Did Anyone See?

NZ Thunderstorm Soc · Thu 29/09/2005 18:39

JohnGaul
NZTS

Did anyone see the 'frowner', Kim Hill's, interview with Eric Brestoum,Brenstoum (whatever his handle) last night on "Face to Face" on TVOne?

Willoughby · Unread post by **Willoughby** » Thu 29/09/2005 18:49

Nope, what was it about?

NZ Thunderstorm Soc · Thu 29/09/2005 19:05

Foggy Hamilton wrote:Nope, what was it about?

JohnGaul
NZTS

....um ... the weather

Willoughby · Unread post by **Willoughby** » Thu 29/09/2005 19:13

NZ Thunderstorm Soc wrote:
Foggy Hamilton wrote:Nope, what was it about?
JohnGaul
NZTS

....um ... the weather

Well obviously! Thought the MS cocked up somewhere and she was frying them up?

RWood · Unread post by **RWood** » Thu 29/09/2005 19:53

His name is Erick Brenstrum, Lead Forecaster at Met. Service (I think that's the title). Has done a lot of research on past storms, particularly the Feb. 1936 monster that most people today haven't even heard of. he also has a lot of detailed info. on the whitewash (passing as an inquiry) that followed the Wahine/Giselle disaster. Also has regular articles in NZ Geographic.

Unfortunately I didn't know that it was not going to be an interview with some damned politician, else I'd have been watching. Only saw the last 2 minutes.

Kiwi Geoff · Unread post by **Kiwi Geoff** » Fri 30/09/2005 20:56

RWood wrote:His name is Erick Brenstrum, Lead Forecaster at Met. Service (I think that's the title). Has done a lot of research on past storms, particularly the Feb. 1936 monster that most people today haven't even heard of. he also has a lot of detailed info. on the whitewash (passing as an inquiry) that followed the Wahine/Giselle disaster. Also has regular articles in NZ Geographic.

Unfortunately I didn't know that it was not going to be an interview with some damned politician, else I'd have been watching. Only saw the last 2 minutes.

Perhaps we have a second chance to catch this interview with Eric.

I think the "Kim Hill" show is repeated on TV1 on Saturday mornings 8:00 - 8:30am, so set your VCR's!

NZ Thunderstorm Soc · Fri 30/09/2005 21:08

JohnGaul
NZTS

Hi Geoff.
Good to have another Christchurch person on this forum.

Weathermad · Unread post by **Weathermad** » Sat 01/10/2005 09:06

Hi Geoff,

Welcome aboard....your partner on your website looks very familiar...haha!

All the best

Weathermad(Richard)

Perhaps we have a second chance to catch this interview with Eric.

I think the "Kim Hill" show is repeated on TV1 on Saturday mornings 8:00 - 8:30am, so set your VCR's![/quote]

Kiwi Geoff · Unread post by **Kiwi Geoff** » Sat 01/10/2005 10:58

Weathermad wrote:Hi Geoff,
Welcome aboard....your partner on your website looks very familiar...haha!

Hi Richard,

Yes, I gather you work at the same "institution" as Nettie!

I just checked my VCR, and the Kim Hill program this morning was NOT about the weather. I had the time right, but the TVOne website had no program details as to who was the guest. So sorry about that.

Anyway, must get off the phone and enjoy the Foehn instead!

Manukau heads obs · Tue 04/10/2005 08:47

Hi Kiwi Geoff
your another person I have come across via emails in my internet travels

(re the 1 wire temperature help many moons ago)

Willoughby · Unread post by **Willoughby** » Tue 04/10/2005 10:53

Kiwi Geoff wrote: Anyway, must get off the phone and enjoy the Foehn instead!

Me rambling a bit but, I like the dutch old way of calling 'Nieuw Zeeland', New Sealand. If translated properly from dutch to english, that would actually be our country name. Tasman named NZ after the southwestern dutch province of Zeeland, characterised by many islands. There must've been one dumb translator back in history, or they just preferred Zealand upposed to Sealand.

Sorry for this random post lol

squid · Unread post by **squid** » Tue 04/10/2005 21:50

lol go the random stuff

RWood · Unread post by **RWood** » Tue 11/10/2005 16:34

NIWA's September summary is finally out:

http://www.niwascience.co.nz/ncc/cs/0509sum.pdf

(or the shorter summary at http://www.niwascience.co.nz/ncc/cs/mclimsum_05_09)

Apart from the obvious items (eg midmonth snow event) there was the slightly unusual situation for Christchurch of being quite dry yet very cloudy - the run of foggy/cloudy days in the first half saw to that.

NZ Thunderstorm Soc · Tue 11/10/2005 23:15

RWood wrote:NIWA's September summary is finally out:

http://www.niwascience.co.nz/ncc/cs/0509sum.pdf

(or the shorter summary at http://www.niwascience.co.nz/ncc/cs/mclimsum_05_09)

Apart from the obvious items (eg midmonth snow event) there was the slightly unusual situation for Christchurch of being quite dry yet very cloudy - the run of foggy/cloudy days in the first half saw to that.

JohnGaul
NZTS
Thanks for that Mr. Wood
Didn't have to get the binnoculars out to read the origional report from off NIWA's official website

Incidentally, why does NIWA leave the R off their insignia?
It's the National Institute of Weather and Atmospheric Research?
Should be NIWAR???

RWood · Unread post by **RWood** » Wed 12/10/2005 07:41

In fact, it was NIWAR in the early days, to about 1990 I think. But with the political conflicts over SOEs (*) at the time many thought it sounded too "warlike", so they dropped the "R"!

(*) When they split the old Service in two, some scientists left of course.

Gary Roberts · Unread post by **Gary Roberts** » Wed 12/10/2005 17:12

RWood wrote:In fact, it was NIWAR in the early days, to about 1990 I think. But with the political conflicts over SOEs (*) at the time many thought it sounded too "warlike", so they dropped the "R"!

(*) When they split the old Service in two, some scientists left of course.

I think they should all have guns.

RWood · Unread post by **RWood** » Fri 14/10/2005 11:26

More pain for the global warming sceptics?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/mercur ... 53465.html

jrj · Unread post by **jrj** » Fri 14/10/2005 12:34

A question. How are average temperatures calculated? When I started taking an interest in weather, the average was calculated from the daily max and min temps. I suspect that in today's computer age, the average could be calculated from hourly, or 3-hourly readings. This could account for some of the supposed rise in temperatures.
Just a thought from a sceptic.

TonyT · Unread post by **TonyT** » Fri 14/10/2005 12:48

I think I read somewhere that averages from 24 hourly readings are higher than from max/min because in most parts of the world the night time minimum is a narrow dip in the graph, while the daytime peak is broader (in other words, more of the hours of the day are near to the maximum reading, than are near to the minimum reading).

IMHO, its impossible to be sceptical about climate change.

IMHO, the evidence of a warming trend in many parts of the world is pretty compelling and leaves little room for scepticism either.

IMHO, there is some small room for scepticism about what is causing this warming trend and how exceptional it is in the broader context of climate change over the millenia.

IMHO, there is considerable room for scepticism about what will happen to the climate in the near to mid future, particularly at the local and regional level.

Finally, IMHO there is huge uncertainty about the consequences of future climate change.

Perhaps this all belongs in a different thread...

Manukau heads obs · Fri 14/10/2005 13:18

after seeing the pollution in europe in the skies first hand, i am now leaning towards being a global warming believer

RWood · Unread post by **RWood** » Fri 14/10/2005 14:06

Without getting into the tedium of long arguments, I would draw people's attention to some of these stories as a "starter set":

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/ear ... ate-change

Storm Struck · Unread post by **Storm Struck** » Fri 14/10/2005 15:24

Yesterdays Cricket ball sized hail over Gold Coast reminded me of the hail scene on Day After Tomorrow I partially believe in global warming although i do believe other things could be to blame.
Cheers
JASON.

Gary Roberts · Unread post by **Gary Roberts** » Fri 14/10/2005 19:12

TonyT wrote:I think I read somewhere that averages from 24 hourly readings are higher than from max/min because in most parts of the world the night time minimum is a narrow dip in the graph, while the daytime peak is broader (in other words, more of the hours of the day are near to the maximum reading, than are near to the minimum reading).

IMHO, its impossible to be sceptical about climate change.

IMHO, the evidence of a warming trend in many parts of the world is pretty compelling and leaves little room for scepticism either.

IMHO, there is some small room for scepticism about what is causing this warming trend and how exceptional it is in the broader context of climate change over the millenia.

IMHO, there is considerable room for scepticism about what will happen to the climate in the near to mid future, particularly at the local and regional level.

Finally, IMHO there is huge uncertainty about the consequences of future climate change.

Perhaps this all belongs in a different thread...

Is it happening? Probably.

Are humans responsible for it? Possibly.

Has it ever happened before? Almost certainly, going by long-term fossil and climatological evidence.

As far as glaciologists are concerned, the Earth is still in the tail-end throes of an Ice-Age. Apparently the Earth doesn't normally have lots of ice (The Arctic, Antarctica, glaciers, etc)... Normally (as in for the vast majority of geologic history) the Earth had a tropical climate.

Is there a vast and juicy gravy-train that has been eagerly boarded by droves of "researchers" from both the pro- and anti- camp? You betcha.

Will GW wipe out humanity? Dunno, and it doesn't really matter in the long term, does it?

Just In My Humble Opinion.

RWood · Unread post by **RWood** » Fri 14/10/2005 21:45

This is the first part of an article from Scientific American, March 2005.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID ... 414B7F0000

In essence it suggests that human activity has for a lengthy period been forestalling the cooling that should have been occurring as part of a 20,000 year cycle (the toplike motion of the earth that goes thru' a 20,000-year "nodding" round). There's little comfort in the suggestion that there may be a large rise in temperature, followed by an even worse fall when the methane & CO2 effects have been played out.

RWood · Unread post by **RWood** » Fri 14/10/2005 21:56

This is the first part of an article from Scientific American, March 2005.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID ... 414B7F0000

In essence it suggests that human activity has for a lengthy period been forestalling the cooling that should have been occurring as part of a 20,000 year cycle (the toplike motion of the earth that goes thru' a 20,000-year "nodding" round). There's little comfort in the suggestion that there may be a large rise in temperature, followed by an even worse fall when the methane & CO2 effects have been played out.

NZ Weather Forum

Did Anyone See?

Did Anyone See?

Did Anyone See?

Re: Did Anyone See?

Re: Did Anyone See?