quote:

Originally posted by Lost in Kate Winslet:

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.

I'll worship anything that keeps me alive !

As I say your vision is limited to AGW and the science behind it (and possibly long winter nights alone with Kate Winslet?)

What about the religious, moral, philospophical aspects to mans destruction of "his" environment? How can I pursuade an intellectual such as yourself to use your considerable eloquence to draw attention to problems such as habitat and bio-diversity destruction to others? Rhetorical question !

The Rev Dow was mocked in an earlier post (not by you) but let me ask you this. I am an evolutionist not a creationist - but I do have a "religious" belief that "Gaia" fixed carbon over the aeons for a reason - to support life as we now know it. This was not a conscious thing just the forces of hazard. Is it OK for us to now dig it up again and throw it back into the atmosphere?

Also you neatly dodge the questions of de-forestation in an earlier post. So I'll throw in another - is it OK to substitute Palm Oil plantations for rain forest in the far east? Is this not the actions of a dumb species?

quote:

Originally posted by Lost in Kate Winslet:

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.

Suffering from PMSL? Bit of ointment should do the trick.

First the scientific consensus:-
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

QUOTE
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). ...M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].
UNQUOTE


Now Jim Hansen
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,476275,00.html
QUOTE
SPIEGEL: Who or what is responsible for the warming of our planet?

Hansen: I would say it's approximately 102 percent man-made.
UNQUOTE

Sounds like Jim's part of the consensus. BTW I now have a big blue book on climatology (£34.99) and thus have no need to surf, cut and paste ever.

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:
I now have a big blue book on climatology (£34.99) and thus have no need to surf, cut and paste ever.

I have stacks of links in my favourites, and loads of pdfs of published science papers so I don't need to spend £34.99 on a Big Blue Book on climatology.

quote:

Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:
I now have a big blue book on climatology (£34.99) and thus have no need to surf, cut and paste ever.

I have stacks of links in my favourites, and loads of pdfs of published science papers so I don't need to spend £34.99 on a Big Blue Book on climatology.

It keeps slipping out me hands. I think I got it in the "non-friction" section.

quote:

Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:

No amount of drainage will help when you have a month's average rainfall in less than 24 hours. Some things cannot reasonably be planned for. With the best will in the world the affected areas could have been hit even with careful anti flooding measures, As with Boscastle and Lynmouth valleys below large catchments have to take whatever flows off the higher ground.

Hum yes but you just proved my point, if the river takes to much water as in a feak rainy season, the river does what it has always done and is supposed to do, burst it's banks and flood it's flood plain! People build houses on flood plains and there house in turn gets flooded! I mean what part of this isn't clear??? Seriously if the flood plain wasn’t supposed to flood some times every years it would just be called a "plain".

quote:

As far as I’m aware you are correct in stating that the current weather is not directly related to GW. It's actually because of the recent ending of the El Nino.

This is quite plausible and it will be interesting when we get the global average temperature at the end of the year.....

quote:

But your claim that GW means less storms is (I suspect) based on some of the usual flannel from S Fred Singer (Purveyor of the lowest quality flannel and former lobbyist for the tobacco industry). It’s not evidenced and it’s "directly in conflict with some of the basic principals of meteorology"

Actually NO I quoted Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. NOT S Fred Singer but it is interesting how you attacked the person before the argument....

quote:

The Met office have already found that there is an upward trend in specific humidity at the rate predicted by Clausius Clapeyron in response to GW, together with no change in relative humidity. This suggests that what is expected is happening: The warming is increasing the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere.

More water vapour gives more energy to the storm because as warm air rises and adiabatically cools it gives out the latent heat of evaporation it took up to evaporate in the first place, this gives more energy for storms.

You are however here quoting Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). this is a nice example of quoting without first researching the argument. as Prof. Sloan outlines this "humidity" explanation is impossible as storms need very dry air to form.... see below for full quote!

“If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less -- hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.“ (Sloan, 2006)

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:
Sounds like Jim's part of the consensus. BTW I now have a big blue book on climatology (£34.99) and thus have no need to surf, cut and paste ever.

I'm sorry are you sugesting that all of your arguments are now based on ONE book?? I'm sorry but I will persionally take reading lots of papers, meeting other climatologists, doing my on research, taking my own samples and reading several books, then your ONE book.

GeoWizard,

You misunderstand the point about the flooding. If you get a months rain in < 24 hours you can get flooing even in areas that have been built on for hundreds of years. The rain that caused those floods was exceptional.


Yes this year's on course to be the warmest in the global record - because of the El-Nino.


So it's "Sloan" that's the source??? Because that idea has been doing the rounds for ages. I used that argument when I was a sceptic.

Actually. Alfred P Sloan was a founder of General Motors, Richard Lindzen is the "Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT". He's one of the regular quote sources of the contrarist fringe.


I don't need to quote mine, I follow the science as a hobby. So no I was not quoting from Houghton, I was relaying my understanding

I didn't even know that Houghton had said that, but it ties in with my understanding and almost all I've read. I'm not quote swapping - I have taken the time to learn the subject.

It's quite simple:

1) Theory: the release of latent heat on condensation of water vapour with adiabatic cooling.

2) Observation: Hurricanes intensify when the cross warmer water. Storms are generally more powerful in warmer climates than cooler.

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:

quote:

Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:
I now have a big blue book on climatology (£34.99) and thus have no need to surf, cut and paste ever.

I have stacks of links in my favourites, and loads of pdfs of published science papers so I don't need to spend £34.99 on a Big Blue Book on climatology.

It keeps slipping out me hands. I think I got it in the "non-friction" section.

Wah, wah, Waaaah.........

Geowizard

quote:

If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator

So why is the Antarctic getting colder?

quote:

So why is the Antarctic getting colder?

My understanding is that over the last 150 years Antarctica has probably got a bit warmer, but more recently the trend is described in the following link:

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17257

The models do not show strong Antarctic warming, though they do show strong Arctic warming. In the models the large southern ocean buffers the warming.

Back to the floods themselves...

I was fairly appalled at the amount of waste that the floods are going create. I know it's been extremely traumatic for those involved, but the scenes of piles of furniture that were due for the tip outside houses, including metal tables, and other furniture that looked otherwise undamaged, was just shocking. 50 years ago, maybe even less, people would have been much more prepared to salvage and reuse what they could in such a situation.

I was struck by a flood a few years ago, and managed to salvage the TV and other things that were affected. Once they were cleaned and dry, they worked fine, and I'm still using them 5 years on with no problems.

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
Back to the floods themselves...

I was fairly appalled at the amount of waste that the floods are going create. I know it's been extremely traumatic for those involved, but the scenes of piles of furniture that were due for the tip outside houses, including metal tables, and other furniture that looked otherwise undamaged, was just shocking. 50 years ago, maybe even less, people would have been much more prepared to salvage and reuse what they could in such a situation.

I was struck by a flood a few years ago, and managed to salvage the TV and other things that were affected. Once they were cleaned and dry, they worked fine, and I'm still using them 5 years on with no problems.

I totally agree, its this mindset that will be our undoing: its only a TV, only a table, only a rain forest !!

The other thing that struck me is the expectation that the Councils can and will be able to bail out those affected. And yet people complain about how high their council tax is.

If people were prepared to pay a little extra each year into collective contingency funds, then maybe councils would be better able to help out at times like this - sort of collective insurance (but without an insurance company making massive profits off it in the meantime). Then, if funds are not used after a few years, maybe the money could be put back into schools and hospitals in the region...

Just a thought...

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
The other thing that struck me is the expectation that the Councils can and will be able to bail out those affected. And yet people complain about how high their council tax is.

If people were prepared to pay a little extra each year into collective contingency funds, then maybe councils would be better able to help out at times like this - sort of collective insurance (but without an insurance company making massive profits off it in the meantime). Then, if funds are not used after a few years, maybe the money could be put back into schools and hospitals in the region...

Just a thought...

This is actually a very nice idea but unrealistic... the best idea for humans as told several times before MOVE AWAY FROM FLOOD PLAINS!!

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Geowizard

quote:

If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator

So why is the Antarctic getting colder?

as steve_m pointed out the polls ARE getting warmer....

where did you hear they where getting colder????

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
The other thing that struck me is the expectation that the Councils can and will be able to bail out those affected. And yet people complain about how high their council tax is.

If people were prepared to pay a little extra each year into collective contingency funds, then maybe councils would be better able to help out at times like this - sort of collective insurance (but without an insurance company making massive profits off it in the meantime). Then, if funds are not used after a few years, maybe the money could be put back into schools and hospitals in the region...

Just a thought...

This was debated on R5 this morning. There were some horrific stories of disadvantaged people in places like Hull and Doncaster who were literally trapped and left for dead in their homes. Some of these cannot or will not pay for insurance let alone contingency funding. Many callers were totally unsympathetic, but I think there is a humanitarian aspect to this that the tax payer should fund. If it occured in Westminister and district (as it surely one day will) I wonder what the attitude will be then?

quote:

Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
GeoWizard,

You misunderstand the point about the flooding. If you get a months rain in < 24 hours you can get flooing even in areas that have been built on for hundreds of years. The rain that caused those floods was exceptional.

and for hundreds of years they have been flodded or sometimes they don't flood for 1000 years but they ALWAYS eventually flood. Or as I pointed out before rivers change course ristricting river banks with concrete causes flooding when the river decides to change course.

[QUOTEYes this year's on course to be the warmest in the global record - because of the El-Nino.[/QUOTE]

I think you might want to re-phrase here "the warmest year in the last 300 or so years"

quote:

I don't need to quote mine, I follow the science as a hobby. So no I was not quoting from Houghton, I was relaying my understanding

I didn't even know that Houghton had said that, but it ties in with my understanding and almost all I've read. I'm not quote swapping - I have taken the time to learn the subject.

I quoted a know scientist as they was a nice round up of how the initial argument did not make sense. I on the other had have a degree in Geology at UCD (University College Dublin)and I am currently doing research for a masters in paleoclimatology and enviromental science. so before you start assuming I don't know what I am talking about "I'm not quote swapping - I have taken the time to learn the subject"

quote:

It's quite simple:


2) Observation: Hurricanes intensify when the cross warmer water. Storms are generally more powerful in warmer climates than cooler.

Storms occur because of geographical locations and geology, also they occur in warmer climates because that is where the cold air meets the warm... you can get hurricanes in england!

quote:

Originally posted by Seskinreay:
This was debated on R5 this morning. There were some horrific stories of disadvantaged people in places like Hull and Doncaster who were literally trapped and left for dead in their homes. Some of these cannot or will not pay for insurance let alone contingency funding. Many callers were totally unsympathetic, but I think there is a humanitarian aspect to this that the tax payer should fund. If it occured in Westminister and district (as it surely one day will) I wonder what the attitude will be then?

If this sort of thing is going to become more likely, then maybe the government should levy an environmental disaster tax, payable by everyone. Maybe this should even be levied across the EU?

It's not just householders that are affected. Farmers have lost large proportions of their crops at a time when farming is already difficult because they have to compete against the rest of the world.

quote:

Originally posted by Geowizard:
. you can get hurricanes in england!

Thought you needed an average surface sea temp of 26 degs C? (Hint. Correct term for hurricane is Tropical Cyclone)

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:

quote:

Originally posted by Seskinreay:
This was debated on R5 this morning. There were some horrific stories of disadvantaged people in places like Hull and Doncaster who were literally trapped and left for dead in their homes. Some of these cannot or will not pay for insurance let alone contingency funding. Many callers were totally unsympathetic, but I think there is a humanitarian aspect to this that the tax payer should fund. If it occured in Westminister and district (as it surely one day will) I wonder what the attitude will be then?

If this sort of thing is going to become more likely, then maybe the government should levy an environmental disaster tax, payable by everyone. Maybe this should even be levied across the EU?

It's not just householders that are affected. Farmers have lost large proportions of their crops at a time when farming is already difficult because they have to compete against the rest of the world.

I agree, but hey its JUST weather !!

GeoWizard,

I agree about building on floodplains, but that was an unusual rain event.

Let's not forget, it that was my reply to your initial implication I was just quoting from Houghton. My degree's in electronics - so my study tends to the physics side.

I wouldn't want to re-phrase to the warmest in 300 years because whilst the Central england Temperature record goes back that far, the global instrumental record certainly does not, and I avoid the proxy records due to their uncertainty. Although it's looking more likely that we're warmer now than in the last 2000 years - I'm not going be strident about that.