Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[dickymint]

Jazzy Jag said:

Lotus 50 said:

Re flooding (and increases in frequency) - CEH have done some more work on this and there are trends towards increased flood frequency in the UK, and possible links to climate change.

http://www.ceh.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2015-2016...

...and in the palaeo-flood records in the north west as well

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2016/EGU...

Edited by Lotus 50 on Saturday 28th January 17:41

Nothing to do with farmers not dredging drainage ditches on their land, then?

Nothing to do with the EU Habitats directive protecting the homes of newts and vowel's over the livelihood, lives and homes of humans?

Nothing to do with the silt dredged from the banks and bottom of drainage ditches being considered and contaminated waste and requiring expensive disposal rather than just being piled on the bank as it was for 1000s of years in the past?

No, must be man made, right?

"..........These have included the EU’s Natura 2000 strategy along with a sheaf of directives on “habitats”, “birds”, “water”, and not least the “floods” directive of 2007, which specifically requires certain “floodplains” to be allowed to flood. In 2008, when the EA was run by Baroness Young, this was reflected in a policy document which classified areas at risk of flooding under six categories, ranging from those in “Policy Option 1”, where flood defences were a priority, down to “Policy 6’’ where, to promote “biodiversity”, the strategy should be to “increase flooding”. The Somerset Levels were covered by Policy 6.
It was in that year that Baroness Young explained in an interview that creating wildlife habitats could be very expensive, but that by far the cheapest way was simply to allow natural flooding. As she gaily put it: “Just add water.” Around this time she was heard to say of the Somerset Levels that she would like to see “a limpet mine attached to every pumping station”."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/chri...

All driven by "Agenda 21" which by the way is NOT conspiracy theory but fact

[LongQ]

Lotus 50 said:

Re flooding (and increases in frequency) - CEH have done some more work on this and there are trends towards increased flood frequency in the UK, and possible links to climate change.

http://www.ceh.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2015-2016...

Well, I have skim read some of that and took in all of the Concluding remarks.

I found 2 references to "climate change", one paragraphof which questions the efficacy of a report rushed out within a week of the 2015 floods.

"Given the comparative brevity of UK river flow
records, in the face of high inherent natural
variability, the attribution of any observed trends
to anthropogenic warming remains a significant
challenge using observed records alone. There is
a growing literature on ‘detection and attribution’
studies that use sophisticated modelling techniques
to attribute the anthropogenic forcing component
of extreme events. Following the widespread
flooding in autumn 2000, research showed
the event was made more likely due to human
influence on the climate
39,40
.

A similar study for the
winter 2013/2014 floods
41 attributed an increased
risk of high flows and property damage on the
lower Thames to anthropogenic warming (although
these effects were more modest). A ‘real-time’
attribution study was presented only a week after
the December 2015 flooding, claiming that the
Storm Desmond rainfall was made 40% more likely
as a result of anthropogenic warming
31 . However, this was based on very preliminary data; future
studies will no doubt be published building on this
approach."

Aplogies for the formatting - a direct cut and paste from the PDF.


In the conclusion the only mention is this.

"The moderate increase in runoff in the 21st century
relative to the previous 40 years, possibly linked
to climate change, demonstrates the inherent
variability of UK river flows. The fact that the earlier
‘flood poor’ period dominates the hydrometric
time series for the majority of gauging stations
calls into question the homogeneity of the data.
Correspondingly, there is a particular need to
establish whether the increased runoff in the
21st century is part of a resilient long-term trend."


It reads like an editor dropped that one in at the last moment.

There is almost nothing to be found that even discusses climate in any depth at all in the section I read and yet you offer your comment about climate as if it was almost the only things the authors could think of rather than a "We had probably better mention it just in case ...... " drop in.

I'm disappointed, not that it matters at all. But I thought that perhaps you offered a slightly more thoughtful position in the matter of the Politics of Climate Change. I guess "thoughtful" is not the appropriate word.

[Lotus 50]

LongQ said:

Well, I have skim read some of that and took in all of the Concluding remarks.

I found 2 references to "climate change", one paragraphof which questions the efficacy of a report rushed out within a week of the 2015 floods.

"Given the comparative brevity of UK river flow
records, in the face of high inherent natural
variability, the attribution of any observed trends
to anthropogenic warming remains a significant
challenge using observed records alone. There is
a growing literature on ‘detection and attribution’
studies that use sophisticated modelling techniques
to attribute the anthropogenic forcing component
of extreme events. Following the widespread
flooding in autumn 2000, research showed
the event was made more likely due to human
influence on the climate
39,40
.

A similar study for the
winter 2013/2014 floods
41 attributed an increased
risk of high flows and property damage on the
lower Thames to anthropogenic warming (although
these effects were more modest). A ‘real-time’
attribution study was presented only a week after
the December 2015 flooding, claiming that the
Storm Desmond rainfall was made 40% more likely
as a result of anthropogenic warming
31 . However, this was based on very preliminary data; future
studies will no doubt be published building on this
approach."

Aplogies for the formatting - a direct cut and paste from the PDF.


In the conclusion the only mention is this.

"The moderate increase in runoff in the 21st century
relative to the previous 40 years, possibly linked
to climate change, demonstrates the inherent
variability of UK river flows. The fact that the earlier
‘flood poor’ period dominates the hydrometric
time series for the majority of gauging stations
calls into question the homogeneity of the data.
Correspondingly, there is a particular need to
establish whether the increased runoff in the
21st century is part of a resilient long-term trend."


It reads like an editor dropped that one in at the last moment.

There is almost nothing to be found that even discusses climate in any depth at all in the section I read and yet you offer your comment about climate as if it was almost the only things the authors could think of rather than a "We had probably better mention it just in case ...... " drop in.

I'm disappointed, not that it matters at all. But I thought that perhaps you offered a slightly more thoughtful position in the matter of the Politics of Climate Change. I guess "thoughtful" is not the appropriate word.

The thinking was more along the lines of showing that Turbobloke's assertion that there is absolutely no link to climate change in recent flood incidents is a political one based on older information and choosing not to take new information/emerging analysis into account.

[Lotus 50]

mondeoman said:

possible links
No. of pirates
Bushiness of men's beards
Olympic gold medals (inversely)

all show strong correlation.

And they dont mention the increase in buildings on flood plains and the really poor control of upstream deforestation and hedge removal.

Its never as simple as they'd like it to be.

Remember the areas (NW England etc) being referred to in these reports are mostly rural and any gross upstream deforestation happened much further back in time. Regardless the analysis does take into account other potential impacts on the hydrology/sediment analysis alongside rainfall.

[Lotus 50]

dickymint said:

"..........These have included the EU’s Natura 2000 strategy along with a sheaf of directives on “habitats”, “birds”, “water”, and not least the “floods” directive of 2007, which specifically requires certain “floodplains” to be allowed to flood. In 2008, when the EA was run by Baroness Young, this was reflected in a policy document which classified areas at risk of flooding under six categories, ranging from those in “Policy Option 1”, where flood defences were a priority, down to “Policy 6’’ where, to promote “biodiversity”, the strategy should be to “increase flooding”. The Somerset Levels were covered by Policy 6.
It was in that year that Baroness Young explained in an interview that creating wildlife habitats could be very expensive, but that by far the cheapest way was simply to allow natural flooding. As she gaily put it: “Just add water.” Around this time she was heard to say of the Somerset Levels that she would like to see “a limpet mine attached to every pumping station”."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/chri...

All driven by "Agenda 21" which by the way is NOT conspiracy theory but fact

Since any impacts of not maintaining drains and protecting habitats are most likely to slow down flood flows and reduce the peak flow rates then the answer to your question is no the increases in flows are nothing to do with that and in fact the would make it more likely that the changes being experienced are down to increased rainfall.

Edited by Lotus 50 on Sunday 29th January 11:53

[Jazzy Jag]

Lotus 50 said:

Since any impacts of not maintaining drains and protecting habitats are most likely to slow down flood flows and reduce the peak flow rates then the answer to your question is no the increases in flows are nothing to do with that and in fact the would make it more likely that the changes being experienced are down to increased rainfall.

Edited by Lotus 50 on Sunday 29th January 11:53

Maybe you could pop down to the Somerset Levels and explain to those who lost their homes and property how not dredging the King's Sedgemore drain etc did them all a favour?

[Lotus 50]

I'm not suggesting it did - the references provided earlier and my responses to the points you and others have made refer to the flooding in the north of England/Wales and Scotland. Not the Somerset Levels.

(edited to add that for some reason your text that Dickymint responded to "Nothing to do with farmers not dredging drainage ditches on their land, then?

Nothing to do with the EU Habitats directive protecting the homes of newts and vowel's over the livelihood, lives and homes of humans?

Nothing to do with the silt dredged from the banks and bottom of drainage ditches being considered and contaminated waste and requiring expensive disposal rather than just being piled on the bank as it was for 1000s of years in the past?

No, must be man made, right?" that I was trying to quote got missed out.)

Edited by Lotus 50 on Sunday 29th January 12:31

Edited by Lotus 50 on Sunday 29th January 12:35

[turbobloke]

Jazzy Jag said:

Lotus 50 said:

Since any impacts of not maintaining drains and protecting habitats are most likely to slow down flood flows and reduce the peak flow rates then the answer to your question is no the increases in flows are nothing to do with that and in fact the would make it more likely that the changes being experienced are down to increased rainfall.

Edited by Lotus 50 on Sunday 29th January 11:53

Maybe you could pop down to the Somerset Levels and explain to those who lost their homes and property how not dredging the King's Sedgemore drain etc did them all a favour?

Quite.

The Environment Agency published information, including charts which were posted on the Somerset Floods thread, that showed how much worse and how longer-lasting flooding would be with their daft policies in place. These policies were about maintaining wetlands for lesser wading titwarblers with human homes and businesses further down the list. One daft politician in a senior green blob role even went as far as claiming to want to blow up every pumping station. It's all there on the PH thread which covered this at the time.

[turbobloke]

Lotus 50 said:

I'm not suggesting it did - the info provided earlier refers to the flooding in the north of England/Wales and Scotland. Not the Somerset Levels.

Info I posted covered N England.

If the EA had anything to do with it anywhere I have even more sympathy for those affected, which therefore means everyone.

[Lotus 50]

turbobloke said:

Info I posted covered N England.

If the EA had anything to do with it anywhere I have even more sympathy for those affected, which therefore means everyone.

Yes I know - and the more recent info I posted (produced by the same people you refer to) shows that you can't make the assertion that 'Flooding in 2015 was also NOT due to non-existent man-made warming.'

(well, OK, you can write what you want for political purposes but the more recent analysis undermines the point you're making)

Edited by Lotus 50 on Sunday 29th January 12:41

[turbobloke]

Lotus 50 said:

turbobloke said:

Info I posted covered N England.

If the EA had anything to do with it anywhere I have even more sympathy for those affected, which therefore means everyone.

Yes I know - and the more recent info I posted (produced by the same people you refer to) shows that you can't make the assertion that 'Flooding in 2015 was also NOT due to non-existent man-made warming.'

Yes I can; since there is no man-made global warming in existence, it's speculation. Until there's a visible causal human signal in any global climate data, claims relating to weather phenomena supposedly derived from this are hogwash once removed.

Finally the references you cited unclude more speculation, modelling which assumes the effect it then claims to demonstrate, and other similar non-evidence. Then we mustn't forget the weasel words and phrases in them (more likely, need to establish etc).

AGW really, really needs a visible causal human signal in global climate data, without it all claims are speculation no matter how carefully worded an abstract might be at one end of the faith spectrum, nor how sensationalist the claims may be at the other end.

I'll put a shilling on the side with you that it won't emerge legitimately in observational data, though The Team may plonk it in a spreadsheet via fait accompli (see ship engine intakes vs buoys for SST).

[Mr GrimNasty]

Lotus 50 said:

turbobloke said:

Info I posted covered N England.

If the EA had anything to do with it anywhere I have even more sympathy for those affected, which therefore means everyone.

Yes I know - and the more recent info I posted (produced by the same people you refer to) shows that you can't make the assertion that 'Flooding in 2015 was also NOT due to non-existent man-made warming.'

(well, OK, you can write what you want for political purposes but the more recent analysis undermines the point you're making)

Edited by Lotus 50 on Sunday 29th January 12:41

Met Office's own data indicates nothing exceptional is happening, the UK weather is if anything becoming less extreme, more benign.

Just because one event happens to be the worst recorded in very short official UK records in one particular area or location does not signify anything - weather is so random somewhere will always experience its 'worst' event - it's why CAGW people know pointing to 'extreme' weather and records is an endless source of scare stories.

Similarly I can safely predict a serious earthquake or a serious plane crash - it is inevitable.

The leaked Podesta emails even discussed the deliberate ploy to get CAGW activists to seize on weather events and natural disasters and flood the media with 'attribution' junk.

Other research and palaeoflood deposits indicate recent UK events were not unprecedented, as do the rocks NOT moved in the streams that were deposited by previous river floods in the last few hundred years.

A digital search of early newspaper archives and Pathe News shows people just have very short memories when it comes to extreme weather events.

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/unprecedented-s...

Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Sunday 29th January 13:00

[turbobloke]

Mr GrimNasty said:

The leaked Podesta emails even discussed the deliberate ploy to get CAGW activists to seize on weather events and natural disasters and flood the media with 'attribution' junk.

Exactly.

It's politics not science, well OK it's politics and well-funded junkscience.

Liking that 'flood the media' pun

[LongQ]

Lotus 50 said:

LongQ said:

Well, I have skim read some of that and took in all of the Concluding remarks.

I found 2 references to "climate change", one paragraphof which questions the efficacy of a report rushed out within a week of the 2015 floods.

"Given the comparative brevity of UK river flow
records, in the face of high inherent natural
variability, the attribution of any observed trends
to anthropogenic warming remains a significant
challenge using observed records alone. There is
a growing literature on ‘detection and attribution’
studies that use sophisticated modelling techniques
to attribute the anthropogenic forcing component
of extreme events. Following the widespread
flooding in autumn 2000, research showed
the event was made more likely due to human
influence on the climate
39,40
.

A similar study for the
winter 2013/2014 floods
41 attributed an increased
risk of high flows and property damage on the
lower Thames to anthropogenic warming (although
these effects were more modest). A ‘real-time’
attribution study was presented only a week after
the December 2015 flooding, claiming that the
Storm Desmond rainfall was made 40% more likely
as a result of anthropogenic warming
31 . However, this was based on very preliminary data; future
studies will no doubt be published building on this
approach."

Aplogies for the formatting - a direct cut and paste from the PDF.


In the conclusion the only mention is this.

"The moderate increase in runoff in the 21st century
relative to the previous 40 years, possibly linked
to climate change, demonstrates the inherent
variability of UK river flows. The fact that the earlier
‘flood poor’ period dominates the hydrometric
time series for the majority of gauging stations
calls into question the homogeneity of the data.
Correspondingly, there is a particular need to
establish whether the increased runoff in the
21st century is part of a resilient long-term trend."


It reads like an editor dropped that one in at the last moment.

There is almost nothing to be found that even discusses climate in any depth at all in the section I read and yet you offer your comment about climate as if it was almost the only things the authors could think of rather than a "We had probably better mention it just in case ...... " drop in.

I'm disappointed, not that it matters at all. But I thought that perhaps you offered a slightly more thoughtful position in the matter of the Politics of Climate Change. I guess "thoughtful" is not the appropriate word.

The thinking was more along the lines of showing that Turbobloke's assertion that there is absolutely no link to climate change in recent flood incidents is a political one based on older information and choosing not to take new information/emerging analysis into account.

So you think that is what those remarkably brief references are suggesting?'

Really?

I would have read them the other way. Someone was trying very hard to keep any reference to a subject that was nothing to do with the report or its objectives out of the content. At the very least.

They almost succeeded.

I wonder if if anyone has considered assessing the effects of the construction and operation of disturbines in the area and how much potential rainfall soak away and flow moderation has been disturbed as a consequence?

Then consider the possible consequences of airflow at different heights both on the feed airstreams and what happens as they traverse higher ground fresh off the sea.

Has anyone got any links to analysis along those lines or investigation?

[wc98]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Met Office's own data indicates nothing exceptional is happening, the UK weather is if anything becoming less extreme, more benign.

Just because one event happens to be the worst recorded in very short official UK records in one particular area or location does not signify anything - weather is so random somewhere will always experience its 'worst' event - it's why CAGW people know pointing to 'extreme' weather and records is an endless source of scare stories.

Similarly I can safely predict a serious earthquake or a serious plane crash - it is inevitable.

The leaked Podesta emails even discussed the deliberate ploy to get CAGW activists to seize on weather events and natural disasters and flood the media with 'attribution' junk.

Other research and palaeoflood deposits indicate recent UK events were not unprecedented, as do the rocks NOT moved in the streams that were deposited by previous river floods in the last few hundred years.

A digital search of early newspaper archives and Pathe News shows people just have very short memories when it comes to extreme weather events.

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/unprecedented-s...

Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Sunday 29th January 13:00

bad weather is generally caused by warm and cold air masses clashing. it is why we generally have worse weather in the colder months of the year.
warm phase of amo temperate zone expands meaning more of these clashes take place to the north of us, cold phase of amo we tend to experience more bad weather events, at least that is how it looks to me from various bits of data and anecdotal evidence .

as we are now past the peak of the amo warm phase i expect the extreme weather meme to gather pace in coming years.

[Lotus 50]

turbobloke said:

Yes I can; since there is no man-made global warming in existence, it's speculation. Until there's a visible causal human signal in any global climate data, claims relating to weather phenomena supposedly derived from this are hogwash once removed.

Finally the references you cited unclude more speculation, modelling which assumes the effect it then claims to demonstrate, and other similar non-evidence. Then we mustn't forget the weasel words and phrases in them (more likely, need to establish etc).

AGW really, really needs a visible causal human signal in global climate data, without it all claims are speculation no matter how carefully worded an abstract might be at one end of the faith spectrum, nor how sensationalist the claims may be at the other end.

I'll put a shilling on the side with you that it won't emerge legitimately in observational data, though The Team may plonk it in a spreadsheet via fait accompli (see ship engine intakes vs buoys for SST).

Hmm... anyone subscribe to Nature?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/fu...

[wc98]

LongQ said:

I wonder if if anyone has considered assessing the effects of the construction and operation of disturbines in the area and how much potential rainfall soak away and flow moderation has been disturbed as a consequence?

Then consider the possible consequences of airflow at different heights both on the feed airstreams and what happens as they traverse higher ground fresh off the sea.

Has anyone got any links to analysis along those lines or investigation?

i would be interested to find out more info on this as well. it was a question i asked a rep from one of the energy companies during a meeting being held at marine scotland offices during the consultation process for marine protected areas . the answer was a blank stare followed by "i will get back to you on that one". they never did.

[Lotus 50]

wc98 said:

i would be interested to find out more info on this as well. it was a question i asked a rep from one of the energy companies during a meeting being held at marine scotland offices during the consultation process for marine protected areas . the answer was a blank stare followed by "i will get back to you on that one". they never did.

It would normally be reviewed as part of the EIA carried out in seeking permission for the turbine, then examined in the associated public inquiry. Suggest you have a look for the evidence from those.

[mybrainhurts]

Lotus 50 said:

wc98 said:

i would be interested to find out more info on this as well. it was a question i asked a rep from one of the energy companies during a meeting being held at marine scotland offices during the consultation process for marine protected areas . the answer was a blank stare followed by "i will get back to you on that one". they never did.

It would normally be reviewed as part of the EIA carried out in seeking permission for the turbine, then examined in the associated public inquiry. Suggest you have a look for the evidence from those.

I'd risk a little bet he doesn't find any...

[Blib]

UK 'need not fear electricity blackouts' says ex-National Grid boss - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38791572

The lights will stay on. During this recent cold spell, wind produced 1% of demand. Companies will be paid for NOT using energy and all will be well.

The irony of one of the biggest economies in the World even having to have this discussion is frankly diabolical.

The one thing a modern country needs in the 21st Century is a reliable and abundant supply of energy. What we have is Harrabin crowing about the need to pay old oil and coal stations not to close down

Boldly into the future!!!