Chris,

I think this is an interesting debate well worth refining.

Okay, "continental" was too sweeping: "South-East England" or "Central  
Europe" might be nearer the mark.

And the intensity of storms, floods and heatwaves will indeed have  
economic, landscape and leisure impacts - but I conjecture much of  
these impacts will not be registered that much in people's minds with  
the changing weather. The Mediteranean coast may be steadily abandoned  
as a leisure 'resort' as the summers become increasingly hotter. But  
with stronger 'economic winds' such as recession and cheap holidays in  
distant climes, the additional factor of temperatures in the 30's or  
40's may be largely lost.

But where I think we may be able to forge common ground is agreeing  
that the disciplined tracking of events lying somewhere between the  
'exceptional' snow falls yesterday 'up North' and the severe flooding  
of the Cotswolds several months ago 'added up' around the globe could  
prove very useful in getting a handle on this elusive topic called  
global warming.

Essentially, I think my question boils down to are 'extreme weather  
events' becoming more frequent when by 'extreme weather events' we  
include 5, 10 and 50 year 'extreme events'?

The 1000 year melt of the Greenland ice sheet is something else. It's  
either inexorable or it might give rise to singular catastrophic  
'break-offs' every 50 years or so. I don't know which. But it's not a  
weather event: just a reflection of things getting warmer 'all over'.

Australian forest fires do seem to fit in though, along with increased  
forest fires elsewhere around the globe. Clearly higher temperatures  
and lower rainfalls are operating here. But in that sense the forest  
fire is only symptomatic of the changing weather pattern. But so is  
flooding I guess.

Brian Orr

On 31 Mar 2010, at 16:21, Chris Shaw wrote:

> 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/
>>>>
>