I have to respond to this libellous Geowizard post.

quote:

Actually I "went off on one" mainly because your first thing to do when I came here was to insult me and also because you are the biggest hypocrite here, of course I am talking about how you are paid by the IPCC to create there models. Perhaps you want to tell us again how you do not hold your views based on your funding, but again we will have to take you word for it..

If you read pages 2 and 3 of the following,

http://community.channel4.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9250037634/m/8440080787/p/2

You will find that I did not insult you when you joined this forum; it was other posters who were being rude to you.

I was actually making valid comments in a measured way about your draft document when you chimed in with: "I beg your pardon but I seem to have mistakenly assumed you could read." and then was rude to me because I'd picked the wrong one of two papers that your document cited to (because you had published it without providing the detailed references). Then (I can't believe it now) I actually apologised to you for any misunderstanding.

I ignored the fact that by calling your site a "convenient lie" you have insulted me and my friends and colleagues.

Now I know you a little better:

- I should have been more critical about your paper and your choice of website name since you clearly know very little about climate science, and you even admitted this.
- you shouldn't set up a website about something you know little about if you can't take a bit of criticism
- If a scientist happens to be an oil-industry shill who has prostituted his good name for money by repeatedly making authoritative statements that he knows full well to be scientific nonsense, then I can say that without being hypocritical because I don't say things that I know not to be true, and I don't claim to be an authority.

I look forward to receiving your apology once you've reread the links.

quote:

Originally posted by Geowizard:

Actually I "went off on one" mainly because your first thing to do when I came here was to insult me and also because you are the biggest hypocrite here, of course I am talking about how you are paid by the IPCC to create there models. Perhaps you want to tell us again how you do not hold your views based on your funding, but again we will have to take you word for it..

As for the site forum it got hit by a google bot and I will be removing the forum completely soon.

Who insulted you? It looks like you were doing the insulting.

And you're doing it again now.

quote:

Originally posted by Mubbers:
A shame to end this AGW love-in but is any of the above relvant to the issue of June floods?

If CC is now the issue and not GW does this mean that the UK will have to manage both droughts and flooding sequentially over a yearly cycle?

It seems to me that water management should be our main focus of this debate.

Clearly the UK is not geared up for managing water like this and we could do no worse than to take a lead from the USA when they tamed their wild rivers on the West Coast. Annually these would come from dried up wadis to raging destructive torrents. Many were dammed, solving both the issue of winter flooding and summer drought.

You don't see anyone in Las Vegas wanting for water!

But then Lake Mead is probably bigger than Derbyshire...

I totally agree Mubbers.

We should do the following to make sure we guard against all possible eventualities.

Build all properties on stilts at least 50 metres high.

Spend 10% of GDP on snow plows which will spend virtually all of the time mothballed because it rarely snows.

Turn 10% of the surface area of the UK into reservoirs so we never suffer drought problems.

Concrete over all moorland - because it's prone to fire.

All roofs must have a steep pitch because of the risk of heavy rain/snow.

Every part of the country must have lightening conductors at a 50 metre gridded interval.

Every home must have: 1 month's worth of canned food and bottled water in reserve, a bunker underneath it, an inflatable boat, flares and a SAR beacon - just in case. If people don't have these then they do not have the right to complain if something untoward happens.

etc etc and on and on and on and on and...


This preposterous need to assert that the Sheffield/Hull floods were a "normal" event is truly bizzarre. If you take normal in the sense of a probability distribution, it's unsupportable! By definition receiving an average month's worth of rain in <24 hours is not normal.

Abnormal things can happen - but we cannot plan our society and infrastructure around the abnormal. Unless of course the evidence shows that what was abnormal is likely to become the new normal.

CW - I like your style!

But more practically:

If it seems that flooding in certain areas is going to be a regular occurrence then why not build houses on stilts? Maybe not 50m high but high enough to park a car/boat underneath leaving the living accommodation clear?

Alternatively flood prone residential areas could be abandoned and turned into parkland. Other less risky areas of greenbelt could be opened up for housing to compensate.

I have family in Leicester. In their estate there is at least one "sump" that periodically fills up with water during periods of heavy rain. During dry spells it is a nice bit of grass, when it's wet - lots of Ducks, very nice and no flooding.

Why not put more of these sumps in high risk areas, with some more civil engineering they could be linked to the existing water main sending water back to reservoirs or to flood channels [Like the concrete rivers through LA].

Why not build more reservoirs? With fish in and with people sailing on top they could be both a food resource and public amenity.

Doesn’t everybody have a months’ supply of food and water in the basement? I do and I’m heavily armed.

They’re not getting me alive!!!!!!!!!!!

Mubbers,

I am out of sarcasm mode now - hell at work today.

There's a village near me that's hundreds of years old. For hundreds of years it's never spread to the North. It's spread to the south, East and West, but not the north.

So for hundreds of years it's not spread northwards, and that's for a very good reason. The ground there dips and there's a marshy little valley with a stream.

Now there's a whole new development of swanky expensive new-builds beyond the former northern reaches of the village. (And I am not mentioning the village because I don't want legal hassle from the developers). I don't know if it's flooded yet, but I wouldn't buy a house there. I'd notice the lie of the land and see the demarcation between old and new, and I'd think that there's a reason the houses go from late 18th century and earlier to early 21st century - people in the late 18th and earlier didn't think it wise to build in that valley.


So whilst I am certainly not dismissing idiotic new-builds and concreting gardens as a factor. I am saying that you can't guard against every eventuality.

The way that system sat over the same part of Northern England, pulling clouds off the North Sea and dumping them onto that area for hours was pretty unusual, as was the sheer amount of rain. You can't plan for all eventualities.

quote:

Originally posted by Mubbers:
...
If CC is now the issue and not GW does this mean that the UK will have to manage both droughts and flooding sequentially over a yearly cycle?
...

Clearly the UK is not geared up for managing water like this and we could do no worse than to take a lead from the USA when they tamed their wild rivers on the West Coast. Annually these would come from dried up wadis to raging destructive torrents. Many were dammed, solving both the issue of winter flooding and summer drought.

You don't see anyone in Las Vegas wanting for water!

But then Lake Mead is probably bigger than Derbyshire...

Mubbbers: you obviously don't live out here, and you really ought to read up on climate&hydrology conditions out here, which are *very* different from the UK.

There are fights over water all of the time, and Las Vegas in particular is quite problematic, as it already gets about as much water from the Colorado (Lake Mead) as it is allowed to [there are agreements, you know, that prevent them from sucking Lake Mead dry.]
See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10953190 for one example of many. LV wants to build a 300-mile pipeline to the North to grab water from some rural areas, who are not so keen about it.

In the US West, we've already built dams in most of the good places, we have fish problems because of some of the dams, and a lot of us are dependent on snowpack building up, and then slowly melting off. In CA, most of the precipitation comes in 5 months, and there are 5 months where it essentially doesn't rain. As it gets warmer, snowpack-runoff is more spikey, and can result in spring-flood + summer drought years. Water planning is a very serious topic in the US West, which is one of the reasons most of the state planners out here *have* to worry about AGW.

I don't know UK hydrology well enough to know whether you'll get the flood/drought thing; you at least aren't much dependent on snowpack-melt cycles. On the other hand, especially in the South, it's not my impression that you have a lot of big empty canyons in which to build big dams.

John_M

You are right I don't live "out here". The clue was in my subsequent words "take a lead from"

So it was not my intention to compare the climatic conditions of West Coast USA with that of the UK but to show how civil engineering projects can be used to effectively control nature.

Your article about "crops vs craps" was very interesting. I've been to LV twice and the impression you get when you experience water being misted over the crowds on the strip to keep them cool - is that water is in abundance!

quote:

Originally posted by Mubbers:
John_M

You are right I don't live "out here". The clue was in my subsequent words "take a lead from"

So it was not my intention to compare the climatic conditions of West Coast USA with that of the UK but to show how civil engineering projects can be used to effectively control nature.

Your article about "crops vs craps" was very interesting. I've been to LV twice and the impression you get when you experience water being misted over the crowds on the strip to keep them cool - is that water is in abundance!

I've visited Europe & the UK dozens of times, and it is quite reasonable that the climate&hydrology issues of the US Southwest are unfamiliar territory. However, it is clear that there are large cities in *deserts* that:
a) Wouldn't be very big without air-conditioning.
b) Bring water from a long way away [well, Rome at least did that]
c) Have been sucking aquifers down, which is not at all obvious on the surface. The nature of these is that everything looks great ... until you run out.

Simon Winchester (of "Krakatoa" fame) says that in Europe, people sometimes go to see ruined cities, but we really don't do that in the USA ... and that's because we haven't been here very long.

Anyway, I'm mainly saying: be really careful in assuming there are easy tech solutions unless you understand the environment well. To do the latter, I'd recommend:

1) Marc Reisner, "Cadillac Desert".

2) John McPhee, "The Control of Nature"
(including section on mudslides in CA).

Every area has its own issues, and those of the US Southwest are different from most of Europe, perhaps more like Egypt's. The growth in LV is IMHO crazy.

quote:

Originally posted by John_M:

quote:

Originally posted by Mubbers:
John_M

You are right I don't live "out here". The clue was in my subsequent words "take a lead from"

So it was not my intention to compare the climatic conditions of West Coast USA with that of the UK but to show how civil engineering projects can be used to effectively control nature.

Your article about "crops vs craps" was very interesting. I've been to LV twice and the impression you get when you experience water being misted over the crowds on the strip to keep them cool - is that water is in abundance!

I've visited Europe & the UK dozens of times, and it is quite reasonable that the climate&hydrology issues of the US Southwest are unfamiliar territory. However, it is clear that there are large cities in *deserts* that:
a) Wouldn't be very big without air-conditioning.
b) Bring water from a long way away [well, Rome at least did that]
c) Have been sucking aquifers down, which is not at all obvious on the surface. The nature of these is that everything looks great ... until you run out.

Simon Winchester (of "Krakatoa" fame) says that in Europe, people sometimes go to see ruined cities, but we really don't do that in the USA ... and that's because we haven't been here very long.

Anyway, I'm mainly saying: be really careful in assuming there are easy tech solutions unless you understand the environment well. To do the latter, I'd recommend:

1) Marc Reisner, "Cadillac Desert".

2) John McPhee, "The Control of Nature"
(including section on mudslides in CA).

Every area has its own issues, and those of the US Southwest are different from most of Europe, perhaps more like Egypt's. The growth in LV is IMHO crazy.

A gentle prod to Mubbers, would you like to come back to John_M's last post or can your silence on this be interpreted as agreement?

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=1770

quote:

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?

So presumably on all the days there is no flooding Big G approves of what we are doing?

quote:

Originally posted by Lost in Kate Winslet:
Its just weather.

Hooray. A voice of reason at last.

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.html

But keep slugging. You might connect.

ps.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176828,00.html

Models, models, models. Look at the past rise, and then maybe you won't get so excited by these models.

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.

Slippery things, these climate change concepts. Keep changing every time you look at them.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:

quote:

If housing was built responsibly and not on flood plains I doubt we'd be discussing this in the context of a climate change disaster.

That has likely added to the problem, but occasions of freak rainfall have gone up in the UK in the last 20-30 years.

Definiton of freak rainfall please, and figures comparing last 20-30 years with, say, the 1920s?

quote:

Originally posted by JL(SFC58,AFCB):

quote:

Originally posted by Lost in Kate Winslet:
Its just weather.

Hooray. A voice of reason at last.

No its not. Its not a voice of reason and its not just weather. Its extreme weather (for our neck of the woods) and it appears to be getting more extreme with time. 100's dead in China last week BTW. This is the tip of the iceberg. It'll be drought next - Ive just had a survey request from Thames Water who are planning for the eventuality.

JL, you keep on waiting to be led out of the mess by others (Is a Green Life worth living?) and keep you head firmly buried in the sand. Its about the most constructive thing you have to offer !

quote:

Originally posted by Seskinreay:

quote:

Originally posted by JL(SFC58,AFCB):

quote:

Originally posted by Lost in Kate Winslet:
Its just weather.

Hooray. A voice of reason at last.

No its not. Its not a voice of reason and its not just weather. Its extreme weather (for our neck of the woods) and it appears to be getting more extreme with time. 100's dead in China last week BTW. This is the tip of the iceberg. It'll be drought next - Ive just had a survey request from Thames Water who are planning for the eventuality.

JL, you keep on waiting to be led out of the mess by others (Is a Green Life worth living?) and keep you head firmly buried in the sand. Its about the most constructive thing you have to offer !

JL You didn't say "A voice of reason at last" did you? That's a very Daily Telegraph comment and the sort of thing that will increase the "procrastination penalty".

The sooner we act the cheaper and more elegant the solution. A prof just said that birth control is a 1000 times cheaper than other CO2 reduction measures.

quote:

Originally posted by Seskinreay:

JL, you keep on waiting to be led out of the mess by others (Is a Green Life worth living?) and keep you head firmly buried in the sand. Its about the most constructive thing you have to offer !

Seskinreay



I do not expect others to do it all for me. What I do expect is that those who argue that AGW does exist and who are better off than me should not expect me to lead where they seem unwilling to go. It’s fine for them to drive down to their second home in France, but woe betide me for wanting to fly to my favourite city (New York). It’s just another means of the middle classes wanting to deny others the fruits they have already garnered for themselves

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:
The sooner we act the cheaper and more elegant the solution. A prof just said that birth control is a 1000 times cheaper than other CO2 reduction measures.

So can we expect to see the greenies limit themselves to one child?

Hey - stop swapping threads, JL! This one's about the June/July/Summer-of-doom floods.

And, yep, as a "greenie", I fully endorse the one-child policy. I'm even tempted to join the massed ranks of the Lemmings-R-Us society, and leave you lot to the flooded, CO2-rich, uninhabitable inferno that this currently gorgeous planet is set to become (one day).
(or maybe not)

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
Hey - stop swapping threads, JL! This one's about the June/July/Summer-of-doom floods.

And, yep, as a "greenie", I fully endorse the one-child policy. I'm even tempted to join the massed ranks of the Lemmings-R-Us society, and leave you lot to the flooded, CO2-rich, uninhabitable inferno that this currently gorgeous planet is set to become (one day).
(or maybe not)

Actually, it was realprimate who introduced birth control (into this thread, I mean)

But again I come back to the science - floods are blamed on AGW; droughts are blamed on AGW. So where is the falsifiability which is crucial to scientific method. Figures please for precipitation predicted by the model, so that we can compare with reality.

If the models are correct (ie, NOAA on hurricanes), then this year we should expect to see one of the worst hurricane seasons in the Americas on record. The fact that this would follow closely behind the catastrophic events of 2005 in New Orleans, should be a tiny bit of evidence that something is awry with the climate.

You ask for falsifiability - but how long are you prepared to wait for AGW to be disproved before you will accept it?