Category: Uncategorized

Weather Forecasts & D-Day

Weather Forecasts & D-Day

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

By Paul Homewood

 

image

If you think it’s wet and windy today, just give a thought to the soldiers, sailors and airmen 73 years ago, who were fighting for their lives on D-Day.

I guess that pretty much all of us are aware of the role that weather paid back in June 1944, but it is still worth reading this analysis from the History Channel:

  

Years of detailed planning went into the D-Day invasion on June 6, 1944, but success hinged on one element that no military commander could control—the weather. In the days leading up to the invasion, Allied meteorologists delivered the most important weather forecast in history. If they got it wrong the Allies might have lost tens of thousands of men and World War II might have been lost forever.

In contrast to the bright morning about to dawn over Portsmouth, England, on June 4, 1944, gloom settled over the Allied commanders gathered inside Southwick House at 4:15 a.m. Years of preparation had been invested in the invasion of Normandy, but now, just hours before the launch of D-Day operations, came the voice of Group Captain James Stagg urging a last-minute delay. As Operation Overlord’s chief meteorological officer, the lanky Brit was hardly a battlefield commander, but the ultimate fate of D-Day now rested in his decision-making.

 

1944, aquatic landing craft, germans, normandy, battle at normandy, world war II, d-day, allied troopsAllied troops packed tightly into an aquatic landing craft wait for their turn to face the Germans at Normandy.Corbis

 

The disappointed commanders knew that the list of potential invasion dates were only a precious few because of the need for a full moon to illuminate obstacles and landing places for gliders and for a low tide at dawn to expose the elaborate underwater defenses installed by the Germans. June 5, chosen by Allied Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower to be D-Day, was the first date in a narrow three-day window with the necessary astronomical conditions. The massive Normandy landings, however, also required optimal weather conditions. High winds and rough seas could capsize landing craft and sabotage the amphibious assault; wet weather could bog down the army and thick cloud cover could obscure the necessary air support.

The critical, but unenviable task of predicting the English Channel’s notoriously fickle weather fell to a team of forecasters from the Royal Navy, British Meteorological Office and U.S. Strategic and Tactical Air Force, and as D-Day approached, storm clouds brewed inside the meteorological office. Observations from Newfoundland taken on May 29 reported changing conditions that might arrive by the proposed invasion date. Based on their knowledge of English Channel weather and observations, the British forecasters predicted the stormy weather would indeed arrive on June 5. The American meteorologists, relying on a differing forecasting method based on historic weather maps, instead believed that a wedge of high pressure would deflect the advancing storm front and provide clear, sunny skies over the English Channel.

 

Group Captain James StaggGroup Captain James Stagg

 

In the early hours of June 4, Stagg believed foul weather was only hours away. He sided with his fellow British colleagues and recommended a postponement. Knowing that the weather held the potential to be an even fiercer foe than the Nazis, a reluctant Eisenhower agreed in the early hours of June 4 to delay D-Day by 24 hours.

On the other side of the English Channel, German forecasters also predicted the stormy conditions that indeed rolled in as Stagg and his fellow Brits had feared. The Luftwaffe’s chief meteorologist, however, went further in reporting that rough seas and gale-force winds were unlikely to weaken until mid-June. Armed with that forecast, Nazi commanders thought it impossible that an Allied invasion was imminent, and many left their coastal defenses to participate in nearby war games. German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel even returned home to personally present a pair of Parisian shoes to his wife as a birthday present.

German Luftwaffe meteorologists, however, relied on less sophisticated data and models than their Allied counterparts, says John Ross, author of “The Forecast for D-Day: And the Weatherman behind Ike’s Greatest Gamble.” “The Allies had a much more robust network of weather stations in Canada, Greenland and Iceland; of weather ships and weather flights over the North Atlantic and observations by secret agreement from weather stations in the neutral Republic of Ireland,” he says. Those weather stations, in particular one at a post office at Blacksod Point in the far west of Ireland, proved crucial in detecting the arrival of a lull in the storms that Stagg and his colleagues believed would allow for an invasion on June 6. As rain and high winds lashed Portsmouth on the night of June 4, Stagg informed Eisenhower of the forecast for a temporary break. With the next available date for an invasion nearly two weeks away, the Allies risked losing the element of surprise if they waited. In spite of the pelting rain and howling winds outside, Eisenhower placed his faith in his forecasters and gave the go-ahead for D-Day.

 

Allied Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower speaking with troops before the invasion of Normandy.Allied Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower speaking with troops before the invasion of Normandy.

 

The weather during the initial hours of D-Day was still not ideal. Thick clouds resulted in Allied bombs and paratroopers landing miles off target. Rough seas caused landing craft to capsize and mortar shells to land off the mark. By noon, however, the weather had cleared and Stagg’s forecast had been validated. The Germans had been caught by surprise, and the tide of World War II began to turn.

Weeks later, Stagg sent Eisenhower a memo noting that had D-Day been pushed to later in June, the Allies would have encountered the worst weather in the English Channel in two decades. “I thank the Gods of War we went when we did,” Eisenhower scribbled on the report. He could also have been thankful for Stagg overruling the advice of the American meteorologists who wanted to go on June 5 as planned, which Ross says would have been a disaster. “The weather over Normandy contained too much cloud cover for Ike’s greatest strategic asset, the Allied air forces, to effectively protect the landings from German armor, artillery and infantry reserves. Winds were too strong for the deployment of paratroopers to secure bridges and crossroads inland from the beaches thus preventing German reinforcement of coastal positions. Waves were too high for landing craft to put soldiers and supplies ashore. The key element of surprise—location and time—would have been lost, and the conquest of western Europe could well have taken another year.”

http://ift.tt/1ktPsFG

 

 

I read somewhere that when people have nothing tangible to worry about, they become afraid of imaginary things.

For the snowflake generation, read climate change.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

June 6, 2017 at 12:00AM

New Paper: ‘Private Benefit Of Carbon Is Much Higher Than Social Cost Of Carbon’

New Paper: ‘Private Benefit Of Carbon Is Much Higher Than Social Cost Of Carbon’

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

Abstract: The private benefit of carbon is the value, at the margin, of the energy services provided by the use of fossil fuels. It is the weighted average of the price of energy times the carbon dioxide emission coefficient, with energy used as weights. The private benefits is here estimated, for the first time, at $411/tCO2. The private benefit is lowest for coal use in industry and highest for residential electricity; it is lowest in Kazakhstan and highest in Norway. The private benefit of carbon is much higher than the social cost of carbon.

[…]

Results

These calculations show that the private benefit of carbon is lowest for coal use in industry: $38-65/tCO2. It is highest for residential electricity use: $1,877/tCO2. The private benefit of carbon is lowest in Kazakhstan: $48-67/tCO2. It is highest in Norway $6,241-6,277/tCO2. The global average is $382-440/tCO2 or $1,402-1,621/tC.

There have been many estimates of the social cost of carbon. The mean of published estimates is $12/tCO2 for studies that use a 3% pure rate of time preference, and $98/tCO2 for studies that use a 1% pure rate of time preference (Tol, 2015). This is low compared to the private benefits estimated above. Figure 1 shows the cumulative histogram, by user, fuel and country, of the private benefit of carbon, weighted as above by fuel use. The private benefit of 0.6% of fossil energy use is less than the lower estimate of the social cost of carbon. For the higher estimate, 9.8% has a private benefit that is lower than its social cost. In other words, 0.6% or 9.8% of fossil energy use destroys more value than it adds. More than 90% of fossil energy use adds more value than it destroys.

There is an alternative interpretation to Figure 1. If a carbon tax is imposed equal to the lower estimate of the social cost of carbon, 0.6% of end-use energy prices would more than double. Other energy prices would rise less. If pre-announced and phased in, such a price rise would have only a modest economic impact (Clarke et al., 2014, Weyant, 1993). On the other hand, for the higher estimate of the social cost of carbon, 9.8% of energy prices would more than double. The CDF shown in Figure 1 also implies 36.8% would see an increase of more than 50% if the higher estimate of the social cost of carbon would be imposed as a carbon tax, and 88.1% a price rise of more than 20%. If such a carbon tax would be imposed, energy use would fall and the private benefit of carbon would rise.

In the middle of February 2017, the price of CO2 emission permits was $5.20/tCO2 in the EU Emissions Trading System and $13.51/tCO2 in California, while CDM Certified Emission Credits traded at $0.30/tCO2. The clearing price in the latest RGGI auction in December 2016 was $3.55/tCO2. These carbon prices have a modest impact on the majority of energy prices.

Full paper

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

June 5, 2017 at 11:28PM

The Most Important Weather Forecast Of All Time: D-Day, June 6, 1944

The Most Important Weather Forecast Of All Time: D-Day, June 6, 1944

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

Tuesday, June 6th, marks the 73rd anniversary of the D-Day invasion in Normandy, France during World War II and the weather forecast for that historic event makes for quite an interesting story in what turned out to be a pivotal moment in world history.

Years of detailed planning went into the D-Day invasion on June 6, 1944, but success hinged on one element that no military commander could control — the weather.  Defying his colleagues, Captain James Martin Stagg advised General Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower to postpone the invasion of Normandy by one day from June 5th to June 6th because of uncertain weather conditions in a weather forecast that was arguably the most important of all-time.

Background
There were no computer forecast models, no satellites, radar was in its infancy and being used primarily for military purposes only, and yet General Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower wanted a definitive weather forecast for the planned invasion of Normandy, France with no “ifs”, “maybes” or “possibles” attached to the wording.  With definitive forecast information required and thousands of lives on the line, it is an underestimate to say that the task was daunting for chief meteorologist, Group Captain James Martin Stagg, of the British Royal Air Force.  Stagg ultimately persuaded General Eisenhower to change the date of the Allied invasion of Europe during World War II due to weather concerns from the 5th of June to the 6th of June in 1944. There were actually three different teams of weather forecasters involved with the Normandy invasion including the British Royal Navy, British Meteorological Office, and the US Strategic and Tactical Air Force, but Stagg was given the role as the chief meteorologist and the only meteorologist allowed direct contact with Eisenhower.

The opportunity for launching an invasion was limited to only a few days in each month to take advantage of the moon and tide.  Darkness was needed when the airborne troops went in, but moonlight once they were on the ground.  Spring low tide was necessary to ensure extreme low sea level so that the landing craft could spot and avoid the thousands of mined obstacles that had been deployed on the beaches.  If this narrow time slot was missed, the invasion would have been delayed for two weeks.  Eisenhower had tentatively selected June 5th as the date for the assault which was one of the few days in early June that met these criteria.

Saturday, June 3rd
By Saturday, June 3rd, the forecasts began to be highly unfavorable for a June 5th invasion. High pressure areas were over Greenland and the Azores, with low pressure centers moving east-northeast across the Atlantic.  It seemed probable that the high winds and sea would rule out the 5th as D-day.  Nevertheless, “Ike” pushed ahead for now with his plans for a June 5th invasion.

Sunday, June 4th
There were two official weather briefings given by weather forecasters on June 4th.  At the early weather briefing on that day, the weather prospect seemed completely hopeless for a June 5th invasion.  All weather experts predicted seas heavy enough to swamp landing craft and a low ceiling, which would prevent the air forces from carrying out their part of the assault. Under these circumstances, the air commanders were unwilling to take off, and Admiral Ramsey, after being advised that the winds would reach 25 to 30 miles per hour, feared that the channel would be too rough for small craft.  Only “Monty” (General Montgomery of England) wished to still carry out the schedule. […]

Post D-Day
By D-Day plus 12 days, the flow of men and supplies over the beaches was running smoothly: 314,514 troops, 41,000 vehicles, and 116,000 tons of supplies had been landed on the American beaches, with almost identical figures for the British beaches.  Had General Eisenhower postponed the invasion, the only option would have been to go two weeks later, and this would have encountered the “worst channel storm in 40 years” as Churchill later described it, which lasted four days between 19 and 22 June.  In fact, Eisenhower sent a letter to Captain Stagg saying in reference to the major storm that occurred in the potential second time slot for the invasion, “I thank the Gods of war we went when we did.” For the rest of his life, in moments of stress, Group Captain Stagg would remember some words spoken to him by General Morgan, Eisenhower’s Chief of Staff, in the tension-filled days leading up to the postponement: “Good luck Stagg: may all your depressions be nice little ones, but remember, we’ll string you up from the nearest lamp post if you don’t read the omens right.”

Years later, during their ride to the Capitol for his inauguration, President-elect John F. Kennedy asked President Eisenhower why the Normandy invasion had been so successful. Ike’s answer: “Because we had better meteorologists than the Germans!”

Full post

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

June 5, 2017 at 11:07PM

The Guardian: Why We Can’t Trust Academic Journals To Tell The Scientific Truth

The Guardian: Why We Can’t Trust Academic Journals To Tell The Scientific Truth

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

Scholars complain these days that trust in science is in decline. But there are good reasons for it. If we scientists take to the streets to claim we are armed with the truth, only further disillusionment will follow.

Hundreds of thousands of scientists took to streets around the world in April. “We need science because science tells the truth. We are those who can fight the fake news,” a friend who participated in one of the March for Science rallies told me. I really wish this were true. Sadly, much evidence suggests otherwise.

The idea that the same experiment will always produce the same result, no matter who performs it, is one of the cornerstones of science’s claim to truth. However, more than 70% of the researchers (pdf), who took part in a recent study published in Nature have tried and failed to replicate another scientist’s experiment. Another study found that at least 50% of life science research cannot be replicated. The same holds for 51% of economics papers (pdf).

The findings of these studies resonate with the gut feeling of many in contemporary academia – that a lot of published research findings may be false. Just like any other information source, academic journals may contain fake news.

Some of those who participate in the March For Science movement idealise science. Yet science is in a major crisis. And we need to talk about this instead of claiming that scientists are armed with the truth.

Ninety-seven per cent of March For Science participants (pdf) want policymakers to consider scholarly evidence when drafting their policies. I, too, used to think that influencing policymakers was part of a modern academic’s job description. Now I am less confident in the validity of many research findings.

There are multiple reasons for the replication crisis in academia – from accidental statistical mistakes to sloppy peer review. However, many scholars agree (pdf) that the main reason for the spread of fake news in scientific journals is the tremendous pressure in the academic system to publish in high-impact journals.

These high-impact journals demand novel and surprising results. Unsuccessful replications are generally considered dull, even though they make important contributions to scientific understanding. Indeed, 44% of scientists (pdf) who carried out an unsuccessful replication are unable to publish it.

I have personal experience of this: my unsuccessful replication of a highly cited study has just been rejected by a high-impact journal. This is problematic for my career, since my contract as an assistant professor details exactly how many papers I need to publish per year and what kind of journals to target. If I meet these performance indicators, my career advances. If I fail to meet them, my contract will be terminated 19 months from now.

This up-or-out policy encourages scientific misconduct. Fourteen per cent of scientists (pdf) claim to know a scientist who has fabricated entire datasets, and 72% say they know one who has indulged in other questionable research practices such as dropping selected data points to sharpen their results.

Full post

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

June 5, 2017 at 10:30PM