UK Floods

[alankew]

Hey Pommiegranite dont get lumping me in with the Brummies,I"m from the posh bit of the Midlands-Wolverhampton!Lol

 

[2020hindsight]

England is the New Holland m8
( notice England and Netherlands are grouped togther in news reports - Hamburg also flooded etc )

you blokes are gonna have to draw straws which one puts their finger in the dyke

refer photo of the thames barrier in earlier post - with the land in the background presumably (?) under tide level much of the time.

 

[2020hindsight]

apropos of nothing - but you may or may not be aware of the fact that there's a thing called "the Great Sydney Dyke"

it's a geological formation that passes directly under the Anzac Bridge. - a sudden drop of 15m or so (or worse) in the depth of decent sandstone foundations - compare scuba diving over the edge of a reef.

like I say, apropos of nothing
http://www.sydneyports.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/1438/PartA.pdf

 

[Smurf1976]

smurf - I'm amazed that there's doubt being expressed about climate change here

My point wasn't about doubting climate change but about what constitutes proof of it happening.

We've always had droughts, floods, cyclones and other such weather events. They are perfectly normal. IMO an awful lot of damage is being done to the climate change cause when a single weather event is claimed as "proof" of climate change when clearly it is not proof.

If we get a clear change from historic patterns that is consistent with climate change, is sustained for a substantially longer period than any previous similar known event and which has no other known explanation then that's coming close to proof of climate change.

Likewise if a tropical cyclone hits the South Island of New Zealand or Tasmania then that would also strongly suggest something has changed. And it would be consistent with climate change. So would snow on the city streets of Darwin.

But this nonsense of saying one severe weather event is proof of climate change is doing more harm than good IMO. At best it looks alarmist. More to the point, it shows a total disregard for proper science in what is ultimately a scientific issue.

There were plenty of people saying it would never rain again in Australia earlier this year and the drought was permanent. In some parts there's still a drought, no doubt about that. But other parts of the country have been flooded and even Sydney's water storages are no longer anywhere near crisis level.

If you want some reasonable proof then look at the rainfall decline in SW WA that's been going on since the mid-1970's. And then maybe start wondering why Tas has been dry since 1982 apart from a wet period mid-1991 to spring 1997. Or why the humidity is increasing globally. Those things suggest the climate is changing. One flood doesn't. That's my point.

Personally I think climate change is real. I've even done some (admittedly very simplistic) lab experiments and yes they showed warming with increased CO2 concentration as expected. And I'm one of those who's actually done something to cut my emissions (within reason, I'm not about to start shivering in the dark). But that said, there's never a reason to abandon proper scientific processes and stop thinking as many seem to want us all to do over this issue.

 

[2020hindsight]

1. My point wasn't about doubting climate change but about what constitutes proof of it happening....

2. ... Likewise if a tropical cyclone hits the South Island of New Zealand or Tasmania then that would also strongly suggest something has changed. And it would be consistent with climate change. So would snow on the city streets of Darwin.

3. But this nonsense of saying one severe weather event is proof of climate change is doing more harm than good IMO. At best it looks alarmist. More to the point, it shows a total disregard for proper science in what is ultimately a scientific issue.

4. ..... If you want some reasonable proof then look at the rainfall decline in SW WA that's been going on since the mid-1970's. And then maybe start wondering why Tas has been dry since 1982 apart from a wet period mid-1991 to spring 1997. Or why the humidity is increasing globally. Those things suggest the climate is changing. One flood doesn't. That's my point.

5. Personally I think climate change is real.

6. But that said, there's never a reason to abandon proper scientific processes and stop thinking as many seem to want us all to do over this issue.

ok m8 -
1, 4, and 5. Well I'm pleased you go on to agree that climate change is real.

2. tropical cyclones hit Tas? - well I disagree it has to be that dramatic. (what about if they were to hit Coffs? or Sydney?) I've no idea if the future is about cyclone intensity or frequency or distribution

will they remain concentrated in Qld - or do they migrate south. I think you'll find that the increased frequency and intensity of hurricanes in the Atlantic and USA is proven. (and surely New Orleans is alarming in itself)

3. these storms - sure they are alarming - whether people who react to them are alarmist or not ? we differ.

6. proper scientific proof? I added the other youtubes for exactly that reason - that the snows in theEuropean alps are obviously receding each year -

and that Sir David Attenborough is 100% convinced that manmade global warming is very real and alarming.

The red graph shows temperature
The green graph shows what is explainable including solar activity, and
The yellow graph is the one that takes account of man's CO2 contribution.
Note the major divergence at 1970.

How's this for "significant odds"? :-
Here's a website (PEW) which quotes IPCC (and they refer to odds of
9-1 (on) for increased rain in some areas,
2-1 (on) says reduced rain in others,
9-1 (on) says "hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent"
(according to the IPCC-AR4).


http://www.pewclimate.org/hurricanes.cfm

Is global warming changing the intensity or frequency of hurricanes?

Intensity: According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC-AR4), it is “more likely than not” (better than even odds) that there is a human contribution to the observed trend of hurricane intensification since the 1970s. In the future, “it is likely [better than 2 to 1 odds] that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical [sea surface temperatures].”

Frequency: According to the IPCC-AR4, on a global scale, “[t]here is no clear trend in the annual numbers [i.e. frequency] of tropical cyclones.” As discussed above, however, the frequency of tropical storms has increased dramatically in the North Atlantic. Reasons for this increase are currently subject to intense debate among climate scientists. At least two recent peer-reviewed scientific studies indicate a significant statistical link between the increased frequency and global warming, but research to identify a mechanism explaining this link is ongoing.

Is global warming generating other types of severe weather?

Global temperature has increased and precipitation patterns have changed over the 20th century as a result of human-induced global warming, resulting in some increases in extremes of temperature and precipitation. According to the IPCC-AR4, “increases in the amount of precipitation are very likely [better than 9 to 1 odds] in high-latitudes, while decreases are likely [better than 2 to 1 odds] in most subtropical land regions,” and “it is very likely [at least 9 to 1 odds] that hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent.”

Will the damages from severe weather become worse in coastal regions?

The biggest reason for increased loss of life and property in coastal regions is population growth and increasing development in coastal areas. As growth and development continue, the damages caused by severe weather will increase regardless of global warming. It stands to reason that climate change, namely sea level rise and increases in tropical storm activity, would exacerbate the damage as global warming continues.

What can we do to reduce the consequences and costs of severe weather events?

It is clear that the United States is not prepared to handle multiple catastrophic events in a short time period, and many other countries are even less capable of bearing the economic and logistical burdens of catastrophic weather events. We probably will never be completely prepared, but we could do better. We can plan our communities better, we can design our buildings and infrastructure better, and we can manage resources better. Steps taken today to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions will limit the effort necessary to adapt to climate change that will inevitably result from global warming

btw, lol - by "9-1 odds" I mean
If they put up only $8 -
and you put up only $1
chances are you'd still lose.!

or if you prefer .. in 10 runs of the experiment, it will happen 9 times

 

[wayneL]

Why would Attenborough add credibility to the AGW argument? That is nothing more than celebrity endorsement.

... and the graph is nothing more than pretty colours dependent on the input data... means nothing, in and of itself and sans analysis of the input.

 

[2020hindsight]

gday wayne
here's the same graph btw - as presented on ABC recently .
and of course the version of that graph as presented on Durkins "the great global warming swindle"

PS are you saying you're in GW denial?

 

[lusk]

Nice graphs but they are nothing more than clever Excel work. l wonder what kind of measurement standard and equipment they were using back 120 years ago.

 

[2020hindsight]

speaking of environmental refugees... (Tuvalu)

the youtube states that "Already NZ is taking 75 Tuvaluans per year -
Australia was approached but declined". Wikipedia disputes that this is related to environment.

It was settled about 3000 years ago, and you'd have to assume that it will be uninhabitable when the water rises another foot or so - they say 20-40 centimetres (8-16 inches), and 100 years (?).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvalu
Wikipedia agrees that the island is in big trouble - uninhabitable within 100 (?)years (or less/ fewer ?). The people interviewed are pretty sure they will have to leave

DISASTERS WAITING TO HAPPEN 5

As low-lying islands lacking a surrounding shallow shelf, the island communities of Tuvalu are especially susceptible to changes in sea level and storm patterns that hit the island undissipated. It is estimated that a sea level rise of 20-40 centimetres (8-16 inches) in the next 100 years could make Tuvalu uninhabitable.[2][3] The South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission suggest that while Tuvalu is vulnerable to climate change, there are additional environmental problems such as population growth and poor coastal management, which are affecting sustainable development on the island, they rank the country as extremely vulnerable using the Environmental Vulnerability Index.[4]

While some commentators have called for the relocation of the population of Tuvalu to Australia, New Zealand or Kioa (Fiji), the former Prime Minister Maatia Toafa said his government did not regard rising sea levels as such a threat that the entire population would need to be evacuated.[5][6] In spite of persistent internet rumours that New Zealand has agreed to accept an annual quota of 75 evacuees, the annual residence quota of 75 Tuvaluans under the Pacific Access Category (and 50 places for people from Kiribati) replaced the previous Work Schemes from the two countries and are not related to environmental concerns. [7]

 

[2020hindsight]

smurf - I'm amazed that there's doubt being expressed about climate change here
.....
5 Disasters Waiting to Happen: Thames Flood Risk

Sir David Attenborough: The Truth About Climate Change

Living with climate change

Maybe these youtubes will answer your questions lusk. ( I suspect you and Wayne may not have gone back far enough in the posts. )

Again lusk, are you in GW denial as well?

btw that red graph of temp is available on NASA website . http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/9929/a001008_pre.jpg

and this extract from a powerpoint presentation is from an IPCC website - joint nobel peace prize winners -

but you're probably right - just a clever bit of EXCEL forgery.

btw lusk - that is exactly what Durkins did in the show the "great global warming swindle" - did you not watch that on ABC recently?
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=211880&highlight=durkins#post211880
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=179638&highlight=durkins#post179638

 

[Kauri]

Just heard there is a big fire raging in East London... floods...fires... having a bad run it seems.
Cheers
..........Kauri

 

[2020hindsight]

aid, worsening disasters for the third world, etc.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/19/2094225.htm

Up to 10,000 dead in cyclone-hit Bangladesh: officials Officials say up to 10,000 people are dead and millions homeless and hungry in cyclone-hit Bangladesh, as the army and aid workers battled to reach the devastated coast.

Three days after cyclone Sidr tore into one of the world's poorest nations from the Bay of Bengal, rescue workers were still fighting their way through a landscape of flattened villages and traumatised crowds.

World Disasters Report 2001

 

[2020hindsight]

Speaking of the Thames barrier -
at least the poms are prepared to act.
Guess they are also worried (legitimately) of being overrun with environmental immigrants / refugees

last Friday's spooks program was set there - big investment - considering that the rising sea level stuff is all just so much mumbo jumbo.
(PS Scientist in this youtube mentions rising sea levels many times - I suspect that there's also some settlement. - either way, they are additive.

5 Disasters Waiting to Happen: Thames Flood Risk

Thames Barrier - Model shows operation