On Sep 7, 1:15*am, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Sep 6, 5:34*pm, prodata wrote:



On Sep 6, 5:01*pm, Alastair wrote:

...
Each event is dismissed as weather, but tken together they are global
climate change!

Complete non-sequitur though. Isn't it? As far as I'm aware, there's
no consensus that GW/AGW will lead to a greater incidence of severe
weather events. Some theorise that it will of course, but equally some
have the opposite interpretation - overall increased thermal energy in
the atmosphere vs a reduced polar/equatorial temperature gradient -
which will have the upper hand in terms of generating severe events?
Has the likely winner been declared yet?

However, this sort of thing should be easily testable, perhaps so
easily in fact - assuming that the necessary wordlwide data is
available - that it's presumably already been done by someone. If you
can objectively define what's to be counted as a severe weather event
then has the worldwide incidence increased significantly or not over
the past 50 years or so? But maybe the necessary historical record
isn't uniformly available for the less well-instrumented parts of the
world?

JGD

* *I was having a similar argument in the pub this evening with
someone whose response was, if thought about for a second or two,
quite breathtaking. *He said that I basically had too much knowledge
( being aware that I had been in the business, albeit a long time ago)
and was too involved with the minutiae of meteorological events and
their causes, inplying that he, unencumbered by all this, could offer
a broader view and that was that things were going to get rapidly
"worse", which meant not just hotter but capricious and chaotic
("obviously"). *He was certainly educated and knew about the effect of
CO2 and methane but only a superficial knowledge of atmospheric
processes. *

That is roughly what I am trying to say. What I would add is that all
scientists are doing it because they are afraid of facing up to the
truth: anthropogenic global warming is happening and it can only get
worse. But they do not want to admit it because it means they, along
with everyone else, must give up their affluent way of life which is
provided by the burning of fossil fuels.

Moreover, no action will be taken to curb the burning of fossil fuels
until the effects are disastrous - far worse than Katrina or the
Pakistan floods. By then it will be too late to prevent the real
catastrophe. When asked why they could not see that coming, the
scientists will still have an excuse: "The Atlantic storms were
weakening."

That is the sort of straw that is grasped in order to turn a blind eye
to the fact that wild fires, droughts, floods, heat waves, and the
Arctic sea ice melt are all increasing.

He thought I couldn't see the wood for the trees. *But
it's a purely technical subject, not an impressionistic one, and you
have to know what makes trees grow or wither.

You don't need that knowledge to take sensible action. Even a cow will
get out of the rain, or the Sun, by sheltering under a tree!

Cheers, Alastair.

On Sep 7, 11:11*am, Alastair wrote:
On Sep 7, 1:15*am, Tudor Hughes wrote:





On Sep 6, 5:34*pm, prodata wrote:

On Sep 6, 5:01*pm, Alastair wrote:

...
Each event is dismissed as weather, but tken together they are global
climate change!

Complete non-sequitur though. Isn't it? As far as I'm aware, there's
no consensus that GW/AGW will lead to a greater incidence of severe
weather events. Some theorise that it will of course, but equally some
have the opposite interpretation - overall increased thermal energy in
the atmosphere vs a reduced polar/equatorial temperature gradient -
which will have the upper hand in terms of generating severe events?
Has the likely winner been declared yet?

However, this sort of thing should be easily testable, perhaps so
easily in fact - assuming that the necessary wordlwide data is
available - that it's presumably already been done by someone. If you
can objectively define what's to be counted as a severe weather event
then has the worldwide incidence increased significantly or not over
the past 50 years or so? But maybe the necessary historical record
isn't uniformly available for the less well-instrumented parts of the
world?

JGD

* *I was having a similar argument in the pub this evening with
someone whose response was, if thought about for a second or two,
quite breathtaking. *He said that I basically had too much knowledge
( being aware that I had been in the business, albeit a long time ago)
and was too involved with the minutiae of meteorological events and
their causes, inplying that he, unencumbered by all this, could offer
a broader view and that was that things were going to get rapidly
"worse", which meant not just hotter but capricious and chaotic
("obviously"). *He was certainly educated and knew about the effect of
CO2 and methane but only a superficial knowledge of atmospheric
processes. *

That is roughly what I am trying to say. What I would add is that all
scientists are doing it because they are afraid of facing up to the
truth: anthropogenic global warming is happening and it can only get
worse. But they do not want to admit it because it means they, along
with everyone else, must give up their affluent way of life which is
provided by the burning of fossil fuels.

Moreover, no action will be taken to curb the burning of fossil fuels
until the effects are disastrous - far worse than Katrina or the
Pakistan floods. By then it will be too late to prevent the real
catastrophe. *When asked why they could not see that coming, the
scientists will still have an excuse: "The Atlantic storms were
weakening."

That is the sort of straw that is grasped in order to turn a blind eye
to the fact that wild fires, droughts, floods, heat waves, and the
Arctic sea ice melt are all increasing.

He thought I couldn't see the wood for the trees. *But
it's a purely technical subject, not an impressionistic one, and you
have to know what makes trees grow or wither.

You don't need that knowledge to take sensible action. Even a cow will
get out of the rain, or the Sun, by sheltering under a tree!

Cheers, Alastair.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You need knowledge to both debunk the deniers and to question
people such as yourself who have assumed that a warmer world will
automatically be a meteorologically more chaotic one. Warmth we will
certainly have but there is plenty of room for debate about increased
variability. Your reply doesn't answer prodata's pertinent points.
It worth pointing out that in this country the stormiest episodes have
been during cold eras such as the Little Ice Age with its increased
pole-equator temperature difference and the movement of the zone of
greatest temperature gradient southwards, taking the jet stream with
it.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

On Tuesday 07 September 2010 15:35, Tudor Hughes scribbled:

It worth pointing out that in this country the stormiest episodes have
been during cold eras such as the Little Ice Age with its increased
pole-equator temperature difference and the movement of the zone of
greatest temperature gradient southwards, taking the jet stream with
it.

Against that, there is increasing energy in the form of heat and moisture in
the atmosphere. Also, in addition to the warming of the tropopause, the
stratosphere is cooling and the height of the tropopause is consequently
rising. So we have more energy and depth for convection. So more "stormy"
weather is on the cards if we define the term as meaning rain and
thunderstorms instead of stormy winds arising from Atlantic depressions.

What is the effect of a weaker circulation due to the reduced NP-Equator
temperature difference? Isn't it a reduction in zonality and so increased
meridionality? That suggests to me that there would be more extreme weather
due to a higher frequency of blocked situations.

--
Graham Davis, Bracknell, Berks. E-mail: "newsman", not "newsboy".
"It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out." - Carl
Sagan
Pakistan Floods Appeal: http://www.dec.org.uk/

On Sep 7, 2:35*pm, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Sep 7, 11:11*am, Alastair wrote:



On Sep 7, 1:15*am, Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Sep 6, 5:34*pm, prodata wrote:

On Sep 6, 5:01*pm, Alastair wrote:

...
Each event is dismissed as weather, but tken together they are global
climate change!

Complete non-sequitur though. Isn't it? As far as I'm aware, there's
no consensus that GW/AGW will lead to a greater incidence of severe
weather events. Some theorise that it will of course, but equally some
have the opposite interpretation - overall increased thermal energy in
the atmosphere vs a reduced polar/equatorial temperature gradient -
which will have the upper hand in terms of generating severe events?
Has the likely winner been declared yet?

However, this sort of thing should be easily testable, perhaps so
easily in fact - assuming that the necessary wordlwide data is
available - that it's presumably already been done by someone. If you
can objectively define what's to be counted as a severe weather event
then has the worldwide incidence increased significantly or not over
the past 50 years or so? But maybe the necessary historical record
isn't uniformly available for the less well-instrumented parts of the
world?

JGD

* *I was having a similar argument in the pub this evening with
someone whose response was, if thought about for a second or two,
quite breathtaking. *He said that I basically had too much knowledge
( being aware that I had been in the business, albeit a long time ago)
and was too involved with the minutiae of meteorological events and
their causes, inplying that he, unencumbered by all this, could offer
a broader view and that was that things were going to get rapidly
"worse", which meant not just hotter but capricious and chaotic
("obviously"). *He was certainly educated and knew about the effect of
CO2 and methane but only a superficial knowledge of atmospheric
processes. *

That is roughly what I am trying to say. What I would add is that all
scientists are doing it because they are afraid of facing up to the
truth: anthropogenic global warming is happening and it can only get
worse. But they do not want to admit it because it means they, along
with everyone else, must give up their affluent way of life which is
provided by the burning of fossil fuels.

Moreover, no action will be taken to curb the burning of fossil fuels
until the effects are disastrous - far worse than Katrina or the
Pakistan floods. By then it will be too late to prevent the real
catastrophe. *When asked why they could not see that coming, the
scientists will still have an excuse: "The Atlantic storms were
weakening."

That is the sort of straw that is grasped in order to turn a blind eye
to the fact that wild fires, droughts, floods, heat waves, and the
Arctic sea ice melt are all increasing.

He thought I couldn't see the wood for the trees. *But
it's a purely technical subject, not an impressionistic one, and you
have to know what makes trees grow or wither.

You don't need that knowledge to take sensible action. Even a cow will
get out of the rain, or the Sun, by sheltering under a tree!

Cheers, Alastair.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

* * * *You need knowledge to both debunk the deniers and to question
people such as yourself who have assumed that a warmer world will
automatically be a meteorologically more chaotic one.

I am not saying the warmer world will be a more chaotic one. I am
saying that the climate, like the weather, is chaotic. Thus there will
be inevitable surprises.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309074347

*Warmth we will
certainly have but there is plenty of room for debate about increased
variability. *Your reply doesn't answer prodata's pertinent points.

The concern is global climate, not just storms affecting western
Europe. But we can see what is happening he record temperature over
100F, and 40,000 deaths in France. Now Russia has a heat wave, and
that has affected the grain harvest. France, Spain, Italy and Greece
all had serious wild fires last year. Do you really think that global
warming is going to make those types of event less intense or less
frequent?

OK, prodata is correct; we don't know exactly what will happen, but we
do know it will be bad :-(

It worth pointing out that in this country the stormiest episodes have
been during cold eras such as the Little Ice Age with its increased
pole-equator temperature difference and the movement of the zone of
greatest temperature gradient southwards, taking the jet stream with
it.

As Graham has pointed out you don't need depressions to get heavy
rain, so even if we do get calmer weather we can still get more rain
driven by convection. With the loss of the Arctic sea ice, the Arctic
will warm and of course the cyclones originating there will end. But
with temperatures rising, specific humidity too will rise and that
will inevitably lead to heavier rain.

You may dispute that, but who is correct, you or me, can only be
proved by waiting until it happens and making the measurements then.
If we do that, then it will be too late!

In other words, claiming that we need more information is just a
delaying tactic to put off the evil day when we will have to give up
our unsustainable way of life.

Cheers, Alastair.

On Sep 7, 4:58*pm, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Tuesday 07 September 2010 15:35, Tudor Hughes scribbled:

It worth pointing out that in this country the stormiest episodes have
been during cold eras such as the Little Ice Age with its increased
pole-equator temperature difference and the movement of the zone of
greatest temperature gradient southwards, taking the jet stream with
it.

Against that, there is increasing energy in the form of heat and moisture in
the atmosphere. Also, in addition to the warming of the tropopause, the
stratosphere is cooling and the height of the tropopause is consequently
rising. So we have more energy and depth for convection. So more "stormy"
weather is on the cards if we define the term as meaning rain and
thunderstorms instead of stormy winds arising from Atlantic depressions.

What is the effect of a weaker circulation due to the reduced NP-Equator
temperature difference? Isn't it a reduction in zonality and so increased
meridionality? That suggests to me that there would be more extreme weather
due to a higher frequency of blocked situations.

--
Graham Davis, Bracknell, Berks. *E-mail: "newsman", not "newsboy".
"It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out." - Carl
Sagan
Pakistan Floods Appeal:http://www.dec.org.uk/

By "stormy" I meant windier, deeper lows, more gales etc, not
thunderstorms. It's an unfortunate feature of popular terminology. I
certainly take your points about deeper convection and increased
energy due to higher moisture content.
The basic cause, or at least trigger of meridionality, it seems
to me is that the temperature gradients on a large scale are not
simply north-south but have east-west components especially in the N
Hemishpere in winter. In a warmer world these gradients will be less,
just as the N-S gradients will be and there may be no increase in
merdionality which, as you say, is a cause of greater variability. It
could be that the whole circulation, of whatever nature, is less
vigorous, though that wouldn't reduce the probability of extreme local
events such as thunderstorms.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.