![[32511]](https://ybw-data.community.forum/avatars/m/32/32511.jpg?1576058889){kind=avatar}
[32511]
...
Last edited:
Wind, waves are getting bigger!
- Thread starter [32511]
- Start date
dt4134
Well-Known Member
Wind & waves always get bigger. They tend to reach their maximum size just before the bar closes.
johnalison
Well-Known Member
It looks like I may be too late for a comfortable round-the-world cruise. A few years ago I looked up the weather records for the western Baltic for a short talk I was giving. It appeared that there had been more wind in the 1960s and then a quiet period for 20 years before the wind speeds had built up again.
KellysEye
Well-Known Member
They have been saying for decades that hurricanes would increase but they haven't. Also wave forecasts are the average height of the waves, the biggest waves can be 40% higher (NOAA definition). The article says that the wave height is increasing at less than 0.75% per year. Can they really measure that and if they could it is insignificant compared to the 40%? Yet more scaremongering non-science.
Last edited:
webcraft
Well-Known Member
Yes, that's right KE - scientsits are **** at measuring anything, they can't measure for toffee. Lucky for us you are about to make your wonderfully educated guesses and keep us all right.
- W
webcraft
Well-Known Member
webcraft
Well-Known Member
It also says the survey was conducted over a 23-year perio, so an increase in wave height over the whole period of the study of 10 - 15%, which is a) measurable and b) statistically significant.
- W
Conachair
Guest
What have forecasts got to do with anything? This is a report based on measurements taken over 23 years, no mention of forecasts at all.
Again - whats the 40% about? Completely unrelated.
And yes they can measure that.
At 1 second intervals.
Calibrated with deepwater bouys which " indicate that the altimeter is capable of accurately measuring wind speed and wave height statistics to, at least, the 99th percentile."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2011/03/22/science.1197219.DC1/Young.SOM.pdf
Hardly non-science and not really scaremongering, though once it's been through the media that will no doubt be added in.
Conachair
Guest
another report about a report...
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/03/25/3172755.htm?site=science&topic=enviro
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/03/25/3172755.htm?site=science&topic=enviro
dt4134
Well-Known Member
Scientists are very thoroughly trained at handling errors in measured data. However it goes completely over the head of journalists, which unfortunately sometimes includes those at New Scientist, so they skip that bit of detail in their articles.
A figure of 0.75% increase p.a. is virtually meaningless on its own without understanding the uncertainty around that figure.
KellysEye
Well-Known Member
The number of hurricanes increased when weather satellite data came available in 1960 for obvious reasons. Many hurricanes were not seen by ships and didn't hit land and thus were not recorded. Not sure about that graph it says storms not hurricanes.
>What have forecasts got to do with anything? This is a report based on measurements taken over 23 years, no mention of forecasts at all.
Well we use forecasts or do you base whether to sail or not on 23 year historic measurements.
>A figure of 0.75% increase p.a. is virtually meaningless on its own without understanding the uncertainty around that figure.
There are 1,250 drifting weather buoys and 1024 fixed weather buoys. Total 2274 bouys collecting data in a area of 139 million square miles or one buoy per 6.1 million square miles. Confidence limits are based on sample size and on the basis of that the confidence you can have in the data is nil. As I said it's bad science.
>What have forecasts got to do with anything? This is a report based on measurements taken over 23 years, no mention of forecasts at all.
Well we use forecasts or do you base whether to sail or not on 23 year historic measurements.
>A figure of 0.75% increase p.a. is virtually meaningless on its own without understanding the uncertainty around that figure.
There are 1,250 drifting weather buoys and 1024 fixed weather buoys. Total 2274 bouys collecting data in a area of 139 million square miles or one buoy per 6.1 million square miles. Confidence limits are based on sample size and on the basis of that the confidence you can have in the data is nil. As I said it's bad science.
Last edited:
Conachair
Guest
Of course I use forecasts before sailing.
What has that got to do with a report which comes up with strong evidence that wind and wave heights are increasing?
The data was not based on bouys.
Yet you conclude that it is bad science when it appears you haven't even read any of the report.
time to give up.
Robin
Well-Known Member
Well it is obviously far too dangerous to go to sea any more so we should all just stay at home and read the reports as they come out.
franksingleton
Well-Known Member
Significant waves, swell and wind waves ARE getting bigger
Satellite surface wind measurements are derived by measuring the scattering of a radar beam fired at the sea. The scattering is caused by capillary roughness and there is a good correlation with wind speed. The instrumentation is robust and, assuming that there have been no changes in the algorithms relating scattering to wind speed, there can be little doubt that there has been an overall increase in wind speeds and consequent wave heights. How good the quantification of the increase is must depend upon the calibration of the technique.
There is independent verification for an increase from observations by bridge officers on merchant ships. As anyone doing much sailing offshore will know, there is a good relationship between sea state and wind force. Bridge officers have provided a remarkably consistent body of information and it was shown, back in my working days, that visual estimates from the bridge were usually better than instrumental wind measurements. The latter are bedevilled by siting problems due to the ship superstructure. The quality of these visual observations has been checked using measurements from data buoys. Light vessels and the now long departed Ocean Weather Ships.
These observations have shown a linear trend in significant wave height, as well as in the wind sea and swell heights for the entire North Atlantic. Significant wave height increases of 10-30 cm/decade seem to have occurred over the whole of the North Atlantic, except for the western and central subtropics over the thirty year period ending 1993
As ever, regarding climate, all that can be said is that such increases in wind are consistent with climate change. The extent to which this is caused by anthropogenic effects is uncertain but such effects are beyond reasonable scientific doubt. That is clear from the results of climate models couples with evidence from ice cores, fossils etc.
Relating overall changes in climate to specifics is always problematic. The question of hurricanes is still a little uncertain and it is all too easy to make facile judgements. Warmer water, as is being observed and as is likely to continue, will lead to more intense hurricanes. These storms get their energy from latent heat. Whether there will be more hurricanes in total is less certain. It might be, for example, that the kind of climate changes expected will result in a stronger vertical wind shear and that would militate against the formation of hurricanes. Fewer but more intense hurricanes is a possible scenario.
Satellite surface wind measurements are derived by measuring the scattering of a radar beam fired at the sea. The scattering is caused by capillary roughness and there is a good correlation with wind speed. The instrumentation is robust and, assuming that there have been no changes in the algorithms relating scattering to wind speed, there can be little doubt that there has been an overall increase in wind speeds and consequent wave heights. How good the quantification of the increase is must depend upon the calibration of the technique.
There is independent verification for an increase from observations by bridge officers on merchant ships. As anyone doing much sailing offshore will know, there is a good relationship between sea state and wind force. Bridge officers have provided a remarkably consistent body of information and it was shown, back in my working days, that visual estimates from the bridge were usually better than instrumental wind measurements. The latter are bedevilled by siting problems due to the ship superstructure. The quality of these visual observations has been checked using measurements from data buoys. Light vessels and the now long departed Ocean Weather Ships.
These observations have shown a linear trend in significant wave height, as well as in the wind sea and swell heights for the entire North Atlantic. Significant wave height increases of 10-30 cm/decade seem to have occurred over the whole of the North Atlantic, except for the western and central subtropics over the thirty year period ending 1993
As ever, regarding climate, all that can be said is that such increases in wind are consistent with climate change. The extent to which this is caused by anthropogenic effects is uncertain but such effects are beyond reasonable scientific doubt. That is clear from the results of climate models couples with evidence from ice cores, fossils etc.
Relating overall changes in climate to specifics is always problematic. The question of hurricanes is still a little uncertain and it is all too easy to make facile judgements. Warmer water, as is being observed and as is likely to continue, will lead to more intense hurricanes. These storms get their energy from latent heat. Whether there will be more hurricanes in total is less certain. It might be, for example, that the kind of climate changes expected will result in a stronger vertical wind shear and that would militate against the formation of hurricanes. Fewer but more intense hurricanes is a possible scenario.
Signed Out
Well-Known Member
Gulp.
Uh-oh. Frank, you've used the accursed expression that sets pulses a-pitter-patter and blood a-boiling!
No idea why it causes such a reaction, but the CC phrase upsets folk in a seemingly disproportionate manner, as if it somehow insults each individual's manhood (whatever their gender). And to think this should've been a more sensible description than the old bean GW (cue "GW? Give me some", or "If this is GW...", or "we could do with some GW...", said in the same tone as "There's nothing wrong with France, except...").
All very black and white isn't it? Are you a denier or a proponent? Ho bloomin hum. Long gone are such things as could be described by reasonable, considerate, or dare I say, responsible.
"They tell me not to commute in the Cayenne. Be blaming all this on my little Sunseeker Predator next".
Uh-oh. Frank, you've used the accursed expression that sets pulses a-pitter-patter and blood a-boiling!
No idea why it causes such a reaction, but the CC phrase upsets folk in a seemingly disproportionate manner, as if it somehow insults each individual's manhood (whatever their gender). And to think this should've been a more sensible description than the old bean GW (cue "GW? Give me some", or "If this is GW...", or "we could do with some GW...", said in the same tone as "There's nothing wrong with France, except...").
All very black and white isn't it? Are you a denier or a proponent? Ho bloomin hum. Long gone are such things as could be described by reasonable, considerate, or dare I say, responsible.
"They tell me not to commute in the Cayenne. Be blaming all this on my little Sunseeker Predator next".
franksingleton
Well-Known Member
The climate is warming. That is as certain as can be determined by any normally objective scientist who understands the meteorology. Man is responsible for, at least, some of that warming. Again, that is as certain ....... etc etc.
Anyone who does not accept both facts, with the caveats, is meteorologically illiterate. This is not just based on the rather short instrumental records with all the problems in generating homogenous data series. It is about the truly long term paleo-climatological and other records coupled with the best science that can be applied to modelling.
It is regrettable that there are some scientists who may be well known to the public and good in their own fields but who seem to be happy to comment on matters where they are not expert. None has, to the best of my knowledge, written a paper on the matter and subjected it to peer review.
It is also regrettable that there are some non-scientists who are highly respected in their own fields who do similarly. Their statements carry unjustified weight and are manna from heaven to the more gullible members of the doubting public. When you examine their statements and assertions you invariably find that they are cherry picking.
Of course, there are uncertainties. Those who are in the field, like all reputable, good scientists are suitably cautious. In particular, local and regional effects are uncertain. It will not be all bad news although there is plenty of reason to worry about increasing desertification. It is a massively complex problem that makes prediction for the coming week look like child’s play. But, there is sufficient well founded evidence as to make burrowing our heads in the sand just plain stupidity.
Anyone who does not accept both facts, with the caveats, is meteorologically illiterate. This is not just based on the rather short instrumental records with all the problems in generating homogenous data series. It is about the truly long term paleo-climatological and other records coupled with the best science that can be applied to modelling.
It is regrettable that there are some scientists who may be well known to the public and good in their own fields but who seem to be happy to comment on matters where they are not expert. None has, to the best of my knowledge, written a paper on the matter and subjected it to peer review.
It is also regrettable that there are some non-scientists who are highly respected in their own fields who do similarly. Their statements carry unjustified weight and are manna from heaven to the more gullible members of the doubting public. When you examine their statements and assertions you invariably find that they are cherry picking.
Of course, there are uncertainties. Those who are in the field, like all reputable, good scientists are suitably cautious. In particular, local and regional effects are uncertain. It will not be all bad news although there is plenty of reason to worry about increasing desertification. It is a massively complex problem that makes prediction for the coming week look like child’s play. But, there is sufficient well founded evidence as to make burrowing our heads in the sand just plain stupidity.
Lakesailor
Well-Known Member
1st statement: No argument.
2nd statement: Starting to lose me there.....
3rd statement: Ah! That's why.
When someone can predict the weather for the week ahead with a high degree of accuracy, then perhaps they can start spouting about the climate in such a way that we are all willing to accept the enormous changes in fortune and lifestyle that are being foisted on us for what seems to be political and commercial reasons.
But there again I'm obviously a gullible member of the doubting public who is meteorologically illiterate.
However I do have a vote and I do have spending power. There are lots of us.
webcraft
Well-Known Member
Bilgediver
Well-Known Member
franksingleton
Well-Known Member
To defend my assertions would scarcely be practicable on a forum. At this stage in my life, I do not have all the facts and arguments to hand any more than other contributors to this forum. A discussion would not be very productive. I base my statements on an understanding of the principles and knowledge of a number of those who are and have been involved in the science. The UK Met Office Hadley Centre is rather more informed than former chancellors of the exchequer or popular TV personalities who may be scientists in other disciplines..
All that I can really say is go abd read the literature. That is a tall order, I know so start with the UK Met Office http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change. The Hadley Centre http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/ is a world leadin institute that has scientists seconded from other organisations and other countries.
Do not be swayed by some of the silly nit-picking criticisms of the University of East Anglia, their work is really rather better than some would have you believe. In any case, they are a fairly minor cog in the whole. Similarly, dp not be swayed by criticism of those parts of the IPCC report that were not written by scientists. It is all too easy for lay people to raise totally unsupported untenable criticisms and hypotheses
All that I can really say is go abd read the literature. That is a tall order, I know so start with the UK Met Office http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change. The Hadley Centre http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/ is a world leadin institute that has scientists seconded from other organisations and other countries.
Do not be swayed by some of the silly nit-picking criticisms of the University of East Anglia, their work is really rather better than some would have you believe. In any case, they are a fairly minor cog in the whole. Similarly, dp not be swayed by criticism of those parts of the IPCC report that were not written by scientists. It is all too easy for lay people to raise totally unsupported untenable criticisms and hypotheses