Some very interesting discussion on the programme this morning (still available
on iPlayer). Good to hear Prof Sir Brian Hoskins stressing the great
uncertainty in future climate predictions. He said that "we" have no idea what
will happen to the Indian monsoon in future and very little idea about how many
summers like 2003 there will be in Europe in future. He clearly has little time
for the current debate between the polarised views of the "believers" and
"unbelievers" on climate change. He said the real discussion is about the
uncertainties and unknowns. A man who speaks very sound science.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.

On Sep 6, 1:58*pm, "Norman" wrote:
Some very interesting discussion on the programme this morning (still available
on iPlayer). Good to hear Prof Sir Brian Hoskins stressing the great
uncertainty in future climate predictions. He said that "we" have no idea what
will happen to the Indian monsoon in future and very little idea about how many
summers like 2003 there will be in Europe in future. He clearly has little time
for the current debate between the polarised views of the "believers" and
"unbelievers" on climate change. He said the real discussion is about the
uncertainties and unknowns. A man who speaks very sound science.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.

But we do know. They will get worse.

Over the last month we have had flooding in Pakistan (and
Afganistan),
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10896849
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...&Cr=Afghan&Cr1
China,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...ains-predicted
Australia
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11197001
Guatemala
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11189918
And later this week will have record rains here.

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

Cheers, Alastair.

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

On 6 Sep, 18:01, Alastair wrote:
On Sep 6, 1:58*pm, "Norman" wrote:

Some very interesting discussion on the programme this morning (still available
on iPlayer). Good to hear Prof Sir Brian Hoskins stressing the great
uncertainty in future climate predictions. He said that "we" have no idea what
will happen to the Indian monsoon in future and very little idea about how many
summers like 2003 there will be in Europe in future. He clearly has little time
for the current debate between the polarised views of the "believers" and
"unbelievers" on climate change. He said the real discussion is about the
uncertainties and unknowns. A man who speaks very sound science.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.

But we do know. They will get worse.

Over the last month we have had flooding in Pakistan (and
Afganistan),http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-sout...&Cr=Afghan&Cr1
China,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...s-heavy-rains-...
Australiahttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11197001
Guatemalahttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11189918
And later this week will have record rains here.

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

Cheers, Alastair.

"...But we do know. They will get worse...."

More unfounded, alarmist hooey...

CK

On Monday 06 September 2010 17:34, prodata scribbled:

Complete non-sequitur though. Isn't it?
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Careful! The last time someone used that word here it started a row that
makes the one over AGW look like a storm in a tea-cup. ;-)

--
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
Another Brick in The Wall: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIP38eq-ywc

On Monday 06 September 2010 17:01, Alastair scribbled:

On Sep 6, 1:58 pm, "Norman" wrote:
Some very interesting discussion on the programme this morning (still
available on iPlayer). Good to hear Prof Sir Brian Hoskins stressing the
great uncertainty in future climate predictions. He said that "we" have
no idea what will happen to the Indian monsoon in future and very little
idea about how many summers like 2003 there will be in Europe in future.
He clearly has little time for the current debate between the polarised
views of the "believers" and "unbelievers" on climate change. He said the
real discussion is about the uncertainties and unknowns. A man who speaks
very sound science.


But we do know. They will get worse.

Over the last month we have had flooding in Pakistan (and
Afganistan),
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10896849
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...&Cr=Afghan&Cr1
China,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...s-heavy-rains-
predicted
Australia
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11197001
Guatemala
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11189918
And later this week will have record rains here.

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


And Niger:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...donor-fatigue-
media-images
http://www.worldvision.org.uk/server.php?show=nav.3687

--
Graham Davis, Bracknell, Berks. E-mail: "newsman", not "newsboy".
Pakistan Floods Appeal: http://www.dec.org.uk/
Niger Appeals: http://www.dec.org.uk/item/467

On 6 Sep, 14:58, "Norman" wrote:
Some very interesting discussion on the programme this morning (still available
on iPlayer). Good to hear Prof Sir Brian Hoskins stressing the great
uncertainty in future climate predictions. He said that "we" have no idea what
will happen to the Indian monsoon in future and very little idea about how many
summers like 2003 there will be in Europe in future. He clearly has little time
for the current debate between the polarised views of the "believers" and
"unbelievers" on climate change. He said the real discussion is about the
uncertainties and unknowns. A man who speaks very sound science.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.

It's the fact that we actually have very little understanding of the
effects we can have on climate, that we (meaning the human race,
rather than just you & me!) need to minimise our impact on the global
environment, better safe than sorry. Chucking vast quantities of CO2
(and other things) into the atmosphere, or removing huge chunks of
equatorial rainforests, is clearly a bad idea, as we don't know what
the outcome will be.

Interesting that gale frequencies have declined markedly along the
Atlantic seaboard of the UK over the last decade or so. (The higher
frequencies in the '90s were all put to to AGW). This has been the
case in Orkney, it's the case in Cornwall, so it's not simply a change
in depression tracks. Possibly down to the greatest warming being in
the arctic, therefore a lower latitudinal temprature gradient?

But who really knows.

Graham
Penzance

Graham Easterling wrote:

On 6 Sep, 14:58, "Norman" wrote:
Some very interesting discussion on the programme this morning (still
available on iPlayer). Good to hear Prof Sir Brian Hoskins stressing the
great uncertainty in future climate predictions. He said that "we" have no
idea what will happen to the Indian monsoon in future and very little idea
about how many summers like 2003 there will be in Europe in future. He
clearly has little time for the current debate between the polarised views
of the "believers" and "unbelievers" on climate change. He said the real
discussion is about the uncertainties and unknowns. A man who speaks very
sound science.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.

It's the fact that we actually have very little understanding of the
effects we can have on climate, that we (meaning the human race,
rather than just you & me!) need to minimise our impact on the global
environment, better safe than sorry. Chucking vast quantities of CO2
(and other things) into the atmosphere, or removing huge chunks of
equatorial rainforests, is clearly a bad idea, as we don't know what
the outcome will be.

Interesting that gale frequencies have declined markedly along the
Atlantic seaboard of the UK over the last decade or so. (The higher
frequencies in the '90s were all put to to AGW). This has been the
case in Orkney, it's the case in Cornwall, so it's not simply a change
in depression tracks. Possibly down to the greatest warming being in
the arctic, therefore a lower latitudinal temprature gradient?

But who really knows.

Graham
Penzance

That's the point that Brian Hoskins was making. Global warming is a fact but
what the long-term effects of it will be - globally, regionally and locally -
is really a great unknown. The professional scientific community recognise this
and this is where the real discussion should be. The reduced gale frequency
around the UK is just one example of a change that has occurred in the past
decade or two. Is this random or is it a direct consequence of global warming?
At present I don't think any serious scientist can answer that. The problem is
that the climate signal is very noisy so it is only with the benefit of
hindsight that true changes in the mean can be differentiated from random
fluctuations either side of the mean. Interesting times......

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.

On 2010-09-06, 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?

Then there is the issue that there's more people around to notice severe
weather. More people able to pass the information on. More people in
places where there were none, more people in flood-prone areas. Isn't
this observational bias?

--
comp.john

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. 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.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey