[Synchro]

If you've not seen this, its well worth a look. No linky I'm afraid.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Synchrouk

If you've not seen this, its well worth a look. No linky I'm afraid.

I presume you mean this?

Doesn't seem too bad for us.

[njp]

Originally Posted by stratagem

Doesn't seem too bad for us.

Yes, I noticed we didn't get any clickable dots!

Of course, we already know we are going to have to spend more money on flood defences.

Edit: More specific UK impacts assessments here. I haven't looked at the site enough to decide if it's any good.

Originally Posted by njp

Yes, I noticed we didn't get any clickable dots!

Of course, we already know we are going to have to spend more money on flood defences.

Edit: More specific UK impacts assessments here. I haven't looked at the site enough to decide if it's any good.

Yes on flood defences, although I believe this is more of a problem of our own making than climate change. Perhaps some loss of coastal / tidal ares.

It seems to me that for our island, population growth and climate change both cause much the same problems, climate change is handy for taking the blame.

[Corey USA]

Maybe the reason there are so few dots is that the ones shown are the most publicly known areas effected as of now. I also suspect this may only be the first installment of dots to get people use to the idea that we are going to get hurt. If it was cluttered with too many dots it would slow the program running the interactive

Minnesota has declared a disaster in that our yield in crops are low due to drought.
http://www.grandforksherald.com/arti...7&section=news

[Synchro]

I'd agree with the fact that its not meant to be a definitive map, but an example of how it's a global event.

Originally Posted by njp

Edit: More specific UK impacts assessments here. I haven't looked at the site enough to decide if it's any good.

Hard to tell if this one is predicting from a climate model or just predicting what has already happened over the last 2 years.

In other words, one hot summer followed one wet summer, ok we'll predict droughts and floods.

[Corey USA]

or simply climate chaos

Or just weather.

[Corey USA]

Climate chaos is the extreme from the norm. Massive floods not seen before is more than simple weather. Man I miss NJP......

No, just weather and overdevelopment.

[Corey USA]

no response I am tired of this game.

[loz]

Originally Posted by Corey USA

Climate chaos is the extreme from the norm. Massive floods not seen before is more than simple weather. Man I miss NJP......

But when did we see "massive floods not seen before"?

This last 3 months we had the wettest May to July in England since records began in 1766.
But the previous record was in 1789. So in fact it was just a bit wetter than it was 218 years ago.
So what's the betting it was probably much wetter than this year on occasions before that?

So we had some heavy rain this year. So what?

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by loz

But when did we see "massive floods not seen before"?

This last 3 months we had the wettest May to July in England since records began in 1766.
But the previous record was in 1789. So in fact it was just a bit wetter than it was 218 years ago.
So what's the betting it was probably much wetter than this year on occasions before that?

So we had some heavy rain this year. So what?

Look at the number of records broke and when they occurred.

I am not disputing that we hadn't had it before. It the frequency in which we are seeing them now.

If you look into feedback loops you can see why you would see the wettest season in a long time. I have tried to explain before that there are both positive and negative feedback loops. The key about the feedback loops is yes they do occur naturally, the problem is they can also be triggered by our actions. So when you hear natural occurrence, just keep in mind, there is a possibility that we triggered that occurrence.

[loz]

Originally Posted by Corey USA

Look at the number of records broke and when they occurred.

I am not disputing that we hadn't had it before.

Yes you are. You said "not seen before"

Originally Posted by Corey USA

It the frequency in which we are seeing them now.

And how do you know what the frequency was before 1766 - only 250 years ago?

[TimeLord]

Originally Posted by Corey USA

Look at the number of records broke and when they occurred.


The key about the feedback loops is yes they do occur naturally, the problem is they can also be triggered by our actions. So when you hear natural occurrence, just keep in mind, there is a possibility that we triggered that occurrence.

and so a possibility that we didnt.

nice of you to admit it.

Originally Posted by stratagem

No, just weather and overdevelopment.

Hmm, just received a trolling infraction for this comment, in case it's too brief? I will expand it to show the whole rationale.

I understand climate change science to generally predict wetter winters and drier summers, the heavy rains we experienced this summer were reported by Sky weather and other forecasters as not being attributed to climate change.

Throughout history we have had periods of heavy rain, the flooding consequences of such simply worsten each time as we continue to develop and build on flood plains.

The overall point, as I have previously mentioned is we have our Prime Minister, our there in wellies, blaming climate change, whilst forcing through 3 million new homes. The Environment Agency itself has been overruled by government on a number of occasions on building schemes in high risk areas.

No amount of new taxes, reduced individual consumption, using CF lights or whatever else is going to change this, we will see heavy rain again, and it will flood again, only probably much worse each time.

That said I will no longer contribute as my views are clearly not welcome, this will no doubt please Corey who seems to think I play games. I do not.

[blearyeyes]

Originally Posted by stratagem

Hmm, just received a trolling infraction for this comment, in case it's too brief? I will expand it to show the whole rationale.

I understand climate change science to generally predict wetter winters and drier summers, the heavy rains we experienced this summer were reported by Sky weather and other forecasters as not being attributed to climate change.

Throughout history we have had periods of heavy rain, the flooding consequences of such simply worsten each time as we continue to develop and build on flood plains.

The overall point, as I have previously mentioned is we have our Prime Minister, our there in wellies, blaming climate change, whilst forcing through 3 million new homes. The Environment Agency itself has been overruled by government on a number of occasions on building schemes in high risk areas.

No amount of new taxes, reduced individual consumption, using CF lights or whatever else is going to change this, we will see heavy rain again, and it will flood again, only probably much worse each time.

That said I will no longer contribute as my views are clearly not welcome, this will no doubt please Corey who seems to think I play games. I do not.

Wouldn't worry about it - the forum's falling apart anyway and with the fact that NASA have 'miscalculated' the hottest years for this century, the whole MMGW pack of cards is beginning to collapse.

[njp]

Originally Posted by blearyeyes

Wouldn't worry about it - the forum's falling apart anyway and with the fact that NASA have 'miscalculated' the hottest years for this century, the whole MMGW pack of cards is beginning to collapse.

Much ado about very little...

Originally Posted by blearyeyes

Wouldn't worry about it - the forum's falling apart anyway and with the fact that NASA have 'miscalculated' the hottest years for this century, the whole MMGW pack of cards is beginning to collapse.

This is typical of the "sceptics": a tiny correction due to changes in data sources results in absurdly exaggerated claims that the whole statistical foundation of climate science is about to collapse! How about keeping a sense of proportion?

[andykn]

Originally Posted by nikyzf

This is typical of the "sceptics": a tiny correction due to changes in data sources results in absurdly exaggerated claims that the whole statistical foundation of climate science is about to collapse! How about keeping a sense of proportion?

Because then they might have to believe the science and not the irrationals and, 'shock horror', buy some energy saving light bulbs and turn a few things off every now and again.

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by stratagem View Post
Hmm, just received a trolling infraction for this comment, in case it's too brief? I will expand it to show the whole rationale.

I understand climate change science to generally predict wetter winters and drier summers, the heavy rains we experienced this summer were reported by Sky weather and other forecasters as not being attributed to climate change.

Throughout history we have had periods of heavy rain, the flooding consequences of such simply worsten each time as we continue to develop and build on flood plains.

The overall point, as I have previously mentioned is we have our Prime Minister, our there in wellies, blaming climate change, whilst forcing through 3 million new homes. The Environment Agency itself has been overruled by government on a number of occasions on building schemes in high risk areas.

No amount of new taxes, reduced individual consumption, using CF lights or whatever else is going to change this, we will see heavy rain again, and it will flood again, only probably much worse each time.

That said I will no longer contribute as my views are clearly not welcome, this will no doubt please Corey who seems to think I play games. I do not.

Actually I have rather enjoyed your posts. Why didn't you simply ask if I had objections?. I like debate The only one person I have objected to was Manhattan mike. for obvious reasons. When I object to content I come out with brutal honest and let the cards fall where they will.

I never thought you specifically played games (to clarify it was more to do with Manhattan mike than anyone else in that the others who insisted MMGW didn't exist would at least try to support their claims where MM failed to or even failed to acknowledge facts when you put them in front of him a link away. sorry for the misunderstanding that you thought it was you that I thought was playing games.), at least you spent some time trying to back up rather than simply blow off as MM demonstrated.

If I have a problem with someone I confront them before going to a moderator which I have only done once. (going to a moderator that is, and it was a protest of NJP suspension.)

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by loz

Yes you are. You said "not seen before"



And how do you know what the frequency was before 1766 - only 250 years ago?

Records implies when we started keeping them so the time before is mute to the comment I posted in that I use "record" not "history"

If I wanted to draw attention to the whole history of earth I would use history.

In the 250 years or so of the records I was saying when does most record breakers occur?

Here is the original quote in whole which has a different meaning than the 1/2 comment you quoted. when you add the second sentence that finishes the comment you can see it is entirely different meaning.

"I am not disputing that we hadn't had it before. It the frequency in which we are seeing them now."

without the second sentence in my comment I would have been contradicting myself.

[Stephen Wilde]

W've had 3 wetter than average months in the UK. Also cooler than average.

The weather circulation has been persistently cyclonic hence the wetness.

It has been cyclonic because the jetstream is further south than usual which is more like the pattern we had during the global cooling period before 1980.

The excess rainfall events were limited to just two. Both were the result of a similar cause namely a plume of hot air from the continent moving northwestwards across the UK and being lifted upwards by the cool air in place over the UK. There was a general lack of movement in the basic scenario so the areas of heaviest rain got stuck over the same areas for many hours.

There were two such events because the basic setup stayed in place for several weeks which gave time for more than one similar scenario to develop.

I have seen such repetition of similar events many times before but not of such intensity. The intensity is due to the size of the temperature differential between the two air masses. The more the warm air has to cool down the more moisture it has to release.

The large temperature differential was due to cool air further south than normal not air over Europe being any hotter than usual. Thus it would be fairer to say the heavy rainfall events were more a consequence of a cooling trend than of a warming trend.

During the period of warming between 1980 and 2000 summers were drier because the cool air stayed well to the north and did not collide with the hot European air as often. There were exceptions however. On several occasions cooler air did encroach south and caused severe flooding in Europe.

What matters in warming/cooling terms is how long specific weather patterns go on for. There has been a step change in the weather patterns this year which is bigger and more persistent than the lesser moves away from a warming trend that I have been noticing since about 2000.

It could all go back to a resumed warming scenario tomorrow but on past experience I wouldn't bet my house on it.

All we can do is wait and see.

[blearyeyes]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

W've had 3 wetter than average months in the UK. Also cooler than average.

The weather circulation has been persistently cyclonic hence the wetness.

It has been cyclonic because the jetstream is further south than usual which is more like the pattern we had during the global cooling period before 1980.

The excess rainfall events were limited to just two. Both were the result of a similar cause namely a plume of hot air from the continent moving northwestwards across the UK and being lifted upwards by the cool air in place over the UK. There was a general lack of movement in the basic scenario so the areas of heaviest rain got stuck over the same areas for many hours.

There were two such events because the basic setup stayed in place for several weeks which gave time for more than one similar scenario to develop.

I have seen such repetition of similar events many times before but not of such intensity. The intensity is due to the size of the temperature differential between the two air masses. The more the warm air has to cool down the more moisture it has to release.

The large temperature differential was due to cool air further south than normal not air over Europe being any hotter than usual. Thus it would be fairer to say the heavy rainfall events were more a consequence of a cooling trend than of a warming trend.

During the period of warming between 1980 and 2000 summers were drier because the cool air stayed well to the north and did not collide with the hot European air as often. There were exceptions however. On several occasions cooler air did encroach south and caused severe flooding in Europe.

What matters in warming/cooling terms is how long specific weather patterns go on for. There has been a step change in the weather patterns this year which is bigger and more persistent than the lesser moves away from a warming trend that I have been noticing since about 2000.

It could all go back to a resumed warming scenario tomorrow but on past experience I wouldn't bet my house on it.

All we can do is wait and see.

Notwithstanding the change in the jetstream, surely the fact that most of southern and eastern Europe had seemingly record highs, doesn't (from their view at least) seem to point to a cooling trend. Interesting you mentioned the weather patterns of the 1980s. I seem to remember a particulary cold spell during the winter of 1980/81 when temperatures in much of Europe were -15 to -20 for at least two weeks, if my memory serves me correctly. Can you say what the previous summer was like during this time?

[Stephen Wilde]

The record heat in south and east Europe was short lived.

The records were broken because the blocking effect of cooler air in west and north Europe stopped the hot air from Africa from spreading out.

Perversely one could say that the breaking of records in that locality at that time was a by product of the cooling elsewhere.

I'm still not saying there is necessarily global cooling. Just that the weather patterns no longer fit a warming scenario and it needs to be monitored.

I could check the 1980 summer but can't at present. Weather is so variable that I wouldn't like to suggest that this summer is necessarily a precursor to a coming cold European winter.

If however the jet stream sinks further south this winter then the warmer Atlantic air will go into the Mediterranean and N. Europe would be colder than average.

Predicting jet stream movements is like handling a bag of snakes.

I'm as interested as anyone in seeing if the present patterns continue. If they were to go on for long enough it would feed through into the climate records and suggest that the global temperatures are not as tightly linked to
CO2 in the atmosphere as many believe.

The heat in USA at present is a result of a similar pooling of hot air over there. The West, North West and North East are below average at the monment. Sacramento has had record daytime lows.

Last winter the jetstream came well south over the USA several times and many record snowfalls were recorded.

Interesting if jetstream movements could utterly dwarf MMGW effects. We do not know why the jetsreams move as they do.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

Interesting if jetstream movements could utterly dwarf MMGW effects. We do not know why the jetsreams move as they do.

You speak as though the jetstreams were somehow detached from the rest of the climate system, influencing it and yet not being influenced by it. I also don't see how jetstream movements (however caused) could be said to "utterly dwarf" MMGW effects, unless you mean in terms of their regional influence.

[Stephen Wilde]

I speak as if no such thing.

They are integral to the climate system but the models do not attempt to predict short term jetstream variations.

The jetstreams guide the temperate zone weather systems which give effect to the heat transfers from pole to equator or vice versa.

Generally jetstreams closer to the equator than average suggests overall cooling. Jetstreams closer to the poles than average suggests warming.

If there is a problem with the models in the way they predict cooling or warming the first manifestations will be in weather phenomena and those phenomena will be directed by the jetstreams.

It seems possible to me if not to you that the movement of average global position of the jetstreams for whatever reason ought to be able to create a greater global temperature change than that attributed to CO2 alone.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

It seems possible to me if not to you that the movement of average global position of the jetstreams for whatever reason ought to be able to create a greater global temperature change than that attributed to CO2 alone.

Well, that's the bit I don't get. Changing the distribution of heat around the planet does not directly affect the global temperature, although obviously it can have profound regional effects. Increased atmospheric CO2 levels affect the radiative equilibrium balance of the planet, so the only way to offset that would be to introduce some negative feedbacks in response. What feedback mechanisms do you propose, and what evidence is there that jetstream displacements alone might create them?