Disaster

[Yorkshiresnows]

Hello All,

Just caught my eye the piece on whether we can call the extreme heatwave of Russia, as evidence of anything.

Clearly not to my mind.

If you look at the analogues of El Nino Years on the wane (sorry, at work and do not have the data to hand) you can clearly see that for the last 5 El-Nino events, there has been hot dry summers in Europe ... particularly to the East.

There's a nice video link that dicusses this very point.

http://www.accuweath...hannel=vbbastaj

What we are seeing are just patterns of weather than can be more or less predicted (though this summers weather was predicted to be cool from the climate models !).

Sure, as we are warmer now than 30 years ago, the chances that these patterns of weather will deliver hotter or more extreme periods than previously would seem right ... I'd agree with that.

Its been a pretty brutal winter in the Southern hemisphere, but of course there are less areas of population close to the antarctic regions and hence we see less news reports concerning this as opposed to heat in Europe .... or indeed cold and snow as per this past winter.

Its still been one of the coldest summers in the high arctic for many a year ...... you have to go back to 1958 for something similar.

With LA Nina now looking to be a strong event, cooling off would seem a dead cert for the latter part of this year and into next. Quite where we will end up next year will be very interesting to see.

Y.S

Edited August 10, 2010 by Yorkshiresnows

[weather eater]

http://news.yahoo.co...9/wl_csm/318660

Seems the scale of the Russian fires tripled last week! It also appears that Moscows daily 'death rate' has doubled since the smog came in so folk are now taking them more serious with an apparent 'greening' of the population as they turn to AGW as a reason for the extended drought.

As we've always suspected when bad things happen climate questions appear more like climate answers to the folk involved be they Inuit, Muscovich or chinese?

EDIT: And the russians saying that their fires and the Asian floods are 'in line' with what to expect from climate shift.....

http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0808-hance_russia_asia.html

Climate change partly to blame for Russian heat wave, this on the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10919460

The Chinese are saying that the floods in China are the worse in decade, whether that means its just a 1 in 10 year event or that they consider these events are becoming more regular is unclear. Incidentally GW the Boscastle flood is another that cannot be called, a 1 in 100 year event, because a similar event happened in 1952 at Lynmouth. While it is more than likely that AGW is contributing to freak weather events, it is patently not the only factor and frankly at with nearly 50 years on the planet, I remain unconvinced that these are becoming worse or more frequent at least not yet. Yes SSS heat records are more often being broken than cold ones, even the sceptics admit the planet is warming. on a personal level I have no doubt that man is more likely to be the major contributor to that warming. I do, as I said in my earlier post ,feel that the constant referring to climate change every time the weather does something unusual is counter productive and making the public less accepting of the science, rather than more.

[weather eater]

On the subject of Notable British deluges, we can add

8 inches at Seathwaite, 12th November 1897

8.1 inches in 48hrs, Brundell near Norwich August 1912

8.2 inches at Kinlochquoich 11th October 1916

9.6 inches Bruton (Somerset) 28th June 1917

7.9 inches Bridgewater 18th August 1924, that was in 5 hours,

11 inches Martinstown Dorset 15 July 1955

And I could list a whole host more

The Boscastle rainfall was about 7 inches. So actually nowhere near a 1 in a 100 year event, Incidentally the Rainfall that caused the Flood in Lynmouth was even heavier at 8.9 inches.

[Devonian]

On the subject of Notable British deluges, we can add

8 inches at Seathwaite, 12th November 1897

8.1 inches in 48hrs, Brundell near Norwich August 1912

8.2 inches at Kinlochquoich 11th October 1916

9.6 inches Bruton (Somerset) 28th June 1917

7.9 inches Bridgewater 18th August 1924, that was in 5 hours,

11 inches Martinstown Dorset 15 July 1955

And I could list a whole host more

The Boscastle rainfall was about 7 inches. So actually nowhere near a 1 in a 100 year event, Incidentally the Rainfall that caused the Flood in Lynmouth was even heavier at 8.9 inches.

Oh, yes, indeed.

But (and I can't find the issue concerned :unsure: ) I seem to remember that the Boscastle record was a smidgeon over 200mm and a likely point total of 300mm? And on the subject of points, aren't these return periods for point localities not national?

[weather eater]

Oh, yes, indeed.

But (and I can't find the issue concerned :blink: ) I seem to remember that the Boscastle record was a smidgeon over 200mm and a likely point total of 300mm? And on the subject of points, aren't these return periods for point localities not national?

200mm is 7.67 inches.

On your second point, you might well be right, but even if that is how these things are judged, then a flood in Boscastle of that magnitude still remains a 1 in a 100 year event and thus it still says nothing about AGW, unless of course Boscastle suffers a similar situation between now and 2104. Just to add to that, Boscastle suffered significant floods in, 1847, 1957, 1958, 1963, and 1996, although not on the magnitude of 2004. There is another reason we should be wary of using flash floods as pointers to AGW, as all to often the reasons for them is down to other human activities, re routing river courses etc, this was a significant factor in the Lynmouth disaster. The point Is DEV that the Boscastle flood has no significance in terms of AGW, Similar types of deluge happen somewhere in UK on a regular basis, given its position surrounded by sea that should be no surprise, even despite our small size.

I also think its a mistake to read too much into clusters of events, What’s the old saying, bad things come in threes, they also come in fours fives sixes etc. I’m always put in mind of that period in the late 80s, 87, 88, 89.

The capsizing of the Herald of Free Enterprise,

The Marchioness disaster,

The kings Cross fire,

The M1 plane crash at Kegworth,

The Lockerbie bomb,

The Hungerford massacre,

The Remembrance Day Bombing,

The piper alpha disaster,

The Clapham junction train crash,

The Purley rail crash,

The Hillsborough football disaster,

The deal barracks bombing,

And lets not forget the great storm.

All of these in three years, and affecting the UK, I can remember thinking at the time, what on earth is going on.

Don’t get me wrong DEV I am not saying that recent weather events that we have seen, have defiantly nothing to do with AGW, just that we should not fall into the trap of thinking that because we know that AGW is happening then it falls into place that all unusual weather events are only happening or are all enhanced because of it. The public need to make informed opinions based on accurate science, not on gut feelings or guess work even if those guesses are well intentioned.

At the moment its hardly a surprise that the public is becoming increasingly sceptical about AGW stories in the media, when mostly what they are being dished up is not explained science, its just sound bites of the sort that our politicians would be proud of. That scepticism should be of enormous concern, especially as the public appear to becoming sceptical off their own backs. Frankly I doubt most are aware of who the AGW sceptics are, or what they believe ( or at least purport to believe).

Edited August 10, 2010 by weather eater

[Devonian]

200mm is 7.67 inches.

On your second point...

Well, in fact I suspect we agree more than might be obvious - though I don't see why you think none weather related disasters are being put down to AGW?. I do have concerns about how 'AGW' is presented. But, for me it's about trying to tell the truth. And for me the truth is that, yes, there have always been weather events but that now there is an increasing factor (forcing) in the mix. If asked I'm not, if I'm going to be honest, going to deny that. Perhaps the weather should be presented differently in the media - but how could they do that and be honest about what the science(tists) say? (OK, they could listen to the very small minorities more but if they did that with AGW they'd have to have an Moon landings deniers on 'The Sky at Night' every month as well...).

So, yes, I do think the evidence is there is a human element to weather now. It's like when you slowly add a colour to a mix. For the point you start to add colour you are changing the mix, the point when the colour change becomes apparent is later on. I don't have, much, doubt everyone will soon (this century) notice that change in weather and climate. I've though for decades that the sooner we stop adding 'colour' the less the change (here the parallel breaks down but I hope you get my gist) to weather and climate will be. And, yes, I also think we need to make big changes now if (IF) we want to mitigate the changes later this century (and I would because I don't want to be part of changing the climate radically because it all just toooo difficult to stop doing - lazy bloomin' monkeys we are). Again, I'd be being dishonest to myself if I said anything other.

[Methuselah]

Jethro, I think it's better to address the reasoning, the evidence, the science presented by people who think there is at least a possible linkage between AGW and extreme weather events rather than using words to discredit them (them, not what they say) like 'superstitious'?

Your use of 'superstitious' make me feel like I'm going to get called superstitious for daring to post anything other that a outright dismissal of any possible link between AGW and extreme weather - though it wont stop me so doing if that what I think (and that there may well be a link is what I think ).

Hi Dev,

I don't think anyone's outrightly dismissing anything? As to my own position, all I'm trying to do is to caution against a priori outright attribution...

[Ladyofthestorm]

Im going to come back to this thread, looks interesting!

I did environmental science as my degree at Stirling Uni, and with that II studied environmental hazardsquaternary environmental change and land degradation at Hons Uni level.....so I do have some threads of my own thoughts on this and one thing I will say its not global warming we should all be whispering about, its the affect of toxic waste and poor/ slipshod environmental management practices that will be the end of us. Whilst the floods and wildfires in continental Asia are devasting, they are perfectly natural... what do you think shaped the valleys in Paskistan in the first place? Wildfores are part of the ecosystem on Steppes, its actually needed so that it can release nutrients back into the ground....its a problem because it affects humans.

But I wont go into the limitations of global climate prediction models.. it will send you all to sleep.

But right now I have the clan to feed!

[Devonian]

Hi Dev,

I don't think anyone's outrightly dismissing anything? As to my own position, all I'm trying to do is to caution against a priori outright attribution...

I'm not sure I want to go through this again but...

It's complicated yet simple - as we both know. There is a human contribution to weather and climate - we've changed the radiative properties of the atmosphere (increasingly too) and made other climate changing changes to the environment, that changes the weather and climate. But we're not the entire cause of anything weather climate wise, just part of it - the part that is change due to us.

What grates is claims the whole of an weather event is being attributed to AGW (they're not - otoh ( ), the globe warms by a degree or two, but locally you see a heatwave several degrees warmer? and that changes the jet stream? which then causes stronger monsoon rain? - smallish global effect bigger local ones? - the complicated bit...) and that the people (NOT me specifically) who do their darndest to be scientific are deemed superstitious.

Im going to come back to this thread, looks interesting!

I did environmental science as my degree at Stirling Uni, and with that II studied environmental hazardsquaternary environmental change and land degradation at Hons Uni level.....so I do have some threads of my own thoughts on this and one thing I will say its not global warming we should all be whispering about, its the affect of toxic waste and poor/ slipshod environmental management practices that will be the end of us. Whilst the floods and wildfires in continental Asia are devasting, they are perfectly natural... what do you think shaped the valleys in Paskistan in the first place? Wildfores are part of the ecosystem on Steppes, its actually needed so that it can release nutrients back into the ground....its a problem because it affects humans.

But I wont go into the limitations of global climate prediction models.. it will send you all to sleep. <_<

But right now I have the clan to feed!

I agree there have and will be floods caused by heavy monsoon rains. Otoh, I think we have to be open to the possibilities I've outlined about the human effect on climate. Tbh, I don't think they (the russian heatwave, the monsoon rain, last years cold winter) are entirely, 100% natural. I don't, can't, know how big the human contribution is but it is there..

Edited August 11, 2010 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

I agree there have and will be floods caused by heavy monsoon rains. Otoh, I think we have to be open to the possibilities I've outlined about the human effect on climate. Tbh, I don't think they are entirely, 100% natural. I don't, can't, know how big the human contribution is but it is there..

Now that I'm in 100% agreement with. I can't believe it's all natural, either.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'd have to agree Dev, and , as I've said to J', if the fears of AGW are real then there will come a point where we all have to accept the human contribution to these events.

Our climate system has done it's best to maintain but under concerted forcing (from us) it will 'let go' and we will see a rapid shift to a new 'balence point' in the climate system.

The recent rapid loss of ice across the Arctic ,and it's impacts on circulation patterns across the N. Hemisphere may well be showing it's hand in the stalled upper H.P. ridge bringing Russia it's woes. If we see this pattern establish in coming summers how long before we attribute it to a 'pattern shift' and not just coincidental 'weather'?

The same applies to the A.O. this winter. If we see it plunge to record low values again will we be any closer to accepting that the A.A. is starting to impact circulation across the pole in late autumn and upsetting the balance for the whole winter?

[sunny starry skies]

Dev's point is perhaps the best way to put it - the events are natural (weather), but not 100% natural, because there's a human element that has nudged the system towards being capable of more extreme events (high temperatures, large precipitation events). This is statistically measurable, and the floods in Pakistan, fires in Russia of remarkable size are consistent with that. Individual events can still be considered chance, but a statistically verifiable rise in high temperature events or large precipitation events as a consequence of our forcing of temperature can be considered direct evidence of our impact on climate.

[Devonian]

I'd have to agree Dev, and , as I've said to J', if the fears of AGW are real then there will come a point where we all have to accept the human contribution to these events.

Our climate system has done it's best to maintain but under concerted forcing (from us) it will 'let go' and we will see a rapid shift to a new 'balence point' in the climate system.

The recent rapid loss of ice across the Arctic ,and it's impacts on circulation patterns across the N. Hemisphere may well be showing it's hand in the stalled upper H.P. ridge bringing Russia it's woes. If we see this pattern establish in coming summers how long before we attribute it to a 'pattern shift' and not just coincidental 'weather'?

The same applies to the A.O. this winter. If we see it plunge to record low values again will we be any closer to accepting that the A.A. is starting to impact circulation across the pole in late autumn and upsetting the balance for the whole winter?

I tend to agree, though I'm not sure the climate will let go, just that it will respond to forcings.

What we can't know is what the climate would be like if, instead of 385ppm CO2 and the other human changes to the planet, it was instead spinning merryily along with no anthropogenic changes. We don't have another Earth to compare this one with - that's why there will never be strict proof.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Dev! when I look at the various climate systems we view them as either in one state or another and gauge their impacts on 'weather' accordingly. If we upset one set of drivers to this circulation we impact all of them like a line of falling dominoes.

If this is a 'top down' impact where the region with the greatest warming 'tips' first we need look at the polar Circulatory systems for signs of consistent abnormality from the 'mean'. This is just what is being studied with the Arctic Amplification and the changes we see this driving. The intense A.O.-ve of last year had instant consequences in the more temperate regions and these 'impacts had consequences in the sub-tropical/tropical regions. Were we to see a similar 'forced' setup this winter (on top of the last) would we not have alarm bells ringing? If this occurred a number of times over the next 10yrs could we conclude that a 'novel pattern' is now establishing over the pole driven by the ice loss there and self reinforcing by poor ice gain over winter as the A.O. floods polar cold south and draws temperate mild polewards?

[Ladyofthestorm]

Nicely balanced peeps on this forum!

There are greater disasters out there that the news hasnt picked up on, that our governement has cast aside and that we as high energy, high demand consumers prefer to bury our heads in the sand and pretend it doesnt exsist. I will come back to that.

Whilst there will always be an enhanced greenhouse effect , it will never be as much as what the media or our people in power will have us believe or indeed brainwash our children with at school. Im a sceptic of this whole climate change by humans lark.... there are other factors such the positioning of the earth in relation to the sun (the Milankovic theory), volcanic activity, solar activity, the complex relationship between the melting of icecaps, salinity of salt water, and the impacts this has on the oceanic ciculation. Its barely understood. I havent even touched on the biological aspect of global warming, like photosynthetic bacteria etc.

There is not a scientist on this planet who could possibly pinpoint global warming to human causes and they have known this for 20 years and more.

BUT there is one thing that concerns me, it isnt the climate change debate, there is a much bigger natural disaster out there, its now happening as swiftly as any flood or any wildfire, it will creep up on us and then it will be there.....

Waste and our glut need for everything. Its poisoning our water, soils and land, its turning fertile soil into dust. Its devasting our biodiversity (the next cure for cancer), and while we attack the environment in such a way, it cannot defend itself against mother natures often unpredictable fury. Take the pakistan floods, the reasons while the water is going over the land instead of into the soil is becuase of the amount of deforestation taken place. Once where there were woods and fields now there are roads and houses, once these valleys flooded quite naturally now the water has nowhere to go but over the tops of humans. Then there is the toxic aspect, how many of you have bought a new computer before the other one broke? Bought a new fridge freezer, Plasma TV, new games console... what did you do with the old ones? Africa is being slowly poisoned by our high consumer demans, that need for everything. What does the government do to stop that? Nothing... too many taxes to be collected from it. In the case of the Russia wildfires.... dare I say it, the introduction of drought resistant crops, such as genetically engineered, selectively bred varieties of corn. Now this is great in a society where we throw away bread every day, but look at that impact it has.... now soil is being cultivated when it never used to be, this crop is able to withstand tinder box conditions where as in the past it would have wilted long long ago and nowits the perfect fuel for the wildfire. One lightening strke and the wholelot goes up.

We impact on the environment but not in the way the so called experts would have many of us believing. In fact they are taking us away from the real issues and problems of waste and the need for sustainable living by talking about global warming.

Id like to see a real effort being made, by getting companies that make white goods, to make them last for 20 years and not the 3 or 4 if you are lucky. Companies punsihed over over packaging.... my bug bear... Im at the stage where having bought my packets of cereal I will leave the cardboard box in the store.... Indiviual people and communities becoming more sustainable. Solar panels a whole lot cheaper than what they are, and people encouraged to erect wind turbines and make there homes energy effcient as possible. I want to see footpaths built and VAT taken off of bicycles..... I want the end of BOGOF on non essential items. I now buy all of my childrens clothes off of ebay, they will be looked after and then put back onto ebay for reselling. I want to see the end of building houses on floodplains, the red tape associated with building on land that is perfectly positioned except for the moans, motives and whims of planners and those sitting in quangos.

Then the media and those in power can come back and discuss global warming with me.

[Devonian]

Nicely balanced peeps on this forum!:blush:

There are greater disasters out there that the news hasnt picked up on, that our governement has cast aside and that we as high energy, high demand consumers prefer to bury our heads in the sand and pretend it doesnt exsist. I will come back to that.

Whilst there will always be an enhanced greenhouse effect , it will never be as much as what the media or our people in power will have us believe or indeed brainwash our children with at school. Im a sceptic of this whole climate change by humans lark....

Could you back that up with what you see as credible evidence please

there are other factors such the positioning of the earth in relation to the sun (the Milankovic theory), volcanic activity, solar activity, the complex relationship between the melting of icecaps, salinity of salt water, and the impacts this has on the oceanic ciculation. Its barely understood. I havent even touched on the biological aspect of global warming, like photosynthetic bacteria etc.

There is not a scientist on this planet who could possibly pinpoint global warming to human causes and they have known this for 20 years and more.

We've just been through the last bit... No one can give proof, otoh, there is no credible science I've seen that contradicts the reality human have greatly added to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and that and other human caused changes are affecting the climate through changes to how the atmosphere now radiates energy.

BUT there is one thing that concerns me, it isnt the climate change debate, there is a much bigger natural disaster out there, its now happening as swiftly as any flood or any wildfire, it will creep up on us and then it will be there.....

Waste and our glut need for everything. Its poisoning our water, soils and land, its turning fertile soil into dust. Its devasting our biodiversity (the next cure for cancer), and while we attack the environment in such a way, it cannot defend itself against mother natures often unpredictable fury. Take the pakistan floods, the reasons while the water is going over the land instead of into the soil is becuase of the amount of deforestation taken place. Once where there were woods and fields now there are roads and houses, once these valleys flooded quite naturally now the water has nowhere to go but over the tops of humans. Then there is the toxic aspect, how many of you have bought a new computer before the other one broke? Bought a new fridge freezer, Plasma TV, new games console... what did you do with the old ones? Africa is being slowly poisoned by our high consumer demans, that need for everything. What does the government do to stop that? Nothing... too many taxes to be collected from it. In the case of the Russia wildfires.... dare I say it, the introduction of drought resistant crops, such as genetically engineered, selectively bred varieties of corn. Now this is great in a society where we throw away bread every day, but look at that impact it has.... now soil is being cultivated when it never used to be, this crop is able to withstand tinder box conditions where as in the past it would have wilted long long ago and nowits the perfect fuel for the wildfire. One lightening strke and the wholelot goes up.

We impact on the environment but not in the way the so called experts would have many of us believing. In fact they are taking us away from the real issues and problems of waste and the need for sustainable living by talking about global warming.

Id like to see a real effort being made, by getting companies that make white goods, to make them last for 20 years and not the 3 or 4 if you are lucky. Companies punsihed over over packaging.... my bug bear... Im at the stage where having bought my packets of cereal I will leave the cardboard box in the store.... Indiviual people and communities becoming more sustainable. Solar panels a whole lot cheaper than what they are, and people encouraged to erect wind turbines and make there homes energy effcient as possible. I want to see footpaths built and VAT taken off of bicycles..... I want the end of BOGOF on non essential items. I now buy all of my childrens clothes off of ebay, they will be looked after and then put back onto ebay for reselling. I want to see the end of building houses on floodplains, the red tape associated with building on land that is perfectly positioned except for the moans, motives and whims of planners and those sitting in quangos.

I've been a member of organisations campaigning for the things you want for decades (I've ridden 1000miles plus this year on my bike, we recycle everything, we throw very little away, my wife gives supermarkets the packaging back, our dustbin is more of a packet etc etc etc). But, I also think human caused climate change is a serious problem. That is 'all' we disagree on.

Then the media and those in power can come back and discuss global warming with me.

Unlikely.

But there are me and a few other here

Edited August 11, 2010 by Devonian

[Wynn D Woo]

BUT there is one thing that concerns me, it isnt the climate change debate, there is a much bigger natural disaster out there, its now happening as swiftly as any flood or any wildfire, it will creep up on us and then it will be there.....

Waste and our glut need for everything. Its poisoning our water, soils and land, its turning fertile soil into dust. Its devasting our biodiversity (the next cure for cancer), and while we attack the environment in such a way, it cannot defend itself against mother natures often unpredictable fury. Take the pakistan floods, the reasons while the water is going over the land instead of into the soil is becuase of the amount of deforestation taken place. Once where there were woods and fields now there are roads and houses, once these valleys flooded quite naturally now the water has nowhere to go but over the tops of humans. Then there is the toxic aspect, how many of you have bought a new computer before the other one broke? Bought a new fridge freezer, Plasma TV, new games console... what did you do with the old ones? Africa is being slowly poisoned by our high consumer demans, that need for everything. What does the government do to stop that? Nothing... too many taxes to be collected from it. In the case of the Russia wildfires.... dare I say it, the introduction of drought resistant crops, such as genetically engineered, selectively bred varieties of corn. Now this is great in a society where we throw away bread every day, but look at that impact it has.... now soil is being cultivated when it never used to be, this crop is able to withstand tinder box conditions where as in the past it would have wilted long long ago and nowits the perfect fuel for the wildfire. One lightening strke and the wholelot goes up.

We impact on the environment but not in the way the so called experts would have many of us believing. In fact they are taking us away from the real issues and problems of waste and the need for sustainable living by talking about global warming.

How very true!

( C ) AGW is a very nice little scare story for the media and politicians which makes out carbon as the great evil, why they dont spend more time in promoting the fact carbon based fuels are declining and that that is the real big issue regarding fossil fuels I dont know - might have a better impact on joe public too.

Edited August 11, 2010 by windswept

[Devonian]

How very true!

( C ) AGW is a very nice little scare story for the media and politicians which makes out carbon as the great evil, why they dont spend more time in promoting the fact carbon based fuels are declining and that that is the real big issue regarding fossil fuels I dont know - might have a better impact on joe public too.

Windswept, can I ask you for the evidence that convinces you as well?

Fwiw, I'm a supporter of windfarms, I can live with the replacement of our existing nuclear capacity and (since we drive a ridiculously frugal car) I can live with high petrol prices to both curb frivolous consumption and push people toward renewables. You as well?

[Ladyofthestorm]

Hi Dev

I will get back to you with the evdience, takes a while to get it organised!

Got the clan to feed yet again!

[Yorkshiresnows]

Dev's point is perhaps the best way to put it - the events are natural (weather), but not 100% natural, because there's a human element that has nudged the system towards being capable of more extreme events (high temperatures, large precipitation events). This is statistically measurable, and the floods in Pakistan, fires in Russia of remarkable size are consistent with that. Individual events can still be considered chance, but a statistically verifiable rise in high temperature events or large precipitation events as a consequence of our forcing of temperature can be considered direct evidence of our impact on climate.

Hi SSS

There may be a human element, (that would be a more accurate statement, ..... or clarify that this is a personnal viewpoint) ..... quite how much and whether it is sufficient to impact is still questionable. (I am assuming your are referring to climate change rather than de-forestation or populating natural flood plain areas)

If in future years we see that natural cycles caused the majority of the warming currently seen to date (20th century), then the 'human' bit will be wrong. Though I agree that with the global system warmer now than in recent history, extremes of weather are more likely to happen.

I guess that the near record breaking low temperatures this summer in California, the near record Ice extent in the Antarctic and very low summer Arctic temperatures are all additional symptons consistent with your line of thought.

Y.S

Nicely balanced peeps on this forum!

There are greater disasters out there that the news hasnt picked up on, that our governement has cast aside and that we as high energy, high demand consumers prefer to bury our heads in the sand and pretend it doesnt exsist. I will come back to that.

Whilst there will always be an enhanced greenhouse effect , it will never be as much as what the media or our people in power will have us believe or indeed brainwash our children with at school. Im a sceptic of this whole climate change by humans lark.... there are other factors such the positioning of the earth in relation to the sun (the Milankovic theory), volcanic activity, solar activity, the complex relationship between the melting of icecaps, salinity of salt water, and the impacts this has on the oceanic ciculation. Its barely understood. I havent even touched on the biological aspect of global warming, like photosynthetic bacteria etc.

There is not a scientist on this planet who could possibly pinpoint global warming to human causes and they have known this for 20 years and more.

BUT there is one thing that concerns me, it isnt the climate change debate, there is a much bigger natural disaster out there, its now happening as swiftly as any flood or any wildfire, it will creep up on us and then it will be there.....

Waste and our glut need for everything. Its poisoning our water, soils and land, its turning fertile soil into dust. Its devasting our biodiversity (the next cure for cancer), and while we attack the environment in such a way, it cannot defend itself against mother natures often unpredictable fury. Take the pakistan floods, the reasons while the water is going over the land instead of into the soil is becuase of the amount of deforestation taken place. Once where there were woods and fields now there are roads and houses, once these valleys flooded quite naturally now the water has nowhere to go but over the tops of humans. Then there is the toxic aspect, how many of you have bought a new computer before the other one broke? Bought a new fridge freezer, Plasma TV, new games console... what did you do with the old ones? Africa is being slowly poisoned by our high consumer demans, that need for everything. What does the government do to stop that? Nothing... too many taxes to be collected from it. In the case of the Russia wildfires.... dare I say it, the introduction of drought resistant crops, such as genetically engineered, selectively bred varieties of corn. Now this is great in a society where we throw away bread every day, but look at that impact it has.... now soil is being cultivated when it never used to be, this crop is able to withstand tinder box conditions where as in the past it would have wilted long long ago and nowits the perfect fuel for the wildfire. One lightening strke and the wholelot goes up.

We impact on the environment but not in the way the so called experts would have many of us believing. In fact they are taking us away from the real issues and problems of waste and the need for sustainable living by talking about global warming.

Id like to see a real effort being made, by getting companies that make white goods, to make them last for 20 years and not the 3 or 4 if you are lucky. Companies punsihed over over packaging.... my bug bear... Im at the stage where having bought my packets of cereal I will leave the cardboard box in the store.... Indiviual people and communities becoming more sustainable. Solar panels a whole lot cheaper than what they are, and people encouraged to erect wind turbines and make there homes energy effcient as possible. I want to see footpaths built and VAT taken off of bicycles..... I want the end of BOGOF on non essential items. I now buy all of my childrens clothes off of ebay, they will be looked after and then put back onto ebay for reselling. I want to see the end of building houses on floodplains, the red tape associated with building on land that is perfectly positioned except for the moans, motives and whims of planners and those sitting in quangos.

Then the media and those in power can come back and discuss global warming with me.

This is a great post.

Y.S

Edited August 11, 2010 by Yorkshiresnows

[sunny starry skies]

California: is one cherry - What about the other 49 States? Cold records can still be broken, just a lot less frequently than warm ones.

Antarctica: various entirely reasonable mechanisms exist for increased Antarctic ice extent in a warmer world, as has been discussed elsewhere (wind stress, ozone, circulation changes etc). Antarctica and the Arctic are rather different systems, in case you hadn't noticed. You could learn something from: http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm and the papers cited within. Surface air temperatures over the Southern Ocean are warming faster than the global ocean rate - were you aware of that?

Arctic: is the pick of the bunch... You are aware that it requires energy to melt ice? What is happening during Arctic summer months, and why would that hold the surface temperature close to freezing? What is the state of the Arctic ice, in terms of volume or extent? If it's so cold in the Arctic why are we at the second-lowest extent for this date?

So nope, none of your points are inconsistent with an anthropogenically warmed world.

sss

[Methuselah]

No, YS...For there not to be a human element, however small, someone must show that manmade CO₂ is somehow different from its natural counterpart: i.e. that it's not a GHG.

[weather eater]

Hi Dev I'm not actually saying that freak weather events have nothing to do with AGW, just that we need to be cautious about presenting every single one as evidence of AGW because they are patently not. We could of course argue that given the rise in global temperatures, then that rise must be having an effect. But to what degree on a case to case basis is often difficult to quantify. The one area that we can pin down is heat records, without a doubt that has contributed to the situation in Russia, however even the scientists say that that’s only one part of the equation.

This is a great post.

Y.S

Yep I'll second that, some excellent points raised.

[The PIT]

No, YS...For there not to be a human element, however small, someone must show that manmade CO₂ is somehow different from its natural counterpart: i.e. that it's not a GHG.

Mmm quick question how does one tell one co2 molecule from another ?????

[sunny starry skies]

Mmm quick question how does one tell one co2 molecule from another ?????

Stable isotopes!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm