flood watch

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 11 Sep 2014, 19:27

snow hope wrote:It is a pretty good site, but of course all the climate scientists who contribute to that site believe strongly in AGW and this clearly shines through.

Fing is, all climate scientists believe in AGW. That 97% meme is rather out of date. I've been trying to find a paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal by a working climate that opposes AGW form the last year or two. All my, and other people's searches have come up with is a rather curious piece in a Russian journal, which even if one is generous enough to allow it, makes only one out of thousands.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 11 Sep 2014, 19:56

biffvernon wrote:
snow hope wrote:It is a pretty good site, but of course all the climate scientists who contribute to that site believe strongly in AGW and this clearly shines through.
Fing is, all climate scientists believe in AGW. .

It would be like finding a Jew in Spain after the inquisition.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 11 Sep 2014, 20:28

Possibly.

But let's say someone actually does find something recreateable that blows present models about AGW out of the water. If their study were rigorous enough, and nobody found a fault in it, they would be famous for life, Nobel material in fact. Not only that but all the oil-and-gas bods would heave a sigh of relief. The incentive for finding evidence that disproves AGW is, frankly, enormous. The fact that, incentive notwithstanding, nobody has yet managed to do so speaks to my scientific mind as the nearest thing you could possiblly have to "evidence of absence".

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 14 Sep 2014, 02:25

RenewableCandy wrote:Possibly.

But let's say someone actually does find something recreateable that blows present models about AGW out of the water. If their study were rigorous enough, and nobody found a fault in it, they would be famous for life, Nobel material in fact. Not only that but all the oil-and-gas bods would heave a sigh of relief. The incentive for finding evidence that disproves AGW is, frankly, enormous. The fact that, incentive notwithstanding, nobody has yet managed to do so speaks to my scientific mind as the nearest thing you could possiblly have to "evidence of absence".

Excellent point there. I think the money on each side is about equal, and plentiful enough so they can't find useful ways to spend it. The problem is complex enough that no one has definitive answers.
In the end I think the question is moot as declining oil production and the accompanying economic collapse will reduce human population and pollution to the point that the survivors will have minimal effect on the climate and will be able to use those areas where the changed climate is advantageous to them.

Post by **adam2** » 04 Oct 2015, 12:17

Severe flooding in France, several lives lost and others missing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34438063

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 04 Oct 2015, 21:21

And South Carolina

http://revolution-news.com/catastrophic ... -expected/

Post by **adam2** » 05 Dec 2015, 14:16

Our turn again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35014619

Red warnings for significant areas in the north of the UK. Red warnings are relatively rare, and ones covering such a large area very rare indeed.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 05 Dec 2015, 17:59

Three named storms in as many weeks must be a record. Nothing to do with global warming I presume? Definitely something to do with El Nino though.

Post by **clv101** » 05 Dec 2015, 19:21

Definitely a record, this is the first year we've ever had named storms.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 06 Dec 2015, 04:56

Sea levels could rise by as much as a couple of meters in a decade according to Andrea Dutton, a geochemist at the University of Florida and one of the co-authors of a study mentioned in this article

“There are some recent modeling efforts that now show you could get a section of the Antarctic ice sheet, several meters worth of sea level rise, to go in a decade. We used to think it was centuries.”

fuzzy · Post by **fuzzy** » 06 Dec 2015, 10:48

vtsnowedin wrote:
RenewableCandy wrote:Possibly.

But let's say someone actually does find something recreateable that blows present models about AGW out of the water. If their study were rigorous enough, and nobody found a fault in it, they would be famous for life, Nobel material in fact. Not only that but all the oil-and-gas bods would heave a sigh of relief. The incentive for finding evidence that disproves AGW is, frankly, enormous. The fact that, incentive notwithstanding, nobody has yet managed to do so speaks to my scientific mind as the nearest thing you could possiblly have to "evidence of absence".
Excellent point there. I think the money on each side is about equal, and plentiful enough so they can't find useful ways to spend it. The problem is complex enough that no one has definitive answers.
In the end I think the question is moot as declining oil production and the accompanying economic collapse will reduce human population and pollution to the point that the survivors will have minimal effect on the climate and will be able to use those areas where the changed climate is advantageous to them.

I largely agree, but I would be suprised if climate researchers who felt man was having little long term effect [no one would deny we have some impact] on the planets climate got funding from gov or universities. Maybe they are funded by energy companies or mad billionaires, but the only stories I hear publicised are from the zealots of the new religion of climate change. I can't see oil companies having much research - they are going to sell every drop they can anyway - and the public will buy it. An interesting obit from a long term cynic:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/p ... hange.html

I have little knowledge of the climate change facts and I won't be trying to teach myself any from the internet. I am content that my eco footprint is much smaller than most people in my country, and obviously bigger than it could be.

AutomaticEarth · Post by **AutomaticEarth** » 06 Dec 2015, 14:11

I've seen no floods where I live, but I'm near the top of a hill. But what I have seen is that the rain storms we've seen the last few weeks have been really heavy. So has the wind strength. This is anecdotal of course.......

AutomaticEarth · Post by **AutomaticEarth** » 06 Dec 2015, 14:25

It always amazes me when people pay over the odds to live in a low lying area, and then grizzle when their home floods.

Surely, the cost of insurance must go through the roof, and would then be a reason to leave??

AutomaticEarth · Post by **AutomaticEarth** » 06 Dec 2015, 18:00

News reports saying 14 inches of rain fell in 24 hrs in some areas, a British record......

Post by **clv101** » 06 Dec 2015, 18:18

kenneal - lagger wrote:Sea levels could rise by as much as a couple of meters in a decade according to Andrea Dutton, a geochemist at the University of Florida and one of the co-authors of a study mentioned in this article

“There are some recent modeling efforts that now show you could get a section of the Antarctic ice sheet, several meters worth of sea level rise, to go in a decade. We used to think it was centuries.”

Just to be clear, 'we' absolutely still do think several metres of sea level rise takes centuries not a decade.