoing energy disturbed only by natural processes.

Then

I do not know what is meant by “equalised”, a more accurate word is “lost”. There is no doubt that wind farms will have a local effect. Papers that I have read recently suggest that effects are statistically significant but generally small and within about 30km of the site. I have seen no suggestion that they will be measurable further away. As I said in an earlier post, even if all global energy demands were met by wind farms, the total energy extracted would be small compared to natural variability.

Are you ok? You keep quoting stuff that you intimate I wrote! I didnt write any of that!

 

[franksingleton]

Are you ok? You keep quoting stuff that you intimate I wrote! I didnt write any of that!

Did I say you did? I was quoting lusty. Do you actually read his posts?