Memories of 1947 and 1963
1
Weather – May 2007, Vol. 62, No. 5 137 Climate change: controversy and consensus In his Viewpoint article of October 2006 Ivor Williams asks what the scientific community is going to do about the ‘continuous and bewildering flow of contradictory opinion’ on climate change. Although I agree that this public debate may well be unproductive and disturbing to the readers of Weather, in my opinion the scientific community should confine its discussion of theories and facts to the scientific arena where informed arguments are balanced by equally informed counter- arguments. Scientists as a community can, and indeed should, do nothing until our understanding of the mechanisms control- ling contemporary climate change has advanced to the stage when usefully reliable forecasts of such changes can be made. When this stage has been reached and the part played by human activities has been firmly quantified then, and only then, can the scientific community usefully offer advice as to what, if any, measures can be confidently taken to ameliorate the situation. Individual scientists can, and should, be doing the two things that they are trained and paid to do: determining what are the mechanisms controlling contemporary climate change and establishing to what extent, if any, do these include human acti- vities; but it is almost equally important that they refrain from adding to the confusion by premature public statements which are almost inevitably fated to be sensationally simplified by the media. A good example of what can be achieved by old-fashioned science with the minimum of outside interference and media publicity was provided by the ozone hole problem. This was solved by a number of scientists independently using conventional methods of analysis and land-based observations. Once the cause of the disappearance of the ozone layer in the Antarctic stratosphere was discovered, and the discoverers rewarded with Nobel prizes, national governments with their scientific advisers quickly came together to agree on enforceable changes. This success story offers a marked contrast to the elaborate intergovernmental and international organizations established to study and report on climate change some 20 years ago. Examination of the three long Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change consensus reports produced at five-year intervals does not point to any outstanding scientific achievements despite the consider- able amount of time and resources invested in their preparation. Indeed the top-down, long-drawn-out nature of the preparation and approval process needed to secure con- sensus may well have added to, rather than reduced, climate change controversy. And, indeed, when has science ever progressed by ‘consensus agreement’ between scientists? Surely it is ‘contradictory opinions’ that are essential to introduce a new framework of scientific thought? Gerald Stanhill Bet Dagan, Israel DOI: 10.1002/wea.32 Shooting spheres upward – a correction In my article in the September 2006 issue (Heasman A. Weather 61:9, pp. 262) I made an error in the identification of the two peo- ple under the steel roof in the photograph. The gentleman in the straw boater is W. H. Dines, the owner of ‘Benson Observatory’ where the research took place (see Galvin J.F.P. and McGhee J. (2005) Meteorology at Benson, Oxfordshire, Weather 60:11, pp. 319–325). The younger man in the back- ground is his assistant B. C. Lewis. I would like to thank William Pike for drawing attention to my error and I apolo- gize to Stephen Poole, great-grandson of W. H. Dines, for not recognizing his illus- trious ancestor. Alan Heasman Aldbourne, Wiltshire. DOI: 10.1002/wea.62 Memories of 1947 and 1963 I was intrigued with the articles in February Weather: ‘Negative NAO and cold Eurasian winters: how exceptional was the winter of 1962/1963’, and March’s: ‘Winter 1947 in the British Isles’. Being at the ‘sharp-end’ work- ing on aerodromes on both occasions, my interest was in how to keep runways cleared for flying; alas it was not possible on either occasion. At RAF Ternhill in 1947 my duties included clearing the runway lights. In spite of employing a number of airmen with shov- els, this was not possible due to the snow freezing overnight and due to the very cold easterly winds by day. Furthermore, the ex- wartime lighting only had small orifices each side facing the approaches (in war- time this stopped the enemy seeing the lights from above). Sticks and screwdrivers were used to clear them, only for them to fill again as a result of the strong winds during the day and after a slight thaw. Shropshire, of course, often had more than its fair share of snow but it was the frozen surfaces that caused the most trouble. Winter 1962/1963 by comparison was not so much trouble, as snow was the dominant feature of that winter. As an aside, in the 1944 winter in Lincolnshire, even the aircrews were drafted to clear the runways along with the airmen, to allow the bombers to take off on operations. I have been a student of weather now for 66 years, and a fellow for 61, and weather- related matters have always interested me. Dennis Cooper Gwynedd DOI: 10.1002/wea.91 Letters
-
Upload
dennis-cooper -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
1
Transcript of Memories of 1947 and 1963
Weather – M
ay 2007, Vol. 62, No. 5
137
Climate change: controversyand consensus
In his Viewpoint article of October 2006 IvorWilliams asks what the scientific communityis going to do about the ‘continuous andbewildering flow of contradictory opinion’ onclimate change.
Although I agree that this public debatemay well be unproductive and disturbing tothe readers of Weather, in my opinion thescientific community should confine itsdiscussion of theories and facts to thescientific arena where informed argumentsare balanced by equally informed counter-arguments. Scientists as a community can,and indeed should, do nothing until ourunderstanding of the mechanisms control-ling contemporary climate change hasadvanced to the stage when usefully reliableforecasts of such changes can be made.When this stage has been reached and thepart played by human activities has beenfirmly quantified then, and only then, can thescientific community usefully offer advice asto what, if any, measures can be confidentlytaken to ameliorate the situation.
Individual scientists can, and should, bedoing the two things that they are trainedand paid to do: determining what are themechanisms controlling contemporaryclimate change and establishing to whatextent, if any, do these include human acti-vities; but it is almost equally important thatthey refrain from adding to the confusion bypremature public statements which arealmost inevitably fated to be sensationallysimplified by the media.
A good example of what can be achievedby old-fashioned science with the minimumof outside interference and media publicitywas provided by the ozone hole problem.This was solved by a number of scientistsindependently using conventional methodsof analysis and land-based observations.Once the cause of the disappearance of theozone layer in the Antarctic stratosphere wasdiscovered, and the discoverers rewardedwith Nobel prizes, national governmentswith their scientific advisers quickly cametogether to agree on enforceable changes.
This success story offers a marked contrastto the elaborate intergovernmental andinternational organizations established tostudy and report on climate change some 20years ago. Examination of the three longIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Changeconsensus reports produced at five-yearintervals does not point to any outstandingscientific achievements despite the consider-able amount of time and resources investedin their preparation. Indeed the top-down,long-drawn-out nature of the preparationand approval process needed to secure con-sensus may well have added to, rather thanreduced, climate change controversy.
And, indeed, when has science everprogressed by ‘consensus agreement’between scientists? Surely it is ‘contradictoryopinions’ that are essential to introduce anew framework of scientific thought?
Gerald StanhillBet Dagan, Israel
DOI: 10.1002/wea.32
Shooting spheres upward – a correction
In my article in the September 2006 issue(Heasman A. Weather 61:9, pp. 262) I madean error in the identification of the two peo-ple under the steel roof in the photograph.The gentleman in the straw boater is W.H.Dines, the owner of ‘Benson Observatory’where the research took place (see GalvinJ.F.P. and McGhee J. (2005) Meteorology atBenson, Oxfordshire, Weather 60:11, pp.319–325). The younger man in the back-ground is his assistant B. C. Lewis.
I would like to thank William Pike fordrawing attention to my error and I apolo-gize to Stephen Poole, great-grandson of W. H. Dines, for not recognizing his illus-trious ancestor.
Alan HeasmanAldbourne,
Wiltshire.DOI: 10.1002/wea.62
Memories of 1947 and 1963
I was intrigued with the articles in FebruaryWeather: ‘Negative NAO and cold Eurasianwinters: how exceptional was the winter of1962/1963’, and March’s: ‘Winter 1947 in theBritish Isles’. Being at the ‘sharp-end’ work-ing on aerodromes on both occasions, myinterest was in how to keep runways clearedfor flying; alas it was not possible on eitheroccasion.
At RAF Ternhill in 1947 my duties includedclearing the runway lights. In spite ofemploying a number of airmen with shov-els, this was not possible due to the snowfreezing overnight and due to the very coldeasterly winds by day. Furthermore, the ex-wartime lighting only had small orificeseach side facing the approaches (in war-time this stopped the enemy seeing thelights from above). Sticks and screwdriverswere used to clear them, only for them to fillagain as a result of the strong winds duringthe day and after a slight thaw. Shropshire,of course, often had more than its fair shareof snow but it was the frozen surfaces thatcaused the most trouble. Winter 1962/1963by comparison was not so much trouble, assnow was the dominant feature of thatwinter.
As an aside, in the 1944 winter inLincolnshire, even the aircrews were draftedto clear the runways along with the airmen,to allow the bombers to take off onoperations.
I have been a student of weather now for66 years, and a fellow for 61, and weather-related matters have always interested me.
Dennis CooperGwynedd
DOI: 10.1002/wea.91
Letters
