On Thursday, 25 February 2021 at 14:59:22 UTC, Julian Mayes wrote:
I'd pay him more attention if he were a qualified meteorologist or even just a scientist but as far as I can see he isn't.

Tudor Hughes.
Indeed he isn't - he appears to be a Diplomat and former senior civil servant. IMO this is entirely appropriate and effective. This background gives him clout in the corridors of power. He will know how to communicate and influence in order to get the message across.
Are you really implying, Tudor, that as the Chair of a large organisation he is not briefed by scientists incl. meteorologists and hydrologists? Of course he is. The fact that they have been able to convince someone from a different discipline is telling. The problem is the lack of scientists in political circles - eg in the Cabinet.

Maybe you are surprised at the comment about flooding in recent years. I'm not. I'll just throw in one observation - there have been several occasions in the last 2 years when I have been surprised at how high daily rainfalls have been on days when the synoptic situation did not appear to indicate anything unusual. The added warmth of warm conveyor belts (atmospheric rivers, as some like to call them) seems to be a plausible connector to global warming. No doubt academic papers are in preparation that will help us put it into perspective. I'm with Norman in this!

Julian

It's not that that I disagree that the world is a warmer place or that mankind is very largely responsible for this, it's that the warnings seem rather hysterical, so much so that members of the public will tend to dismiss them. In any case not all the disruptive effects of flooding are due to increased rainfall; we can have a considerable effect on how this excess is dealt with and maybe some practices will need to change.

Tudor Hughes

On 25/02/2021 20:08, Tudor Hughes wrote:
It's not that that I disagree that the world is a warmer place or that mankind is very largely responsible for this, it's that the warnings seem rather hysterical, so much so that members of the public will tend to dismiss them. In any case not all the disruptive effects of flooding are due to increased rainfall; we can have a considerable effect on how this excess is dealt with and maybe some practices will need to change.

I find the 'climate catastrophe' agenda rather waring. The last series
by David Attenborough, appallingly called 'Perfect Planet' a fine
example of pushing a hysterical agenda.

And I agree totally, keep up the alarmist rhetoric and in the end,
people start to ignore it.

--
Nick Gardner
Otter Valley, Devon
20 m amsl
http://www.ottervalleyweather.me.uk

Nick Gardner wrote:

On 25/02/2021 20:08, Tudor Hughes wrote:
It's not that that I disagree that the world is a warmer place or
that mankind is very largely responsible for this, it's that the warnings
seem rather hysterical, so much so that members of the public will tend to
dismiss them. In any case not all the disruptive effects of flooding are
due to increased rainfall; we can have a considerable effect on how this
excess is dealt with and maybe some practices will need to change.

I find the 'climate catastrophe' agenda rather waring. The last series by
David Attenborough, appallingly called 'Perfect Planet' a fine example of
pushing a hysterical agenda.

And I agree totally, keep up the alarmist rhetoric and in the end, people
start to ignore it.

That sounds a bit denialist to me, Nick. I am a lifetime observer of weather
and climate worldwide and what I see today suggests to me that we are on the
brink of a catastrophe. I didn't find 'Perfect Planet' in any way 'over the
top'. As I said earlier, this is something of a slow-burner but I am sure that
some tipping points will be reached within the next couple of decades (probably
have already been reached in the Arctic) that'll be real 'wake-up' calls.
Sadly, I think it's already too late to prevent any of this happening. I used
to be somewhat sceptical about the potential negative man-made effects on
climate but what I have seen in recent years has changed all that.
Unfortunately, this will all get kicked down the road by the politicians and we
(the human race) will lurch into an untenable situation without any advance
planning as to how we will deal with it. I don't expect to be around long
enough to really see whether I'm right or wrong but I see no reason for
optimism.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
https://peakdistrictweather.org
Twitter: @TideswellWeathr

On 25/02/2021 20:51, Norman Lynagh wrote:
I am sure that
some tipping points will be reached within the next couple of decades (probably
have already been reached in the Arctic) that'll be real 'wake-up' calls.

Things are happening fast in the Arctic

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

If the latest plot is to be believed, beware data revisionists at work,
was updated to 24 Feb yesterday , but not as dranatic down tick.
Still no update of Antartic data

--
Global sea level rise to 2100 from curve-fitted existing altimetry data
http://diverse.4mg.com/slr.htm

On 25/02/2021 20:51, Norman Lynagh wrote:

Denialist is rather a pejorative term with connotations. It is now used
for anybody that doesn't agree with either the narrative or somebody
else's opinions. It is used as an insult.

Norman, I studied environmental pollution/science at degree, masters and
doctoral level. And have been a professional environmental scientist for
over 20 years. I have met climate and environmental scientists from all
over the world with differing views on climate change.

The term 'climate catastrophe' is a fairly recent term and designed to
up the fear. It has become politicised. But there are several problems
with assuming a warmer world will be a catastrophic world. For that we
have to look to the past and the largest problem is the Eocene. During
this time CO2 levels were estimated to be double (or more) that of
today's and the Earth was ice-free. Life existed in far greater
abundance than it does now. Antarctica was covered in deciduous forests
and there very few, if any deserts. Coral reefs nearly stretched from
the Arctic to the Antarctic Circles. If you were a citizen living in the
Eocene and then you were transported to today's Earth, you would think
that a climate catastrophe had really happened. Large parts of today's
Earth struggle to support life in any abundance; rainfall distribution
is very patchy. Antarctica is effectively a dead continent except for a
little slither of life around its edges. Greenland is not much different.

When I bring up the Eocene paradox, some scientists acknowledge it puts
a big question mark over 'climate catastrophe' theory, others ignore it.
To me it is the same as dark matter/energy to theoretical physicists and
the 'great survivors' such as sharks, insects and turtles etc etc to the
mass extinction theory.

Whatever happens, the Earth will be just fine. What humankind will have
to do is adapt (which the richer countries will do well and leave the
likes of Bangladesh to drown). Oh, and say goodbye to most of the
world's major cities as they gradually disappear under the sea.....

A good book to read is Emerald Planet by David Beerling. He talks about
plants having caused catastrophic climate change in the past by taking
too much CO2 out of the atmosphere and plunging the Earth into ice-ages.
For most of its history the Earth has been warm, we still are in an
ice-age, just a slightly warmer one.

--
Nick Gardner
Otter Valley, Devon
20 m amsl
http://www.ottervalleyweather.me.uk

Nick Gardner wrote:

On 25/02/2021 20:51, Norman Lynagh wrote:

Denialist is rather a pejorative term with connotations. It is now used for
anybody that doesn't agree with either the narrative or somebody else's
opinions. It is used as an insult.

Norman, I studied environmental pollution/science at degree, masters and
doctoral level. And have been a professional environmental scientist for over
20 years. I have met climate and environmental scientists from all over the
world with differing views on climate change.

The term 'climate catastrophe' is a fairly recent term and designed to up the
fear. It has become politicised. But there are several problems with assuming
a warmer world will be a catastrophic world. For that we have to look to the
past and the largest problem is the Eocene. During this time CO2 levels were
estimated to be double (or more) that of today's and the Earth was ice-free.
Life existed in far greater abundance than it does now. Antarctica was
covered in deciduous forests and there very few, if any deserts. Coral reefs
nearly stretched from the Arctic to the Antarctic Circles. If you were a
citizen living in the Eocene and then you were transported to today's Earth,
you would think that a climate catastrophe had really happened. Large parts
of today's Earth struggle to support life in any abundance; rainfall
distribution is very patchy. Antarctica is effectively a dead continent
except for a little slither of life around its edges. Greenland is not much
different.

When I bring up the Eocene paradox, some scientists acknowledge it puts a big
question mark over 'climate catastrophe' theory, others ignore it. To me it
is the same as dark matter/energy to theoretical physicists and the 'great
survivors' such as sharks, insects and turtles etc etc to the mass extinction
theory.

Whatever happens, the Earth will be just fine. What humankind will have to do
is adapt (which the richer countries will do well and leave the likes of
Bangladesh to drown). Oh, and say goodbye to most of the world's major cities
as they gradually disappear under the sea.....

A good book to read is Emerald Planet by David Beerling. He talks about
plants having caused catastrophic climate change in the past by taking too
much CO2 out of the atmosphere and plunging the Earth into ice-ages. For most
of its history the Earth has been warm, we still are in an ice-age, just a
slightly warmer one.

No insult was intended, Nick. I fully agree with your penultimate paragraph.
The earth would get on a lot better without us humans messing things up.

I suppose my point is that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been
pretty constant ever since homo sapiens evolved, until very recently that is.
Over the past 100 or so years we have caused that concentration to rise by what
has become a very large amount. There's a lot of time lag but it seems
inevitable that a new climate equilibrium will eventually be reached that's
very different to what we have been used to. As someone (can't remember who)
said a few months ago - 'The planet we think we live on no longer exists'. I
would happily agree with that statement. Whether it will result in
'catastrophe' no-one honestly knows either way. My feeling is that it will
probably end up with hundreds of millions of climate-change related deaths and
a refugee problem of unprecedented proportions. Whether that is seen as
'catastrophe' or just an adustment of the life-balance on the planet is, I
suppose, a matter of opinion. I'll go with catastrophe. I can't be certain that
it'll happen but all the signs that I see seem to point in that direction.
Don't try to tell me in 30 years from now that I was wrong because I won't be
around to listen!

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
https://peakdistrictweather.org
Twitter: @TideswellWeathr

Nick Gardner wrote:

Denialist is rather a pejorative term with connotations. It is now used for
anybody that doesn't agree with either the narrative or somebody else's
opinions. It is used as an insult.

The term 'climate catastrophe' is a fairly recent term and designed to up the
fear.

I see a denier as being someone who denies that the Holocaust happened which resulted in the death of millions of people. I see climate deniers as people who deny that, if we not stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, the result will be the death of billions of people. Both types of deniers have no evidence that they are correct, only a strongly held belief.

Sir James Bevan is not the only one warning of this. So too is Sir David Attenborough:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/scienc...nment-56175714

On Friday, 26 February 2021 at 21:10:45 UTC, wrote:
Nick Gardner wrote:

Denialist is rather a pejorative term with connotations. It is now used for
anybody that doesn't agree with either the narrative or somebody else's
opinions. It is used as an insult.

The term 'climate catastrophe' is a fairly recent term and designed to up the
fear.

if we not stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, the result will be the death of billions of people.

That is an alarmist & almost certainly ridiculous statement, as extreme as anything a denier might come up with.

Sadly I think it's too late to prevent significant climatic change. The exact nature of these changes is very hard to predict, hence the need to minimise the effect we are having. Reducing CO2 emissions seems something of a lost cause, preventing destruction of the rain forests would seem easier, but mankind is totalling failing with that. It's all about damage management now. I've always been concerned how polarised & extreme many statements that are made are, on both sides, which doesn't help.

As a member of Greenpeace for decades I am deeply concerned about the damage we are doing to the planet. I joined after witnessing the devastation of the Torrey Canyon disaster, much of the oil appeared on the beach in front of me. Apart from the devastation caused (much by the detergent sprayed on it) the stench was awful.

My own personal view is that plastic pollution may end up being more devastating than climate change.

Graham
Penzance

And I agree totally, keep up the alarmist rhetoric and in the end,
people start to ignore it.

--
Nick Gardner

It all depends on 'who' the people are. Backbench MPs are falling over themselves to promote their green credentials. In this regard, policymakers matter - we may be generating a minority band of sceptics. OK, not everything can be done 'top-down' and much will depend on consumer behaviour. Sir David Attenborough has accepted the need to be realistic and positive in this sense - as he was quoted a few days ago in relation to a new series. I think we need to take all detailed research seriously, but yes to be careful with rhetoric. Some people will not understand the nuances here though and conclude that there's backtracking.

Julian

It's not that that I disagree that the world is a warmer place or that mankind is very largely responsible for this, it's that the warnings seem rather hysterical, so much so that members of the public will tend to dismiss them. In any case not all the disruptive effects of flooding are due to increased rainfall; we can have a considerable effect on how this excess is dealt with and maybe some practices will need to change.

Tudor Hughes

That's a fair comment - I certainly flinch at some alarmist language and how it fuels denialism. Yes, it can be counter-productive. Of course, we don't know if the more melodramatic outcomes will actually occur, but we need to do what we can to mitigate future effects and to appreciate just how large the issues are. By 'large' let's start with the projections dealing with the North Atlantic overturning circulation - main story in The Guardian for a time y'day.....

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...say-scientists

Julian