The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[Essan]

Surely posting loads of arbitrary stories from years ago makes any comparison pointless? Might as well add in the Mount Toba explosion - believe it gave the record coldest years of the last ice age :lol:

And seasons do make a difference - how many news stories do you get about the mildest November night for 50 years compared with those for the coldest? B)

Edited November 4, 2008 by Essan

[Devonian]

Surely posting loads of arbitrary stories from years ago makes any comparison pointless? Might as well add in the Mount Toba explosion - believe it gave the record coldest years of the last ice age B)

Indeed, if there is no time limit both these threads are a point scoring nonsense since we just have to go back through time finding limitless examples of warmth or cold :lol:

I can see some point to the thread if now is the start point.

[Coast]

As you know, I don't normally post in here, but I thought this article was noteworthy and it seemed like the relavent place to highlight it:

Get ready for more storms

FREAK weather and flash floods will become the norm in future and the country must adapt or accept the consequences, the new head of the Environment Agency has said.

www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co.uk

Mr Leinster also insisted he would continue to oppose all housing planned for flood plains. "Climate change is going to make the potential for flooding greater," he said. "What we then must make sure is we don't add to the impact by building in inappropriate places."

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Coast! thanks for posting.

Sadly there seem to be a number of folk on this 'topic' who will not, without 100% proof that we are in such times, consent to our planet taking 'insurance measures' against the possibilities that climate shift brings along with it.

There are a few who feel it prudent, even without believing humanity has a part in the 'changes', to prepare for such eventualities but they seem few and far between.

Whenever 'extreme events' are posted (unless they seem to indicate global 'cooling' then the same folk seem to defend these with a passion) many will dismiss them as 'normal/happened before/always happen even though the frequency of occurrence of '100yr events' seems to be on the increase (take the amount of 'summer rain' some areas of the UK were treated to again this year). These folk appear to site human developments and their expansion as root cause/partial cause for flooding (though will also opine that humanity does not 'impact' on the environment) but will not accept that the frequency/ferocity of recent rainfall events are cause for concern or have had a direct input to the events (we need longer time periods to 'study' the subject to confirm it is happening).

I ,for one, have no problem in accepting such things.

I have been recently studying 'reports' of both AGW and events predicted/Associated with AGW in both press and science releases since 1985 (over 20 yrs ago) due to the concerns raised by a few 'more vocal' members of the board that 'recent media focus' on AGW is distorting the publics impressions/understandings on the subject. Many of the things recently debated on here were first mooted in the 80's (including increases in storms/extreme events) in both press and in releases highlighting recent scientific research/discoveries.

As such we must now be amassing quite a data set of changes in local weather patterns that straddle both the cyclical 'warm/cool' phases of climate within the UK. Recent NASA papers confirm the measurable increase in storms over Polar regions (over the past 50yrs...covering -ve and +ve phases of the PDO/NAO) so we must now be amassing enough Data to 'prove' that Boscastle type events are increasing in occurrence, no matter how many floods plains are built upon!

[Gray-Wolf]

mainly for the fact that ,the older the record chances are it is NO LONGER a record. Maybe there should be a check that the stories posted are indeed 'current' and that the record still stands. As I recall in 98' records were tumbling daily and in 2003 records were tumbling daily in the UK.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Surely, if we are indeed in a warming world, we should see the annual numbers of cold records decreasing and the annual number of warm records either increasing or at least holding relatively steady (or maybe even decreasing, but at a far lower rate than the decrease in cold records)?

I thought that these two threads were created to keep these cold and warm records from interrupting the flow of conversation on other boards. If so - and if you don't think it will prove anything - then what's the point of writing a post in these threads whinging about them? Just ignore them!

:lol:

CB

[Admiral_Bobski]

Regardless of whether flooding is more likely in future, building on flood plains is quite clearly insane. There are flood plains around Woking and Godalming that have been designated as such for generations, and we are regularly reminded of why this is the case. The problem is with councils and governments and construction companies who are so obsessed with making money that they say damn the consequences and build in places that our ancestors were bright enough to leave alone!

Greed and stupidity are a great combination...

:lol:

CB

[VillagePlank]

Greed and stupidity are a great combination...

.. and ends up with the stupid being greedy, and greedy becoming stupid.

[Gray-Wolf]

I thought that these two threads were created to keep these cold and warm records from interrupting the flow of conversation on other boards. If so - and if you don't think it will prove anything - then what's the point of writing a post in these threads whinging about them? Just ignore them!

CB

Clarification?

For instance, for the longest of whiles Antarctica was held up as a place where AGW was not relevant (or measured) due to a number of factors yet ,over on the 'Antarctic' thread ,we have a strean of 'record cold' reports???

If we accept that the UEA report is 'proof ' of human input into global warming then maybe we can accept them???

[Mondy]

Clarification?

For instance, for the longest of whiles Antarctica was held up as a place where AGW was not relevant (or measured) due to a number of factors yet ,over on the 'Antarctic' thread ,we have a strean of 'record cold' reports???

If we accept that the UEA report is 'proof ' of human input into global warming then maybe we can accept them???

I accept nothing the UEA report mentions. Simply put, their report matched a model...this makes it true?? I wonder what the actual model input was, it's assumption and then output? We won't know, except it matched what they were looking for (or at)

[BARRY]

Clarification?

For instance, for the longest of whiles Antarctica was held up as a place where AGW was not relevant (or measured) due to a number of factors yet ,over on the 'Antarctic' thread ,we have a strean of 'record cold' reports???

what are whiles and strean,if you click on the spell check then we might understand

[Admiral_Bobski]

Clarification?

For instance, for the longest of whiles Antarctica was held up as a place where AGW was not relevant (or measured) due to a number of factors yet ,over on the 'Antarctic' thread ,we have a strean of 'record cold' reports???

If we accept that the UEA report is 'proof ' of human input into global warming then maybe we can accept them???

What, forgive me for asking, has this got to do with my comment? And what, for that matter, are you asking for clarification of? You have confoozled me...(easily done, I know )

CB

[noggin]

Surely posting loads of arbitrary stories from years ago makes any comparison pointless? Might as well add in the Mount Toba explosion - believe it gave the record coldest years of the last ice age

I can only see 4 records that are not from 2008. Where are the "loads"?

Also, and not aimed specifically at your goodself, Essan, why is it that the words "cold" and "record" seem to bring out so much naughtiness in the warmist camp? I cannot see that there is any naughtiness in the "hot thread"?

"Life gets tedious, don't it?"

I can see some point to the thread if now is the start point.

OK, let's start from 2008, then.

Edited November 4, 2008 by noggin

[noggin]

Sadly there seem to be a number of folk on this 'topic' who will not, without 100% proof that we are in such times, consent to our planet taking 'insurance measures' against the possibilities that climate shift brings along with it.

To whom do you refer, G-W? I don't recall seeing any posts which say we should not do anything to "clean up our act", be it for reasons of climate change or out of a general respect for our planet and it's resources.

Dismount, please......

[Gray-Wolf]

if i had the time at my disposal I would gladly trawl through this , and other, thread and highlight the number of folk who do not wish to be 'penalised' ,by tax hikes, for something they do not see to be happening. the same folk are probably as culpable for insisting that AGW is driven by media and Govt's (for their own nefarious reasons of course).

In so far as high horses go mine is a few hands short of many of those decrying the validity of the AGW evidence.......

[Iceberg]

Surely, if we are indeed in a warming world, we should see the annual numbers of cold records decreasing and the annual number of warm records either increasing or at least holding relatively steady (or maybe even decreasing, but at a far lower rate than the decrease in cold records)?

I thought that these two threads were created to keep these cold and warm records from interrupting the flow of conversation on other boards. If so - and if you don't think it will prove anything - then what's the point of writing a post in these threads whinging about them? Just ignore them!

CB

Good afternoon Mr CB, surely climate is about averages though not records(peaks or troughs) hence why the posting of records is largely irrelavent.

[cheeky_monkey]

Regardless of whether flooding is more likely in future, building on flood plains is quite clearly insane. There are flood plains around Woking and Godalming that have been designated as such for generations, and we are regularly reminded of why this is the case. The problem is with councils and governments and construction companies who are so obsessed with making money that they say damn the consequences and build in places that our ancestors were bright enough to leave alone!

Greed and stupidity are a great combination...

CB

and you work in the construction industry do you?

[Thundery wintry showers]

I accept nothing the UEA report mentions. Simply put, their report matched a model...this makes it true?? I wonder what the actual model input was, it's assumption and then output? We won't know, except it matched what they were looking for (or at)

I would sympathise with your position if it wasn't for the fact that if the UEA report was downplaying the anthropogenic component your stance on it would almost certainly be the opposite.

And as for the construction/building stuff, to my mind it's a consequence of letting the free markets dictate everything because "the markets are always the solution". Free market economics often dictates that you build on greenbelt land, often on a flood plain, to maximise profit in the short term. Economists also use supply and demand- if there is mass demand for housing on flood plains in the South East, build them there, go with the flow. But there is a lot more to the world than money, profit, and economic "utility", and the social disadvantages and long-term flood risks are sadly ignored... until it's too late and the insurance companies have to pay out millions for catastrophic flood-related damage.

[Gray-Wolf]

... until it's too late and the insurance companies have to pay out millions for catastrophic flood-related damage.

I'm not quite so sure.

The U.S., and the way it's insurance comp's dealt with 'multiple strike' hurricane damage, is maybe a lesson we will soon be forced to learn. I think we'll find certain properties/areas becoming impossible to insure.

Sadly , in our area, the floods that took out Todmorden a few years back inflicted most of their damage on the old housing stock (terraced) whose inhabitants could not afford to insure property/goods and so lost everything (kinda like the Katrina N.O. experience but far ,far smaller).

It is not just about building on flood plains you see, our insistence on driving everywhere puts in place 1st and second order streams come extreme rain events , the need to take away rainwater ,intercepted by buildings, put further strains on the drainage systems in place and the 'flash floods' that result inflict their damage on whatever stands in their way......old or new built homes. This is a hilly area and the more we cover areas that used to 'soak up' rainfall then the more we build in the potential for flooding...even before it reaches established river basins and their flood plains.

If you've ever witnessed an area flood you'll know it is not just about it 'filling up' with the runoff from streams, water just rises from the ground as the water table rises. The more quickly you empty a rain event into valley the bottoms the more often you will raise the water table there to the point of flooding.

Yes it is dumb to build on the flood plains of the lower reaches of rivers but it is just as remiss to mess with the 'natural way' a landscape deals with extreme rain events by covering vast areas with impregnable surfaces.

[Admiral_Bobski]

and you work in the construction industry do you?

So you're keen to have a front room swimming pool then?

CB

[Admiral_Bobski]

Good afternoon Mr CB, surely climate is about averages though not records(peaks or troughs) hence why the posting of records is largely irrelavent.

I'm not sure that it's the records themselves that are of interest, it's the number of records that is being looked at here. Are there more cold records or warm records being broken? Are there more cold records now than there were five or ten years ago? Are there more warm records now than there were five or ten years ago?

If we live in a warming world then one would expect warm records to be broken more frequently than cold records, so I think we're looking at a comparison between the number of cold and warm records rather than the details of the records themselves.

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

If we live in a warming world then one would expect warm records to be broken more frequently than cold records, so I think we're looking at a comparison between the number of cold and warm records rather than the details of the records themselves.

CB

Were it only that simple C-Bob! If we accept the 98' Nino 'Blip' on global temps then a lot of records will have fallen then that will not be challenged again until general background temps approach those records or an El'Nino event of even greater impact occurs. This may give a 'skewed' view of temps until the 'background temps' have caught up.

At present we are told we are in a 'slowdown' period of the general warming trend as our cyclical climatic nature goes negative. Now ,in a warming world, the extent of the 'cooldown' will be less than is the historically 'average' but will not be breaking any 'records' at an accellerated rate (as I think you are suggesting a warming world might).

[jethro]

And as for the construction/building stuff, to my mind it's a consequence of letting the free markets dictate everything because "the markets are always the solution". Free market economics often dictates that you build on greenbelt land, often on a flood plain, to maximise profit in the short term. Economists also use supply and demand- if there is mass demand for housing on flood plains in the South East, build them there, go with the flow. But there is a lot more to the world than money, profit, and economic "utility", and the social disadvantages and long-term flood risks are sadly ignored... until it's too late and the insurance companies have to pay out millions for catastrophic flood-related damage.

Not quite; free markets dictate growth at minimum cost for greatest return. The majority of flood plain developments have happened because they exist within building lines of existing towns/villages, in order to protect greenbelt land. It's incredibly difficult to get planning outside existing building lines, the emphasis is to develop, and planning guidelines dictate, brownfield sites (ie back gardens, old industrial sites, waste lands etc) are to be developed first. Stretching or enlarging the boundaries of settlements is incredibly difficult.

The official government guidelines for density of housing has changed dramatically in recent years, it is this together with council targets to be met for new builds, which is driving the "build on anything" ethos. Flood plains are a real problem but at the end of the day all the developers have to do is demonstrate that at drawing/engineering stage, they have taken adequate measures to counter this with drainage. Problems tend to arise when one development after another, happens in quick succession in a local area. The root of this appears to be that the first developer does make adequate provision for drainage but this forces the issue further down the line; the next development gets twice the amount of water they've calculated for because they're getting next doors too. Half a dozen estates later and you end up with a few square miles of land draining or running off into a small area.

Although I personally don't work in the construction industry, hubby does - he's a surveyor and building control officer.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Were it only that simple C-Bob! If we accept the 98' Nino 'Blip' on global temps then a lot of records will have fallen then that will not be challenged again until general background temps approach those records or an El'Nino event of even greater impact occurs. This may give a 'skewed' view of temps until the 'background temps' have caught up.

At present we are told we are in a 'slowdown' period of the general warming trend as our cyclical climatic nature goes negative. Now ,in a warming world, the extent of the 'cooldown' will be less than is the historically 'average' but will not be breaking any 'records' at an accellerated rate (as I think you are suggesting a warming world might).

Regardless of the 98 El Nino, if we are in a warming world then the number of cold records should decrease accordingly - not to say that we won't have cold records being broken, but with a higher temperature baseline they should be becoming harder to beat than of old.

And even with the El Nino, we should see some kind of increase in warm records being broken over the last ten years if we are continuing to warm, since despite the El Nino's high watermark we are still going to get daily blips around the world that are over and above the El Nino temps. The results might be skewed in the short term, but over time a pattern should emerge, and I think that's kind of the point of keeping track of these records.

CB

and you work in the construction industry do you?

PS...!

I would like to add (rather hastily!) that I am not accusing everyone in the construction industry of greed and stupidity, but I'm saying that it does happen. It's not constrained solely to issues of drainage either...!

CB

[laserguy]

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/if...tory_change_it/

Tell me something I don't know. When we're all frozen and starving (if only because of lunatic 'green' policy if not actual cooling) this charlatan will still be banging on about warming,tipping points,blah blah etc because the 'statistics' tell us it is so. There'll still be some who'll believe it,and even more incredulously the role of CO2 in the whole sordid affair.