Yes, I am often more wrong than right. However, on this occassion Brian
I don't think the points you raise address my argument.
You equate localised with a continental scale of analysis, but I
disagree with using the word local to describe phenomenon spread over
land masses as large as Africa, America or Australia which in fact
contain within them a wide range of climate regimes.
Whilst the models predict a pretty steady increase in the world's
temperatures the historical record argues for rapid step like changes in
the global climate system, an as of yet unresolved debate. But to come
back to the locality issue - I didn't use the words' rainy' or 'blowy';
such conditions are the norm for the UK and are the staple of
conversation. I refer to an increase in the intensity of storms, floods,
heatwaves etc, which will have economic, landscape and leisure impacts
which become impossible to ignore at the level of the the individual's
lives. All the research shows people's environmental concerns are
immediate, both geographically and temporally, not for a 1000 year melt
of the Greenland ice sheet, or increased forest fires in Australia, no
matter what entertainment value these type of big ticket events provide
for us watching the news on our televisions on the other side of the world.
Chris
On 31/03/2010 15:17, Brian Orr wrote:
> My first reaction to this suggestion is that it is more wrong than right.
>
> The basic climate change model is contending that there will continue
> to be for many decades to come an pretty steady increase in the
> world's temperature. This will bring about noticeable shifts in
> 'localised' i.e. continent-wide weather patterns. Annual average wind
> speeds, rain fall and cloud cover will change and take up new
> patterns. Animals and plants will move or adapt to these, or die out.
>
> But within these shifting weather patterns, which people will notice
> and talk about, there will also be corresponding shifting of 'extreme'
> events. (My understanding is that global warming is predicted to bring
> about more frequent hurricanes but generally of less severity: my gut
> instincts tell me this is counter-intuitive, but what does my
> intuition count here?).
>
> I think it is important to recognise that 'extreme event's are
> usefully categorised by their probability of happening. A 'ten-year'
> event will be reported in a local-paper: a '50-year' event will be
> reported nationally: and a '100 year event' (Katrina) is world news.
>
> I think this is highly relevant to the point you've raised, Chris. I
> don't really think it will be having rather more rainy days per year,
> or blowy ones, that people will pick up on that much. I think it will
> be more based on the frequency of the 5,10 and 50 year 'extreme' events.
>
> Undoubtedly, this is bread-and-butter stuff to the weather-men. I
> think this is where they could put some solid graft into establishing
> some solid, world-wide statistics establishing how more changeable our
> weather is becoming - or not, as the case may be.
>
> Brian Orr
>
> On 31 Mar 2010, at 13:37, Chris Shaw wrote:
>
>> Dear all
>>
>> Unfortunately, the evidence suggesting there is no slow down in the
>> Gulf Stream is yet another stick which the sceptics can use to beat
>> over the head those concerned about the impacts of industrial
>> activity on the climate and people. One day, when I get the time, I
>> want to work out a position against these 'large scale
>> discontinuities' which are often invoked to demand action (the other
>> being ice sheet melt and attendant sea level rises). Whilst no doubt
>> important impacts I think it would be much more useful to get a
>> communicative handle on all the myriad of relatively small scale,
>> more localised, more immediate extreme weather events (floodings,
>> heatwaves, strong winds) which are never forecast more than a day or
>> two ahead (if at all) and which climate models cannot account for.
>> That's where the damage and harm will come from, those are the
>> impacts that people will experience in the short term, the
>> predictable surprises (predictable in that we know they are
>> happening, and will continue to happen, we just don't know when and
>> in what form). I think it is the gradual accumulation of these events
>> on our lives and surroundings that will, in the aggregate, add up to
>> the 'change' element of climate change.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> On 31/03/2010 12:25, Alastair McIntosh wrote:
>>> Very many thanks for that on the "Gulf Stream", David (see below),
>>> all the
>>> moreso from yourself as an oceanographer.
>>>
>>> What you say concurs with what Duncan McLaren at FOES and Adrian Shaw,
>>> climate change officer at the Church of Scotland have also suggested in
>>> private emails this morning. Adrian also sent the following link to
>>> what
>>> seems to be a good article on the question that was published in The
>>> Scotsman -
>>> http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/news/Villain-of-the-winter39s-tale.5961809.j
>>>
>>> p
>>>
>>> Alastair.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Cromwell D.
>>> Sent: 31 March 2010 12:16
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Phil Jones, UEA, exonerated on ClimateGate ... and "Gulf
>>> Steam"?
>>>
>>> Thanks Alastair,
>>>
>>> Interesting to see those.
>>>
>>> On Gulf Stream measurements - they're as reliable as
>>> humanly/technically
>>> possible. But, as you suggest, the relatively short operational
>>> timespan for
>>> the RAPID array (across the North Atlantic near 26 degrees N) has
>>> yielded no
>>> real evidence of any slowdown so far:
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8589512.stm
>>>
>>> Background info: http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/rapid/
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> On 31/03/2010 10:39, "Alastair McIntosh"<[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Folks ... For the report on the findings on the House of Commons
>>> enquiry
>>> see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8595483.stm
>>>
>>> Also, for context in terms of the level of FOI requests that were being
>>> made, see the attached cutting from The Week in February.
>>>
>>> Lastly, given that the University of Alabama Hunstsville (UAH)
>>> sattelite
>>> data shows that, worldwide, both January and February have been
>>> exceptionally warm - about 0.6 C above average (Europe and parts of N.
>>> America were exceptions, not the rule)* - does anybody know what has
>>> been
>>> happening to the "Gulf Stream" over this period? I have not picked
>>> up on any
>>> commentary about this, so there's maybe nothing to comment on, but
>>> it would
>>> seem to my untutored eye that a dramatic cooling in N. Atlantic
>>> areas could
>>> be consistent with a slow-down. However, if I understand rightly
>>> current
>>> measurement of this is open to many questions of reliability, so maybe
>>> nobody's able to say on such a short time-span?
>>>
>>> Alastair.
>>>
>>>
>>> * UAH data sources on Jan/Feb warming in 2010 (paradoxically, from a
>>> climate
>>> change researcher/skeptic website at UAH) :
>>> January (including world isotherm map):
>>> http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/january-2010-global-tropospheric-tempera
>>>
>>> ture-map/
>>> February:
>>> http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/03/february-2010-uah-global-temperature-upd
>>>
>>> ate-version-5-3-unveiled/
>>>
|
