Night of the Big Wind

Rebelbrowser

It is disturbing how much knowledge some of you have!

Orion402

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117985262#Comment_117985262

Right now, the surface area with the North pole at its centre is slowing turning parallel to the orbital plane and into the dark hemisphere of the Earth, thereby creating an increasing circumference where the Sun remains continuously out of view. It will reach its maximum circumference (Arctic circle) on December 21st while its Southern counterpart reaches the maximum surface area where the Sun remains constantly in view.

The Milankovitch doctrine is a conceptual dog and obstructs the reasons why we have the seasons and the conditions for winter storms aside from anomalous events like the Big Wind event.

The crossover from planetary dynamics to Earth sciences like climate is in an awful state at the moment and requires people to work through the historical and technical nuances whereas the conditions which created the 1839 event can be extrapolated from atmospheric conditions at the time. Some people, like yourself, do much better with forensics of individual events but less so when it is necessary to work with larger scale systems which require accurate views of planetary dynamics-

" Since we cannot be universal and know all that is to be known of everything, we ought to know a little about everything. For it is far better to know something about everything than to know all about one thing. This universality is the best. If we can have both, still better; but if we must choose, we ought to choose the former. And the world feels this and does so; for the world is often a good judge" Pascal

Whereas it is possible to make a crossover to both disciplines without inheriting the flaws of those engaged in planetary dynamics, people become sore unnecessarily when such encouragement is brought up.

" When we wish to correct with advantage, and to show another that he errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he was not mistaken, and that he only failed to see all sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are always true. People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others. " Pascal

Oneiric 3

Another great Irish storm back in the 1920s: (October 1927)

oct07.qxd (met.ie)

which brought much tragedy along the west coast. Walter Maken alludes (fictionally) to this storm in his great book 'Rain on the Wind'. The eerie calm before the storm in which fishermen out in Galway Bay witnessed a ghost Currach rowed by 4 pale faced men sail silently pass them in the weak but sufficient moonlight before vanishing into thin air.

What followed was truly heart-breaking. A fictional tragedy that reflects the very real one that this October storm brought with it.

M.T. Cranium

I would challenge these two paragraphs ...

"The Milankovitch doctrine is a conceptual dog and obstructs the reasons why we have the seasons and the conditions for winter storms aside from anomalous events like the Big Wind event.

The crossover from planetary dynamics to Earth sciences like climate is in an awful state at the moment and requires people to work through the historical and technical nuances whereas the conditions which created the 1839 event can be extrapolated from atmospheric conditions at the time. Some people, like yourself, do much better with forensics of individual events but less so when it is necessary to work with larger scale systems which require accurate views of planetary dynamics."

-------------------------

There is no Milankovitch "doctrine" -- he took widely accepted facts in astronomy about cycles of the earth's orbital variables and attempted to fit those to other widely accepted facts in geomorphology concerning the timing of recent glacial periods (or ice ages as some would call them).

Within the atmospheric sciences, his theory has gained qualified acceptance. Many think there are other factors at play, or that he has not scaled the three variables important to his theory correctly.

I don't see where I come into this at all. The interactions between Milankovitch and orthodox scientists started out frosty and turned warmer at some point before I finished my education and I only gradually learned about these interactions over recent decades since Milankovitch passed away. Otherwise, I am not some stakeholder of any kind and wouldn't necessarily say that I am a proponent of his theory. It makes some sense to me that obliquity is an important driver of glaciation, one can imagine that if the earth tilted any more than the small range that it does so, we would have a much different climate altogether. The other two factors make more limited progress and are also more disputed by some critics.

If the commenter has any knowledge that Milankovitch cycles (not their causative effects, but the cycles themselves) do not exist, then that will come as news to orthodox science. The axial tilt of the earth is not always what we know it to be today. A partial proof of that is that some Neolithic monuments do not quite align as precisely as their builders intended with solstice or equinox solar phenomena, which became understood when it was realized that five thousand years ago, the axial tilt of the earth was slightly different than it is now, hence things like summer sunrises were not exactly where we see them on the horizon today. The bigger the axial tilt (and the earth can apparently add at least one degree to the modern tilt, as well as subtracting one degree at other times) the further off due east or west the solstice rising and setting points. A difference of one degree might not sound like much, but if we're talking about some monument with a long chamber designed to become illuminated at a precise time, then that one degree would be significant, just like if your car headlights were mis-aligned by one degree.

Anyway, even if Milankovitch is dead wrong, it has nothing to do with me. When I say "x has a theory ..." that's all I mean by it, there is no call to prayer or passing of the offertory plates. X could be dead wrong. In at least one case, X is dead wrong.

M.T. Cranium

Also this is widely known and has no origin within my own mind or work, Milankovitch took three variables of the earth's orbit which astronomers had already determined to exist, and calculated what would be the insolation at 65 deg N latitude in July. His reasoning was that small changes in insolation at that point in the weak arctic summer would have important effects on snowmelt. If snowmelt were reduced around that latitude, then a glacial cycle could begin. And he found that the three variables could sometimes combine to reduce that insolation by as much as 22 per cent compared to the relatively warm epoch we are now enjoying (or were until Greta started up).

I have no reason to doubt the 22 per cent estimate, and it makes sense from my own knowledge of Canadian arctic climates that very small changes in insolation could tip the scales. Some places I have studied are a bit further north than 65 deg N but maybe his work would show that they had even larger variability. Just in the quasi-random variability of the past seventy years or so, summer temperatures have varied by about five degrees from warmest to coldest cases, and snow cover has varied from nothing at all from early June to late August, to periods of light snow on the ground at random times all through the season. You can imagine that if this climate shifted colder by about 3 or 4 deg, the colder summers would probably have snow on the ground throughout, and that would begin to have a cumulative effect after a while, if several of those years happened consecutively.

This is probably what happened in those wild oscillations at the end of the last glacial, and by extension it is probably what happened to start the glacial periods altogether. But besides Milankovitch cycles, there could also be other reasons, such as volcanic dust, secular changes in the Sun's output (perhaps very long analogues to the Maunder minimum, for example), or just random interactions of extreme events. It used to be the generally accepted concept that climate was static but most recent research points more to a chaotic reality where decades or centuries can be much different. Over top of that we have the postulated effects of our human activity tilting the balance more towards warmth.

Nobody, least of all me, would argue any of this is simple, or easy to understand, and we see on a regular basis that prediction has not yet become reliable. A science that has no reliable prediction capability is not really a science at all, as I've said to annoy many an orthodox climate scientist over a lifetime, but it is a self-evident truth since science is basically the domain of acceptable predictions. We don't even claim to have those in long-range (very long-range let's say) weather forecasting. Climate change (the human activity, not the concept) has changed that by claiming an ability to make reliable forecasts (of warming) but we don't know what natural variability factors could get involved in those predictions even if they are by themselves valid (not universally accepted either).

Orion402

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117991317#Comment_117991317

This really isn't for you as I am not interested in Milankovitch and his theoretical cycles, I am looking at the observational restrictions faced by Copernicus himself when he sacrificed the motions of the North/South poles in a circle each orbit in his effort to satisfy the framework of Ptolemy-

"The third is the motion in declination. For, the axis of the daily rotation is not parallel to the Grand Orb's axis, but is inclined [to it at an angle that intercepts] a portion of a circumference, in our time about 23 1/2°. Therefore, while the earth's centre always remains in the plane of the ecliptic, that is, in the circumference of a circle of the Grand Orb, the earth's poles rotate, both of them describing small circles about centres [lying on a line that moves] parallel to the Grand Orb's axis. The period of this motion also is a year, but not quite, being nearly equal to the Grand Orb's [revolution]." Copernicus

http://copernicus.torun.pl/en/archives/astronomical/1/?view=transkrypcja&

If you don't know what he is describing then graphically it looks like this-

The motion of the North/South poles annually (where daily rotation is absent) represent beacons for the entire surface of the Earth entirely separate to daily rotation. This is explaining the combination of rotations responsible for the seasons for goodness sake!.

Challenge all you like, observational affirmation beats all contrary opinions, so anyone who looks with their own eyes at the dual surface rotations of Uranus where the dark hemisphere is absent will come to realise that a lot of work is necessary to replace deficient views due to the lack of observations from satellites with more productive ones-

https://hubblesite.org/contents/media/videos/1999/11/175-Video.html?news=true

The crossover here is between meteorology and planetary dynamics as Arctic sea ice development, hurricane season or any other large scale meteorological event is dependent on planetary dynamics. All this material was covered before and it is clear you wish to remain with notions based on a 'clockwork solar system'. You do best with individual weather events but lean on awful views of planetary dynamics when you stray into long term perspectives.

Orion402

 "A partial proof of that is that some Neolithic monuments do not quite align as precisely as their builders intended with solstice or equinox solar phenomena, which became understood when it was realized that five thousand years ago, the axial tilt of the earth was slightly different than it is now, hence things like summer sunrises were not exactly where we see them on the horizon today" MT

Thank you for borrowing my own perspectives and then botching it when it comes to the ancient alignments on this island.

If the 25,920 year axial precession cycle was a correct proposal, the North/South poles would have turned roughly 60 degrees since the builders first created the alignment 5,200 years ago, yet the alignment occurs on the same day on the December Solstice as it did all those many centuries ago.

To cut a long story short and for the benefit of those ancient builders rather than present day theorists, the minor 1 degree drift every 72 years or so known as the precession of the equinoxes is a result that the proportion of rotations to orbital circuits is not exactly 1461 rotations for 4 circuits (calendar framework) nor 365 1/4 rotations for 1 circuit.

You get to decide whether you wish to remain with deficient views or work towards a stable foundation for the relationship between planetary dynamics and the seasons first and then on to planetary dynamics and climate proper. It all requires a bit of consideration rather than a reaction.

Oneiric 3

This thread really isn't about historic Irish storms, is it?

Orion402

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117996299#Comment_117996299

It is unfortunate that the forensics of the 1839 event drifted into speculative conclusions without the physical considerations involved in such conclusions. I do care that a society who felt the full force of the storm lost their roofs, their livestock, their livelihoods and the lost of life so contemporaries who put the ferocity of the storm down to night time ignorance and no warning (whatever that is meant to convey) is failing society as they so frequently hype any Atlantic storm that comes our way in order to support 'climate change modelling'.

I genuinely came here to seek a more accurate explanation for the 1839 event using the ingredients which make such a storm/hurricane possible as it relies on short term atmospheric ingredients, however, if people feel it necessary to put on their predictive hats then they will run up against planetary dynamics which create a large part of those meteorological ingredients.

Let these threads take their own course, so long as it doesn't involve henchmen willing to shut down discussion. Nobody needs grandstanding, they do need the crossover between meteorology and planetary dynamics to explain all the large scale events annually and sometimes anomalous events like the Big Wind storm are outriggers of that discussion rather than central to it.

M.T. Cranium

I don't doubt that the comments made are true statements but I come away unsure whether Orion402 accepts or rejects the concept of changes of the earth's orbital tilt over time. There is a range between about 22.6 and 24.4 degrees, we just happen to be near the long-term average of this oscillating variable. What it means in practical terms when the obliquity reaches a maximum (above 24 deg) what he calls the circle of illumination covers a slightly larger portion of the northern hemisphere in summer. While you might find there to be continual sunlight at 67 deg N nowadays, you would have that at 66 deg N ... but there is a corresponding larger spread of polar night with a brief period of it near the winter solstice at a lower latitude than nowadays. Thus it is rather difficult to have a discussion when you aren't sure what the other person thinks about a specific concept and instead they just restate some other concept which you don't dispute. It doesn't bother me because it's up to Orion402 to present ideas in whatever framework he desires, but there is no implied expectation that everyone will conform to that, just as I don't expect everyone on this weather forum to accept my controversial theoretical framework, and would be quite surprised if they did so because it would indicate that they had duplicated my efforts to understand it. I doubt that everyone has the time to do all that.

But it has been an interesting discussion of the 1839 storm. One thing for certain is that the NOAA map reconstruction for that date as shown on the wetterzentrale archives is woefully inadequate, it merely shows a 975 mb low gradually deepening to about 960 mbs. I don't know what European obs they used for these maps but there were many more available than they utilized there. This makes one wonder what precision was achieved with any of the other maps shown. The maps for eastern North America that they produced seem to account for the Caswell (Providence RI) obs, but have no other obvious data points so what you tend to get there is a climatological average kind of map. These comments apply mainly to dates before 1850, after that I think the maps start to show some actual precision.

By the way, I didn't "botch" anything in that explanation. Apparently it was causing anthropologists some concern when they found some of the ancient monuments didn't exactly align with some solstice sunrise points as they had expected, but then when they consulted astronomers they found out something they hadn't realized, that sunrise did not take place at the exact same place on the horizon at summer solstice back in the Neolithic, but a point slightly further south due to that larger axial tilt. Some have also theorized that proper motion of the stars over long periods of time can account for some slight discrepancies in positions of Egyptian monuments and postulated astronomical signals that they were attempting to show as significant to them. The star Sirius has been changing in its relative position to other fixed stars and according to astronomers it will drop so far to the south eventually that we won't be able to see it at all in the northern mid-latitudes (nowadays it is quite prominent in the winter sky).

A lot of things that were considered to be unchanging or fixed a few centuries back have been found to be subject to small variations or even as in the case of Sirius, long-term large variations. Another thing that changed slightly was the length of the lunar orbit. This fact was verified when some ancient solar eclipse records from Assyria were discovered. These solar eclipses could not have happened if the synodic month of the moon's orbit had been exactly the same as what we have calculated it to be in the modern epoch. The moon used to be very slightly closer to the earth and thus its period was slightly shorter. The length of the earth's day has also gradually lengthened out, because with the Moon closer in geological historical times, the earth used to spin faster on its axis than it does now. There were probably over 400 days in a year back in the Cambrian era. These days if measured by our time systems now were only 21 hours long.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117996333#Comment_117996333

Nobody needs grandstanding. Listen to yourself bud.

Orion402

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118002792#Comment_118002792

I am not here to impress anyone (hence no grandstanding) so that leaves the proper use of modelling to further planetary dynamics and traits by using planetary comparisons which begin with daily rotation, extend on to the seasons and from there to what determines planetary climate proper. Whether people find the issue enjoyable is another matter.

An inclination such as Jupiter's would give the Earth benign atmospheric conditions across an orbit while the inclination of Uranus would see enormous swings in atmospheric conditions across latitudes with each circuit of the Sun. This spillover is into oceanic temperatures, which fluctuate North and South using the Equator as a baseline-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvbV9llG5L8

Should the Earth have an inclination similar to Jupiter, a North/South fluctuation would be minimal and almost homogenous whereas an inclination similar to Uranus would see incredible swings with the temperature fluctuations moving from red to blue across hemispheres. The polar inputs are blue while the equatorial signatures are red indicating Earth's largely Equatorial climate with a less dominant polar input. In a polar climate like Uranus, the influences are polar so that while we would receive the same degree of solar radiation, the distribution of temperature fluctuations across latitudes would be entirely different.

This is where modelling would be superb insofar as it is in judging observations using planetary dynamics to define climate within a spectrum depending on the relationship of daily rotation inclination to the orbital plane. Of course, it all relies on the annual motion of the North/South poles as a beacon for the entire surface of the planet which turns parallel to the orbital plane as a function of the Earth's orbital motion.

The conditions for the Big Wind are similar to hurricane season as certain conditions come together to great those magnificent storms irrespective of the damage they do to society. In the productive perspectives, using these storms to promote future speculative conclusions falls by the wayside and opens up a productive area of research which restrict modelling to predicting short term weather events and leaves modelling to deal with planetary climate using planetary comparisons.

Any obligations are simply presenting the material so whether people choose to move it forward or not is the limit of what I do. What I will say it is not for the talentless or the petty even if it is unfamiliar.

Orion402

" What it means in practical terms when the obliquity reaches a maximum (above 24 deg) what he calls the circle of illumination covers a slightly larger portion of the northern hemisphere in summer." MT

This is the last time I would object to putting words in my mouth, an all too common occurrence among those who fall short of what is necessary to consider the ever expanding issues.

In the past, I did use terms like the 'terminator' or 'circle of illumination' to satisfy contemporary uses of those terms, however, it is now more proper to use the light and dark hemispheres of the Earth to signify its constant orientation at right angles to the orbital plane. In the Northern summer, the Northern polar points turns midway to the dark hemisphere on the June Solstice-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OgLCH7jYp8

The maximum circumference where the Sun remains constantly in view (Arctic circle) is reached on the June Solstice and then diminishes afterwards as the North pole turns closer to the dark hemisphere until it crosses into the dark hemisphere on the September Equinox-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory#/media/File:EpicEarth-Globespin-tilt-23.4.gif

I genuinely do not appeal to anyone in particular here and it isn't a concern beyond that observations are available to determine current conditions using physical considerations of planetary dynamics. You can use conditions to determine anomalous events like the Big Wind without referring the 1839 event to planetary dynamics, however, it is not possible to use individual weather events to define planetary climate.

Orion402

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118002886#Comment_118002886

I am a Christian in the sense that it is as much that creation loves the individual as much as the individual loves creation and how it makes research into all topics possible. Some researchers understood this intimately so that any resonance of a particular topic with the reader, observer or listener lets us know what we put our values in-

" When a natural discourse paints a passion or an effect, one feels within oneself the truth of what one reads, which was there before, although one did not know it. Hence, one is inclined to love him who makes us feel it, for he has not shown us his own riches, but ours. And thus this benefit renders him pleasing to us, besides that such community of intellect as we have with him necessarily inclines the heart to love. 

Eloquence, which persuades by sweetness, not by authority; as a tyrant, not as a king.  

Eloquence is an art of saying things in such a way—(1) that those to whom we speak may listen to them with-out pain and with pleasure; (2) that they feel themselves interested, so that self-love leads them more willingly to reflection upon it.   It consists, then, in a correspondence which we seek to establish between the head and the heart of those to whom we speak on the one hand, and, on the other, between the thoughts and the expressions which we employ. This assumes that we have studied well the heart of man so as to know all its powers, and then to find the just proportions of the discourse which we wish to adapt to them. We must put ourselves in the place of those who are to hear us, and make trial on our own heart of the turn which we give to our discourse in order to see whether one is made for the other, and whether we can assure ourselves that the hearer will be, as it were, forced to surrender. We ought to restrict ourselves, so far as possible, to the simple and natural, and not to magnify that which is little, or belittle that which is great. It is not enough that a thing be beautiful; it must be suitable to the subject, and there must be in it nothing of excess or defect. " Pascal

[I have to add that self-love is the opposite of what is needed to move a topic forward while enjoying the insight itself so I diverge from Pascal at this juncture.]

There are no concentric rings of influence to struggle with, a noisy mob protecting henchmen who are in turn protecting a smaller group of academics, who are in turn protecting a modelling subculture that doesn't know the limits of experimentation and predictions. In the end it comes down to talent, a mixture of competence and confidence to deal with all the challenges involved and for that alone I am a Christian-

" And now, brother, listen to the conclusion. Above all the graces and all the gifts of the Holy Spirit which Christ grants to his friends, is the grace of overcoming oneself, and accepting willingly, out of love for Christ, all suffering, injury, discomfort and contempt; for in all other gifts of God we cannot glory, seeing they proceed not from ourselves but from God" St Francis of Assisi

That being said, it comes down to historical and technical details when discussing material, including why the people on this island knew they were encountering a significant event on that January night in 1839.

Gaoth Laidir

This forum has gone to the gods dogs

o1s1n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118005066#Comment_118005066

At this stage, all I can think of is this:

Orion402

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118005066#Comment_118005066

You would be one of the noisy people who are least likely to take into account physical consideration and, along with the henchmen, circle the wagons around those you imagine having some special status in a public forum. It's so predictable and childish, but the price of doing business in this forum involves encountering those who have some interest in the topic under discussion like a few contributors even if others have their own subculture going.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJgAwSMuSA8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyGsysGOf9s

The 'perfect storm' of 1991 involved the merging of different systems and I imagine something similar happened with the 1839 event however that plays out in January this far North. Nobody was asked to discern long term conditions involved in future Atlantic storms yet should people venture into that area, then they are going to come up against the dynamics of the planet which create the background for the hurricane season, Atlantic storms, Arctic sea ice evolution on an annual basis or any large scale event of this nature.

I suspect that more than a few people feel they are missing out on large parts of meteorology and planetary climate due to the confining nature of empirical doctrines which exclude the relationship between our home planet's motions and Earth sciences. The specific attempt to build up a narrative of climate using individual weather events or datasets is a distant second to observations which put cyclical variations in proper context, whether it is the 24 hour cycle, the seasonal cycle or the rate of change in surface conditions across latitudes (planetary climate).

Much like anomalous storms, the ingredients which go into distinguishing weather from climate are diverse in range and depth so that while I may appreciate individual weather events like the Halloween storm of 1991 using satellite data, it is left to people to extrapolate the details of the 1839 event without having to appeal to the motions of the planet.

Orion402

The emergence of 'bomb cyclones' may entertain those prone to hysterics, however, more measured and balanced people find anomalous weather events to be fascinating without sending them in the direction of 'climate change modelling' as is the custom nowadays-

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bomb-cyclone-noreaster-atmospheric-river-tornado-extreme-weather-united-states/

Living in Montauk, NY at the time, we knew it was a different type of storm 30 years ago in 1991 or the Halloween storm/ Perfect storm as it became known.

Anomalous storms are part of the complex world of geographical climate where ingredients surface to create havoc in local areas while planetary climate is a more definite topic and, in some ways, much simpler to identify conditions. Whether ice ages or warm periods represent a crossover between geographical and planetary climates is difficult to assess without a clear explanation for the seasons.

Dazler97

Yes this storm was thought to be a catagory 3 storm and a lot of people died