So how many more of these events do we need to make you think
they might be the result of global warming? We have already had
Boscastle, Carlisle, and now Helmsley within the last twelve months.
How many more do we need to beak the record?

Cheers, Alastair.

Lots, lots more, Alastair. This sort of stuff is always
happening. See Ian Currie's post. There is no reason to suppose that
Global Warming should cause more of anything overall, except warmth.
With a reduced temperature difference between the poles (at least the
North Pole) and the equator a good case could be made out for a more
tranquil regime. Nobody mentions this.
I now see (via News24) that the Independent's headline for
tomorrow blames Global Warming for the North York storms. This is
idiotic, especially as the Indy is not some silly tabloid. It's on a
par with the Guardian's hysterically ignorant "Global Warming - It's
With Us Now" after the Kent floods in Oct/Nov 2000. Neither of the
editors of those otherwise estimable papers has a clue about climate
or, I'd guess, any other physical science, and should stick to facts,
not opinions, in their headlines.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

"Alastair McDonald" k wrote in
message ...



So how many more of these events do we need to make you think
they might be the result of global warming? We have already had
Boscastle, Carlisle, and now Helmsley within the last twelve months.
How many more do we need to beak the record?


Boscastle was caused by it's unusual topography as much as
anything else. Carlisle was a winter flood of the type that we
have always had. Every autumn/winter some unfortunate place
gets it's worst flooding for 25/30/50 years. Only when a 50 year
flood is happening every 10 years *in the same place* can we
start saying that 'somethings up'.

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co....rPictures.html

"Ian Currie" wrote in message
. ..

In 1902 storms in East Anglia and the South east gave nearly 100mm of rain
and hail was intense on Sept 11th/12th etc etc. There are examples for
virtually every year. Even 1907 not regarded as a year of much interest in
meteorological books had flash floods in South Wales on 22nd July similar to
yesterday.
I think yes we are warming but there have always been storms and I have not
even mentioned places such as Cannington, Louth, Horncastle, Bruton,
Martinstown, Hampstead, Holmfirth, where massive rains have fallen-there are
literally hundreds of examples and that is just since 1900.

And right here in Bolton, on July 18th 1964, 55.9mm fell in just
15 minutes. I believe this is a record for this particular duration and
as one might imagine, there was considerable flood damage.

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co....rPictures.html

I don't agree with you on that. Following the flash floods last
summer, a spokesman from the University of East Anglia's dept studying
climate change did say that global warming may cause an increase in
severity of summer storms - but The Independent are wrong to blame
global warming on any one particular event - if that is what they have
said.

" There is no reason to suppose that Global Warming should cause more of
anything overall, except warmth."

This is the sensible view based on fact! Although some would still try and
dispute this. Most of the rest is speculation although I don't think global
climate change or localised weather events can be categorically ruled out at
this stage. But as Ian and Philip say, most of what you see in the media is
not science but anecdotes. For example. I had a flash flood where I lived in
S.Essex in the late 50's. People were rowing down our street and we weren't
within in a mile of any watercourse! We had others. I haven't had any for
several years, my garden is cracked and dry now - so why not? Because that's
how the weather is. This might sound a bit like sitting on the fence but
scientifically, that's where I think we are with the effects of GW at the
moment.

Dave

"Tudor Hughes" wrote in message
oups.com...

So how many more of these events do we need to make you think
they might be the result of global warming? We have already had
Boscastle, Carlisle, and now Helmsley within the last twelve months.
How many more do we need to beak the record?

Cheers, Alastair.

Lots, lots more, Alastair. This sort of stuff is always
happening.

Rubbish, the previous case to Boscastle was back in the 50s when experiments
with cloud seeding were being performed.

See Ian Currie's post.

All the cases he cite are from the beginning of the 20th century. Why was
that?

There is no reason to suppose that
Global Warming should cause more of anything overall, except warmth.

A warmer world means more evaporation from the oceans, and so heavier
rainfall.

With a reduced temperature difference between the poles (at least the
North Pole) and the equator a good case could be made out for a more
tranquil regime. Nobody mentions this.

The regime is more tranquil. That is why the rainfall is so heavy, and lasts
such a short time. In a more turbulent regime, the rainfall would be more
even.

I now see (via News24) that the Independent's headline for
tomorrow blames Global Warming for the North York storms. This is
idiotic, especially as the Indy is not some silly tabloid. It's on a
par with the Guardian's hysterically ignorant "Global Warming - It's
With Us Now" after the Kent floods in Oct/Nov 2000. Neither of the
editors of those otherwise estimable papers has a clue about climate
or, I'd guess, any other physical science, and should stick to facts,
not opinions, in their headlines.

It is interesting that it is the left-wing newspapers which are willing to
admit that global warming may be a problem, while the right wing
represented by many of the contributors to this newsgroup, and led
by the Daily Telegraph's correspondent, tend to play down any
evidence that things are changing.

Deciding scientific matters on the basis of ones political bias, even
if it is subconsciously, does not seem a sensible approach to me.
Surely the correct attitude to take is not that these events were
caused by global warming, nor to insist that they were not caused
by global warming, but to say, as Paul Hudson did, that these
events MAY be due to global warming.

I am still waiting for Ian Currie or Philip Eden to come up with a
previous twelve month period when there were three violent rainfall
events.

Cheers, Alastair.

I was asked if I could name a year with 3 rainfall events. Yes I can and it
1968 namely 26/27th March with falls exceeding 250mm though due to forcing
of maritime air over mountains but 11th July had violent rains with many
places having over 125mm with devastating floods. In fact on the 1st July
1968 there were intense storms too with giant hail. Then the remarkable
thunderstorm rains of the Weekend 14th/15th September with again over 150mm
in many places in the Southeast.
These storms came at a time when there was exceptional sea ice around
Iceland and the Greenland area.
Incidentally in my previous post I started at the beginning of the 20th
century as a random date. I could have started in 1920 the year of the Louth
Flood in May when 22 people died and later in October the same year the
Ballater floods or 1850 when there was a dramatic storm in Dublin with giant
hail and tornadoes or indeed 1960 and the Horncastle flood caused by 184mm
of rain.
Ian Currie-Coulsdon


"Alastair McDonald" k wrote
in message ...

"Tudor Hughes" wrote in message
oups.com...

So how many more of these events do we need to make you think
they might be the result of global warming? We have already had
Boscastle, Carlisle, and now Helmsley within the last twelve months.
How many more do we need to beak the record?

Cheers, Alastair.

Lots, lots more, Alastair. This sort of stuff is always
happening.

Rubbish, the previous case to Boscastle was back in the 50s when
experiments
with cloud seeding were being performed.

See Ian Currie's post.

All the cases he cite are from the beginning of the 20th century. Why was
that?
by the Daily Telegraph's correspondent, tend to play down any

I am still waiting for Ian Currie or Philip Eden to come up with a
previous twelve month period when there were three violent rainfall
events.

Cheers, Alastair.

In message , Ian Currie
writes
. I could have started in 1920 the year of the Louth
Flood in May when 22 people died and later in October the same year the
Ballater floods or 1850 when there was a dramatic storm in Dublin with giant
hail and tornadoes or indeed 1960 and the Horncastle flood caused by 184mm
of rain.

It's not at all like me to get involved in such debates, even though as
a geography teacher I have a pretty rounded understanding on the debate
from both sides, if indeed there are two sides. Normally I like to stick
with facts, because so much else is mere speculation, hence my often
mundane contributions on climatic data in Coventry - at least I am on
safe ground there!

Anyway, to pick up Alistair (perish the thought!), there is considerable
geological evidence of palaeo-climatic deluges in the past long before
so-called global warming. At Lynmouth, for example, there is no beach as
such; if you know it, you will remember that as the point where the
convergent East & West Lyn rivers reach the sea, there is instead a huge
boulder field strewn with enormous boulders - in fact a delta composed
of the boulders carried down the coast by immense floods from the
geologic past - the size of these, and the number of them indicates vast
fluvial energy from flash floods like that at Boscastle, and Lynmouth in
1952.

Of course, it is the frequency of such events that is under discussion
here, and we don't know exactly how often such events occurred over the
post-glacial period, but I will take Philip's word that there hasn't
been a noticeable increase in frequency during historic times, and
because I am right wing or left wing, or anything in between!

I do believe the climate is warming, since the 1980's at least. I do not
however believe that this is necessarily a direct result of increased
greenhouse gas emissions, even though increasing CO2 levels is
compelling evidence that Man is certainly making a contribution.

The reason why I love geography, and all of its related academic
disciplines, like meteorology, geomorphology and climatology, is that so
much of it is wondrous and inter linked with one another - so, as tragic
as these flash floods are for the poor victims, it is still damned good
geography, with lively debate aplenty in the aftermath.

Back to my boring climate records for now!
--
Steve Jackson
Bablake Weather Station
Coventry
UK
http://www.netlink.co.uk/users/bws

Surely the correct attitude to take is not that these events were
caused by global warming, nor to insist that they were not caused
by global warming, but to say, as Paul Hudson did, that these
events MAY be due to global warming.

Cheers, Alastair.

So why don't you do that? No one could be in any doubt from
reading your posts that you are saying, insisting even, that these
events ARE caused by global warming.
Would Paul Hudson have said what he did if he'd being speaking
purely as a meterologist as opposed to a weather presenter?

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Tudor Hughes wrote:
Surely the correct attitude to take is not that these events were
caused by global warming, nor to insist that they were not caused
by global warming, but to say, as Paul Hudson did, that these
events MAY be due to global warming.

Cheers, Alastair.

So why don't you do that? No one could be in any doubt from
reading your posts that you are saying, insisting even, that these
events ARE caused by global warming.
Would Paul Hudson have said what he did if he'd being speaking
purely as a meterologist as opposed to a weather presenter?


Just as defence to Mr Hudson, have you checked his biography on the BBC
weather? He IS a meteorologist, who got picked to do TV. I think you do
him a tiny disservice. Not a big one, but still one anyway.

--
Rob Overfield
Hull