Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
Not unique but extremely rare in June as the farmers counting the cost of ruined crops testify. I'm hysterical, your clearly very intelligent, articulate and a god damn fool!
Thankfully the powers that be seem to have cottoned on and are at least starting to move in the right direction.
LOL... On a purely rational level, adaptation policies towards minimising weather effects has been a constant feature of modern man's existence. This is no different. What has happened is that weather events such as these are rare but not unknown. Unfortunately the human condition is forgetful of the recent past and oblivious of risks posed by development near rivers. Even taking a hundred years of history to assess risk is ridiculously short. The human timespan for experiencing risks works against us. Regardless of what view I have on AGW, I view the weather as dangerous in itself. Rather than go down a dead end in terms of emission reduction, the most cost-effective response is to improve the flood prevention systems to cope with heavy precipitation or adapt the development to cope with such events (the Dutch are taking the lead here, not surprisingly, by building a housing estate which can float when the area experiences a flood). The insurance costs of this recent period of heavy precipitation will hopefully drive such a policy response. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lost in Kate Winslet: quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
Not unique but extremely rare in June as the farmers counting the cost of ruined crops testify. I'm hysterical, your clearly very intelligent, articulate and a god damn fool!
Thankfully the powers that be seem to have cottoned on and are at least starting to move in the right direction.
LOL... On a purely rational level, adaptation policies towards minimising weather effects has been a constant feature of modern man's existence. This is no different. What has happened is that weather events such as these are rare but not unknown. Unfortunately the human condition is forgetful of the recent past and oblivious of risks posed by development near rivers. Even taking a hundred years of history to assess risk is ridiculously short. The human timespan for experiencing risks works against us. Regardless of what view I have on AGW, I view the weather as dangerous in itself. Rather than go down a dead end in terms of emission reduction, the most cost-effective response is to improve the flood prevention systems to cope with heavy precipitation or adapt the development to cope with such events (the Dutch are taking the lead here, not surprisingly, by building a housing estate which can float when the area experiences a flood). The insurance costs of this recent period of heavy precipitation will hopefully drive such a policy response.
This is sticking plaster stuff not fixing at root cause. We're not living right and it will catch up with us eventually ! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
This is sticking plaster stuff not fixing at root cause. We're not living right and it will catch up with us eventually !
Oh blimey... You really have a strange notion of what weather is and what you believe it should be like. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
This is sticking plaster stuff not fixing at root cause. We're not living right and it will catch up with us eventually !
Well there you the AGW attitude in a nutshell. 'We are not living right and it will catch up with us eventually'. There must be be something in the human mind that makes us inclide towards religion AND believing we are leading bad lives and will be punished for it, it has happened so many times in our past. Well personally I think as rulers of this planet we have the right to do with it as we please. It is here for our use so we may as well enjoy it and stop worrying about how bad we are. |
| |
|
|
From the Daily mail website http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/new...5572&in_page_id=1770quote: The Rt Rev Graham Dow, the Bishop of Carlisle, whose district suffered horrendous flooding two years ago, believes the extreme weather is the direct consequence of mankind's lack of respect "for each other, for the planet and for God".
He said: "This is a strong and definite judgment because the world has been arrogant in going its own way.
"We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation, as well as environmental damage."
Strewth - is the above included in the models? |
| |
|
|
I have just spent the weekend helping my parents to pull up the carpets in their flooded house. They live in pickering next to a river and got about 4 inches, so let off quite lightly when compared to some.
However, they believe that this was caused by the weather, which tends to vary quite dramatiaclly on this temperate island of ours, and is not down to some catch all "you can expect more of this" and "the shape of things to come, thanks to global warming".
The temperature of this planet varies massively over time, on both the long and short term. And as such, so does the weather.
Remember this. Before long we will descend into another ice age. This will be a million times worse for humanity than anything supposed AGW can throw at us.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lost in Kate Winslet: quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
This is sticking plaster stuff not fixing at root cause. We're not living right and it will catch up with us eventually !
Oh blimey... You really have a strange notion of what weather is and what you believe it should be like.
I have a vague, non scientific, notion of the interconnectedness of everything - that is what I am banging on about. For such smart intellectual types, you guys have no idea really. Rulers of the planet eh!! |
| |
|
|
Question
I understand that the current raininess in the UK is being predicted to hang around through the summer and that it is caused by rain systems that are tracking further south than they normally would because of a La Nina event in the pacific.
From this I perceive the following changes
1) The cloud being further south will be more effective at reflecting sunlight back to space but also at keeping heat in overnight compared to it tracking further north.
2) The rain is falling onto warmish land and then eveporating so removing latent heat of eveporation from the surface as opposed to falling further north where it might help to melt ice but not affect evaporation profiles so dramatically because it's colder.
3) I suggest there is less outward Boltzman radiation from the UK compared to when it's sunny because the peak temperatures are lower.
So I see both changes in heating and cooling profiles because of the southern track.
Overall is this new track having a warming or a cooling effect on the planet?
Is it also failing to warm the Arctic so much as it usually would?
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Son of Mulder: From the Daily mail website http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/new...5572&in_page_id=1770quote: The Rt Rev Graham Dow, the Bishop of Carlisle, whose district suffered horrendous flooding two years ago, believes the extreme weather is the direct consequence of mankind's lack of respect "for each other, for the planet and for God".
He said: "This is a strong and definite judgment because the world has been arrogant in going its own way.
"We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation, as well as environmental damage."
Strewth - is the above included in the models?
Re the good rev DOw, Not sure about the god bit but he's got a point otherwise. Question, is the rate of Amazon de-forestation OK with you guys or not? Is it OK that a certain fast food chain is creating the motivation to de-forest Costa Rica? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Question
I understand that the current raininess in the UK is being predicted to hang around through the summer and that it is caused by rain systems that are tracking further south than they normally would because of a La Nina event in the pacific.
From this I perceive the following changes
1) The cloud being further south will be more effective at reflecting sunlight back to space but also at keeping heat in overnight compared to it tracking further north.
2) The rain is falling onto warmish land and then eveporating so removing latent heat of eveporation from the surface as opposed to falling further north where it might help to melt ice but not affect evaporation profiles so dramatically because it's colder.
3) I suggest there is less outward Boltzman radiation from the UK compared to when it's sunny because the peak temperatures are lower.
So I see both changes in heating and cooling profiles because of the southern track.
Overall is this new track having a warming or a cooling effect on the planet?
Is it also failing to warm the Arctic so much as it usually would?
It's often said that El-Nino's (like 1998) warm the planet, but it actually tends to be after the El-Nino(EN) subsides. Check out 1998 here. As far as I'm aware the EN has subsided and may become a La Nina(LN). I can only give a general hand-waving answer to the question "Why does the EN/LN warm the globe", so essentially I don't know. The current situation in the Pacific is discussed here on the same page as above. I think I also gave a link to a page on the EN earlier. Sorry - bit busy doing other things right now. PS, Have you heard about the floods in Texas and stupifying heat in central europe? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
I have a vague, non scientific, notion of the interconnectedness of everything - that is what I am banging on about. For such smart intellectual types, you guys have no idea really. Rulers of the planet eh!!
And this is so far removed from science as possible. You fail repeatedly to understand the simple fact that living on this planet is dangerous. Weather is just one such danger. Its very foolish to subscribe anthropogenic causes to this current spell of heavy precipitation. |
| |
|
|
PPS, somehow NASA appear to have missed The Wrath of an unevidenced-supernatural-being out of GISS Model E. But I've not really looked in detail at other climate models, so I may have missed it.  |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lost in Kate Winslet: quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
I have a vague, non scientific, notion of the interconnectedness of everything - that is what I am banging on about. For such smart intellectual types, you guys have no idea really. Rulers of the planet eh!!
And this is so far removed from science as possible. You fail repeatedly to understand the simple fact that living on this planet is dangerous. Weather is just one such danger. Its very foolish to subscribe anthropogenic causes to this current spell of heavy precipitation.
Sure its dangerous, life would not be worth living if it wasn't but there is such a thing as risk management. Science is one point of view there are many others. Your smart but very limited if you can't see that our cancerous sucking out of the lifeblood of the planetary systems that sustain us will be the end of our so called civilisation eventually. AGW is just one means, for all I know, of letting us know we are pushing the boundaries too far. Its such an ignorant thing to do. As Lovelock suggests we are the only species able to do this. Do you want a future for your descendants? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay: quote: Originally posted by Lost in Kate Winslet: quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
I have a vague, non scientific, notion of the interconnectedness of everything - that is what I am banging on about. For such smart intellectual types, you guys have no idea really. Rulers of the planet eh!!
And this is so far removed from science as possible. You fail repeatedly to understand the simple fact that living on this planet is dangerous. Weather is just one such danger. Its very foolish to subscribe anthropogenic causes to this current spell of heavy precipitation.
Sure its dangerous, life would not be worth living if it wasn't but there is such a thing as risk management. Science is one point of view there are many others. Your smart but very limited if you can't see that our cancerous sucking out of the lifeblood of the planetary systems that sustain us will be the end of our so called civilisation eventually. AGW is just one means, for all I know, of letting us know we are pushing the boundaries too far. Its such an ignorant thing to do. As Lovelock suggests we are the only species able to do this. Do you want a future for your descendants?
You're a Gaia worshipper, that explains the misanthropic posts. We're not in danger from anything AGW related. Sheesh, a 0.4C temperature rise unattributed to known natural forcings and you're forecasting the end of human civilisation. This is within the bounds of natural variations, you do realise this. |
| |
|
|
Also note that due to aerosols reducing surface insolation the observed warming trend of ~0.6degC/decade for the last 3 decades is actually less than what would happen without sulphate pollution, it could be anything up to about 0.34degC/decade. thats up to about 1degC in the last 30 years as opposed to the 0.6degC measured.
And there is no reason to see that as being primarily due to anything but CO2 emissions.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by realprimate: quote: Originally posted by Lost in Kate Winslet:
We're not in danger from anything AGW related. Sheesh, a 0.4C temperature rise unattributed to known natural forcings and you're forecasting the end of human civilisation. This is within the bounds of natural variations, you do realise this.
Not in danger? Sheesh to you too. Look at this link and especially Fig 6. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.htmlBut keep slugging. You might connect. ps. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176828,00.html
PMSL... Jim Hansen is not part of the consensus. As for palaeoclimatology, I have said repeatedly that you can't infer anything from dendro proxies - its just a projection of personal beliefs. Still, carry on with your cut & pasting. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
Also note that due to aerosols reducing surface insolation the observed warming trend of ~0.6degC/decade for the last 3 decades is actually less than what would happen without sulphate pollution, it could be anything up to about 0.34degC/decade. thats up to about 1degC in the last 30 years as opposed to the 0.6degC measured.
And there is no reason to see that as being primarily due to anything but CO2 emissions.
Considering that human sulphate emissions make up less than 7% of the total in the atmosphere, this is a poor figleaf. Oh and its 0.4C rise in the last thirty years, not 0.6C (thats the 20th Century). |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
Also note that due to aerosols reducing surface insolation the observed warming trend of ~0.6degC/decade for the last 3 decades is actually less than what would happen without sulphate pollution, it could be anything up to about 0.34degC/decade. thats up to about 1degC in the last 30 years as opposed to the 0.6degC measured.
And there is no reason to see that as being primarily due to anything but CO2 emissions.
Now there's a leap of faith. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by realprimate:
Deaths from malaria
NO THERE WON'T There is no relation in the spread of malaria to temperature one of the biggest break outs ever was in Siberia. the antarctic has mossy's! as for the flooding people are living on flood plains they place concrete on flood plains, the flood plain cannot drain properly, the flood plain floods! thats why it is called a "flood plain" people are interfering with nature by building on flood plains, also rivers change course ALL the time and not allowing them to do so causes flooding! these rivers have been flooding for a 1000 years or more! stop placing blame where there is none! at least come up with some convincing symptoms of global warming! to verify what I am saying, ask any geography or geology teacher! As for the rough weather and storms, NOT RELATE TO GLOBAL WARMING! if the temperature difference between the polls and the equator lessens, as in global warming, the frequency of storms decreases! the statement that global warming increases freak weather is directly in conflict with some of the basic principals of meteorology.... |
| |
|
|
What does cold wet weather have to do with global warming?
they'll burn, burn, burn!!
one day!
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Geowizard: quote: Originally posted by realprimate:
Deaths from malaria
NO THERE WON'T There is no relation in the spread of malaria to temperature one of the biggest break outs ever was in Siberia. the antarctic has mossy's! as for the flooding people are living on flood plains they place concrete on flood plains, the flood plain cannot drain properly, the flood plain floods! thats why it is called a "flood plain" people are interfering with nature by building on flood plains, also rivers change course ALL the time and not allowing them to do so causes flooding! these rivers have been flooding for a 1000 years or more! stop placing blame where there is none! at least come up with some convincing symptoms of global warming! to verify what I am saying, ask any geography or geology teacher! As for the rough weather and storms, NOT RELATE TO GLOBAL WARMING! if the temperature difference between the polls and the equator lessens, as in global warming, the frequency of storms decreases! the statement that global warming increases freak weather is directly in conflict with some of the basic principals of meteorology....
you rock geo' bringing sense where little existed "kate's" got her head screwed on right too DON'T PANIC DON'T PANIC DON'T PANIC DON'T PANIC
they'll burn, burn, burn!!
one day!
|
| |
| |
