本帖最後由 mca 於 2011-2-20 03:45 編輯
講座中曾論及香港天文台有沒有專業天文望遠鏡。這是有趣的討論，所以搜集了以下資料供大家參考。
---------------------
文獻 WILLIAM DOBERCK – DOUBLE STAR ASTRONOMER
http://www.alanchuhk.com/Doberck-DoubleStarAstronomer.pdf
第 4.1 段寫出籌建香港天文台的三個理由：
1. Within the first thirty years of the setting up of the Colony of Hong Kong its commercial importance grew significantly, and this attracted increasing numbers of vessels to the port. Consequently, there was soon a need for a reliable time service, and the demand for a time-ball justified the setting up of an observatory.
2. The depredations wrought on the Colony by unannounced typhoons, and the extent to which the effects of these could be ameliorated—as evidenced by the warnings heeded in the Bay of Bengal and, after 1880, by warnings issued from the observatory in Manila—were yet another justification for such a proposal.
3. Finally, the Royal Society in London was keen to monitor geophysical phenomena, and particularly geomagnetic variations, on a global scale and by establishing an observatory in Hong Kong a major gap in the coverage would be plugged.
從第一點我們可以理解為什麼 「香港天文台」 長期隸屬於經濟局 (2007 年重組後改叫商務及經濟發展局)。「香港天文台」最早期的工作只有授時 (time-service)、氣象觀測 (meteorological observations) 和地磁監察 (geomagnetic monitoring)。天氣預報要到開台後九年才有。
原文第 4.2 段說香港天文台成立前，在港測量師 Palmer 已選定台址的緯度，但他的建台預算案被否決，後來總測量師 Price 把預算減半 (收窄範圍至授時、小規模氣象觀測和地磁監察) 才獲批准，1883 年開台時設置一支 2.75 吋口徑中星儀 (Troughton & Simms transit telescope) 和一支 5.9 吋赤道儀折射鏡 (Lee Equatorial)，後者本來在 Bedford Observatory (原文 Figure 6)，只是轉借給香港天文台放在圓頂室裡，1914 年赤道儀運返英國，圓頂室亦在 1933 年拆除。有趣的是首任台長 Doberck 以 Government astronomer 自居，但港督卻潑泠水，見原文第 4.3 段這一句 “..... His Excellency the present Governor has decided that purely astronomical observations are not to be subsidised here in future, but the magnetic observations are to be continued.”， 由此可見，政府從來都不以天文意識營運香港天文台。
------------------
維基百科網頁 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Observatory
列出 Hong Kong Observatory 的歷任台長：
Former Director List
William Doberck，Ph.D.，1883-1907
Frederick George Figg，1907-1912
Thomas Folkes Claxton，F.R.A.S.，1912-1932
Charles William Jeffries，F.R.A.S.，1932-1941
Benjamin Davis Evans，F.R.A.S., F.R.Met.S.，1941-1946
Graham Scudamore Percival Heywood，M.A., F.R.Met.S.，1946-1956
Ian Edward Meni Watts，Ph.D., F.R.Met.S.，1956-1965
Gordon John Bell，O.B.E., M.A., F.R.Met.S.，1965-1981
John Edgar Peacock，O.B.E., B.Sc.(Hons.)，1981-1984
Sham Pak,Patrick，I.S.O., B.Sc.(Hons.), F.R.Met.S.，1984-1995
Lau Chi-kwan，B.Sc.(SYD.), DIP.N.A.A.C.(SYD.)，1995-1996
Lam Hung-kwan，Ph.D., F.R.Met.S，1996-2003
Lam Chiu-ying，C Met., 2003-2009
最先五個台長是 F.R.A.S. (Fellows of Royal Astronomical Society) 或相當職銜，此後八個台長都不是天文學家而是 F.R.Met.S. (Fellows of the Royal Meteorological Society) 或相當的氣象學家，從這點去看，戰後香港天文台的任務已集中在氣象方面了。
---------------------
Hong Kong Observatory 網頁文件 http://www.hko.gov.hk/abouthko/hko.pdf (中、英文版) 慨述了該台的範圍 ----- 氣象預測、輻射監測與評估、時間標準、地球物理 (潮汐、地震) 及提供相關科學資料的服務。所述的都不是由天文學主導，它雖然稱為「天文台」，但其角色更接近其他地方的氣象台，例如國內外稱的氣象台、氣象廳、氣象局。
---------------------
簡而言之，天文學是研究地球大氣層外的天體，氣象學是研究大氣層內的活動。前人以為天文學和氣象學都是研究 "天" 的，因而把兩者混淆。但現代天文學和氣象學都大大地發展起來，它們已經形成兩門不同的學科。
這是一段網上電台廣播的五分鐘錄音： 什麼是天文？ 什麼是氣象？
http://www.openradiohk.com/episode.php?gid=1&epino=1
--------------------
明末清初的顧炎武《日知錄》曰：「三代以上，人人皆知天文：七月流火，農夫之辭也；三星在戶，婦人之語也；月離於畢，戍卒之作也；龍尾伏辰，兒童之謠也。後世文人學士，有問之茫然不知者矣。」
白話是： 夏商周三代的時候，人人都懂天文，"七月流火 (暑熱開始減退)" 是農夫的話， "三星在戶 (三星照在門前)" 是婦人家的話， "月離於畢 (畢宿)" 是戍邊士兵的話，"龍尾伏辰 (東南方位)" 是兒童唱的歌謠，後來的文人學士，問起這些時他們卻茫然不知。
現代人往往誤解其義，以為古代中國天文科學很普遍。其實那時「天文」一詞是指天象，老百姓多以農耕或出海捕魚為業，自然要認識四季和日月星辰為作業指引，猶如今人慣用手錶和電腦那樣，我們總不能斷言識看手錶，識認星辰，識用電腦的人為天文學家吧? 不過漢代(?) 之後，皇帝禁止民間私習天文 (特別是曆法)，後來的文人學士不知天文是無奈之事，久居都市的香港人難有機會接觸星空，香港又有一個以天文台為名的氣象台，將 "打風落雨" 混作天文現象大有人在。
------------------------
「氣象之友」 http://www.fom.org.hk/introduction.html 對天文和氣象的解釋：
"..... 可是，不少朋友卻往往不能分辨出天文和氣象的不同之處，且常常把我們的興趣當作是天文或觀星。其實，我們的興趣並不是天文。天文是研究地球大氣高層以外的外太空，從發生於地球大氣層高層的流星雨現象、到外太空的太陽系九大行星、銀河系、星體的演化、以至宇宙的本質和結構等等；但氣象則是以研究天氣現象 (例如雲、雨、雪、颱風) 為主。儘管天文和氣象兩門自然科學所研究的內容大有不同，可是，很多朋友，以至不少傳媒，還是把兩者混淆了。"
-------------------------
Physics Forum 對天文和氣象的討論 (怪有趣的 !) 
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=439323
"Where is the distinction of the nature of the astronomical and meteorological phenomena, causing all these features, and in particular why in astronomy time so obviously is reversible, and in meteorology it is so obviously irreversible? Has put first of all that the meteorological system always contains a great number of approximately identical particles, and some of them are very closely connected among themselves. On the contrary, astronomical, namely the Solar system contains only rather a small number of particles, besides rather various sizes and connection among themselves is so weak that communications of the second order do not change the general character of a picture observed by us, and communications of the higher usages can’t be considered at all. Planets moves under the conditions, more favorable to isolation of some limited system of forces, than under conditions of any physical experience which we can put in laboratory. Planets and even the Sun in comparison with distances between them are the real points. Elastic and plastic deformations of planets are so small that it is possible to consider planets as absolutely firm bodies; and even if it and not so then, internal forces of planets have rather small value by consideration of relative movement of their centers. Space in which planets move, is almost absolutely free from the substance, obstructing their traffic, and by consideration of a mutual attraction of planets it is quite possible to consider that their weights are concentrated in the centers and are constant. Deviations of gravity from the law of return proportionality to a distance square are absolutely insignificant. Positions, speeds and weights of bodies of Solar system are at any moment known with exclusive accuracy, and their future and last positions are calculated easily and precisely – at least basically, if and not always in practice. On the contrary, in meteorology the number of considered particles is so great that exact record of their initial positions and speeds is absolutely impossible, and even if we would make such record and calculate the future positions and speeds of all particles we will receive only vast set of figures which would need to be rethought radically before we could use them. Terms "cloud", "temperature", "turbulence" etc. concern not a separate physical condition, but distribution of possible conditions from which one is realized only. If we collect all simultaneous supervisions of all meteorological stations of the world these supervisions will not make one milliard share of the data necessary for the description of an instant condition of atmosphere in Newton sense. They will give only some constants compatible to infinite number of various atmospheres and at the best capable – at some aprioristic assumptions – to define in the form of distribution of probabilities only some measure on set of possible atmospheres. By means of Newton's laws or any other system of causal laws we can predict for the future moment only distribution of probabilities for constants of meteorological system, and reliability of even this prediction decreases with time increase …"
-----------------
氣候 (Climate) 和天氣 (weather) 有什麼分別 ?
這網頁 http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/ 答得又妙又好 ! 
There is a variety of ways to explain the difference. Here are a few that may shed some light:
Climate is what you expect; weather is what you get.
Climate is about long-term records, trends and averages; weather is the day to day experience.
Climate is the sum or synthesis of all the weather recorded over a long period of time. It tells us the average or most common conditions, or extremes, or counts of events, or frequencies. Weather is a description of conditions over a short period of time - a "snap shot" of the atmosphere at a particular time.
If weather is the watch then climate is the calendar.
------------------
其他有趣網頁
What is the difference between meteorology and astronomy?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_i ... ology_and_astronomy
氣象是天文還是地球科學 (簡體字)
http://xmwb.news365.com.cn/ygb/200908/t20090821_2438471.htm
既然氣象台不以天文望遠鏡為主，究竟它們採用怎樣的儀器?
What devices are used for meteorological observations ?
http://answers.encyclopedia.com/ ... vations-100696.html
Dueling Springs: Meteorological vs. Astronomical
http://voices.washingtonpost.com ... rings_meteorol.html
The Difference Between Meteorological Winter and Astronomical Winter
http://www.weatherdudes.com/facts_display.php?fact_id=30
Using meteorological forecasts to predict astronomical ‘seeing’
http://spie.org/x35459.xml?ArticleID=x35459
---------------
補充資斜
1. 清代欽天監觀天的地方叫「北京觀象台」，晚清時 observatory 譯為「觀象台」。
2. 英文 observatory 是通稱，凡作觀測用途的地方都叫 observatory。
3. 如在命名中無特別聲明，observatory 一般解作觀測日月星辰的「天文台」，例如 Lick Observatory；觀測風雨氣象的則叫 meteorological observatory/station/center/bureau，例如 Shanghai Municipal Meteorological Observatory；觀測火山活動的叫 volcano observatory，例如 Alaska Volcano Observatory。 |
發表於 2011-2-2 19:28:03