St Andrews Church So Worth- Creatures...
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Extreme Weather?
64 Answers
It has been suggested that recent hurricanes achieving land-fall on the east coats of the USA and the flooding of properties up and down the UK are evidence of man-made climate change. Is the weather getting more 'extreme' or are there other factors at work?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by birdie1971. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The Met Office are always telling us that we shouldn't assume that individual, grave, events in weather are caused by global warming, because the temperature increase is tiny, though important in the long term, and would not cause such effects. Hurricanes happen every year and where exactly they hit land, is a matter akin to chance. Floods are pretty common too, but the damage they cause is dependent on other factors than warming; poor defences and bad planning for housing, for example.
Still, we do know that global warming would put a lot of Eastern England under water over time. Cheering, isn't it?
Still, we do know that global warming would put a lot of Eastern England under water over time. Cheering, isn't it?
I think 'over time' is the key phrase. I've not been convinced about the near term risk of rising sea levels.
Having said that it is notoriously difficult to predict the precise consequences of climate change, especially in very small areas like Britain that have very changeable weather patterns.
Rising temperatures sound as if they will put more water into the atmosphere and hence cause more rain but predicting where that'll come down is another matter and is likely to depend on things like the jet stream and I'm not sure whether or how that might depend on climate change.
It's stretching the talents of some of the world's brightest minds - I'm not sure that my opinion's worth much over theirs!
Having said that it is notoriously difficult to predict the precise consequences of climate change, especially in very small areas like Britain that have very changeable weather patterns.
Rising temperatures sound as if they will put more water into the atmosphere and hence cause more rain but predicting where that'll come down is another matter and is likely to depend on things like the jet stream and I'm not sure whether or how that might depend on climate change.
It's stretching the talents of some of the world's brightest minds - I'm not sure that my opinion's worth much over theirs!
It is not possible to attribute specific weather events to Climate Change. The effect we are seeing is an increase in the number and severity of extreme events.
Jake's message about "over time" sounds like an attempt to dismiss the problem because it isn't "near term". Well that depends on you perspective of "near". Some of us care about the futrue inhabitants of this planet.
Moreover the current 3.2mm/year average rate of rise is likely to increase over time as we have not reduced the emission rate and there are very long delays in the response. Sea level rises are just one part of the problem.
Some people seem to think that the problem will go away when we stop emitting, like acid rain which cleared up when we cut sulphur emissions. Even the Ozone Hole has started to heal twenty years on.
Carbon dioxide isn't like that. The removal happens of geological time periods.
Furthermore all indications are that positive feedback mechanisms will make the changes irreversible in any human time scales. The energy required to get the gas back out of the atmosphere is beyond contemplation and would involve processing virtually all of it.
Those who dismiss the problem because it isn't going to affect them directly are very sick people indeed.
Jake's message about "over time" sounds like an attempt to dismiss the problem because it isn't "near term". Well that depends on you perspective of "near". Some of us care about the futrue inhabitants of this planet.
Moreover the current 3.2mm/year average rate of rise is likely to increase over time as we have not reduced the emission rate and there are very long delays in the response. Sea level rises are just one part of the problem.
Some people seem to think that the problem will go away when we stop emitting, like acid rain which cleared up when we cut sulphur emissions. Even the Ozone Hole has started to heal twenty years on.
Carbon dioxide isn't like that. The removal happens of geological time periods.
Furthermore all indications are that positive feedback mechanisms will make the changes irreversible in any human time scales. The energy required to get the gas back out of the atmosphere is beyond contemplation and would involve processing virtually all of it.
Those who dismiss the problem because it isn't going to affect them directly are very sick people indeed.
The jet stream, which plays a big part in our weather, itself is influenced by the interaction of air masses. As the effect of climate change is strong in Polar Regions and the Polar air masses affect the Polar Front(jet stream lies above this) we are bound to be affected by climate change. Whatever people believe about the causes, climate change is with us and we shall have to live with it.
Quite an interesting graph here: http
It seems to show a stabilisation of the Earth's average temp over the last few years.
However, taking a long term view from 1880 to present, there can be no doubt the average Earth temp has gone up significantly.
Whether it's due to man's actions or to normal cycles is very debatable.
It seems to show a stabilisation of the Earth's average temp over the last few years.
However, taking a long term view from 1880 to present, there can be no doubt the average Earth temp has gone up significantly.
Whether it's due to man's actions or to normal cycles is very debatable.
No beso - that's not the intension
It's just that the levels of sea rise we're seeing isn't in line with therather panicky media stories about large scale coastal intrusion and over estimating effects is a sure fire way to undermine confidence in the science.
The UK in particular is down on the UN's list as one of the least likely places to suffer immediately from the direct effects of climate change.
I believe that other areas will affect us first - particularly indirect effects.
For example increasing dessertification in many areas of the world will increase the push from rural communities to cities (we're seeing that now).
As cities fail to cope and food prices go up there will be increased immigration pressures to western Europe.
I believe Climate refugees will be the first biggest challenge we need to address - and just cutting foreign aid and attempting to stop all immigration won't be effective
It's just that the levels of sea rise we're seeing isn't in line with therather panicky media stories about large scale coastal intrusion and over estimating effects is a sure fire way to undermine confidence in the science.
The UK in particular is down on the UN's list as one of the least likely places to suffer immediately from the direct effects of climate change.
I believe that other areas will affect us first - particularly indirect effects.
For example increasing dessertification in many areas of the world will increase the push from rural communities to cities (we're seeing that now).
As cities fail to cope and food prices go up there will be increased immigration pressures to western Europe.
I believe Climate refugees will be the first biggest challenge we need to address - and just cutting foreign aid and attempting to stop all immigration won't be effective
Sorry Graham, yes.
One problem is that certain media (and I'm particularly thinking the Telegraph here) get a big kick by telling their readership that they're cleverer than all those "boffins" and that it's all a conspiracy to pick their pockets.
I think we know the posters on here that are subject to such flattery too!
Another problem is that this is a slow creep issue and when politicians are in office for 5-10 years it's hard to get them address issues 50 years out - remember the advice is that there is a lag here and the damage has already been done for any short term issues.
Also you have a lot of people who are simply selfinh and understand that they won't be here to see the main problems come to pass.
The Ozone hole and the Montreal protocol showed that we can affect the climate and we can fix it - but there was an easy solution to that
I do have to say that I am very pessimistic about the world's ability and motivation to actually address this problem in a meaningful way
One problem is that certain media (and I'm particularly thinking the Telegraph here) get a big kick by telling their readership that they're cleverer than all those "boffins" and that it's all a conspiracy to pick their pockets.
I think we know the posters on here that are subject to such flattery too!
Another problem is that this is a slow creep issue and when politicians are in office for 5-10 years it's hard to get them address issues 50 years out - remember the advice is that there is a lag here and the damage has already been done for any short term issues.
Also you have a lot of people who are simply selfinh and understand that they won't be here to see the main problems come to pass.
The Ozone hole and the Montreal protocol showed that we can affect the climate and we can fix it - but there was an easy solution to that
I do have to say that I am very pessimistic about the world's ability and motivation to actually address this problem in a meaningful way
A short while ago we were talking about the coming of a new ice age:
///What causes ice-ages?
Fluctuations in the amount of insolation (incoming solar radiation) are the most likely cause of large-scale changes in Earth's climate during the Quaternary. In other words, variations in the intensity and timing of heat from the sun are the most likely cause of the glacial/interglacial cycles. This solar variable was neatly described by the Serbian scientist, Milutin Milankovitch, in 1938. There are three major components of the Earth's orbit about the sun that contribute to changes in our climate. First, the Earth's spin on its axis is wobbly, much like a spinning top that starts to wobble after it slows down. This wobble amounts to a variation of up to 23.5 degrees to either side of the axis. The amount of tilt in the Earth's rotation affects the amount of sunlight striking the different parts of the globe. The greater the tilt, the stronger the difference in seasons (i.e., more tilt equals sharper differences between summer and winter temperatures). The range of motion in the tilt (from left-of-center to right-of-center and back again) takes place over a period of 41,000 years. As a result of a wobble in the Earth's spin, the position of the Earth on its elliptical path changes, relative to the time of year. This phenomenon is called the precession of equinoxes. The cycle of equinox precession takes 23,000 years to complete. In the growth of continental ice sheets, summer temperatures are probably more important than winter.///
Maybe it just goes to show that climate is cyclical?
///What causes ice-ages?
Fluctuations in the amount of insolation (incoming solar radiation) are the most likely cause of large-scale changes in Earth's climate during the Quaternary. In other words, variations in the intensity and timing of heat from the sun are the most likely cause of the glacial/interglacial cycles. This solar variable was neatly described by the Serbian scientist, Milutin Milankovitch, in 1938. There are three major components of the Earth's orbit about the sun that contribute to changes in our climate. First, the Earth's spin on its axis is wobbly, much like a spinning top that starts to wobble after it slows down. This wobble amounts to a variation of up to 23.5 degrees to either side of the axis. The amount of tilt in the Earth's rotation affects the amount of sunlight striking the different parts of the globe. The greater the tilt, the stronger the difference in seasons (i.e., more tilt equals sharper differences between summer and winter temperatures). The range of motion in the tilt (from left-of-center to right-of-center and back again) takes place over a period of 41,000 years. As a result of a wobble in the Earth's spin, the position of the Earth on its elliptical path changes, relative to the time of year. This phenomenon is called the precession of equinoxes. The cycle of equinox precession takes 23,000 years to complete. In the growth of continental ice sheets, summer temperatures are probably more important than winter.///
Maybe it just goes to show that climate is cyclical?
jomifl
Has the Earth been wobbling that much? surprised I didn't notice it :-)
16:45 Mon 03rd Dec 2012
Very astute observation jom. Although the direction to which the axis points completes a circle over the 41000 year precession cycle the degree of tilt typically varies by less than 2 degrees, remaining throughout the cycle . . . the reason for the seasons.
http
Has the Earth been wobbling that much? surprised I didn't notice it :-)
16:45 Mon 03rd Dec 2012
Very astute observation jom. Although the direction to which the axis points completes a circle over the 41000 year precession cycle the degree of tilt typically varies by less than 2 degrees, remaining throughout the cycle . . . the reason for the seasons.
http
Beso - “... Those who dismiss the problem because it isn't going to affect them directly are very sick people indeed...”
The only 'sick' people on this matter are zealots like yourself. The self-righteous purveyors of the apocalyptic who dismiss the concerns of those who doubt the apparent consensus as being unscientific or worse, sick.
The only 'sick' people on this matter are zealots like yourself. The self-righteous purveyors of the apocalyptic who dismiss the concerns of those who doubt the apparent consensus as being unscientific or worse, sick.
Indeed yes climate is cyclical and the Milankovitch cycle is a fundamental climate driver. It has been for a relative eternity. Roughly ten thousand years inter-glacial and 100,000 of glaciation like clockwork.
It is included in all climate models or they would not have a hope in hell of being useful. Meanwhile climate skeptics arrogant pretend that scientists have overlooked it and are mistaking cycles for trends.
In fact the Milankovitch cycle aught to be already sending us toward the next glaciation. This IS the reason why scientists in the 1950s were telling us that we were headed for another ice age.
Until 1900 we were. The famous "hockey stick" graph showed the slow decline of average temperatures over a few hundred years. The next ice age would have set in over the next several centuries.
The temperature fluctuations through the first half of the twentieth century masked the fact that temperatures had actually begun to increase.
However by the 1980s it had become obvious that the temperature trend was upwards. Moreover half of the carbon added to the atmosphere since industrialisation has been put there since 1980 and we are now seeing accelerating Greenhouse effects.
Furthermore we have also removed the sulphur dioxide pollution which was actually shielding some of the Sun's energy.
We are moving steadily into positive feedback mechanism such as reduced albedo as the area of ice that once reflected the sun is replaced by ocean with absorbs it.
Now we are moving into melting permafrost which will release vast quantities of methane, an even stronger greenhouse has than carbon dioxide.
These kinds of feedback mechanisms are the reasons why the glaciation cycles are over such a long period of time. Triggered initially by Milankovitch cycles the plant is plunged into long periods of extremes as the positive feedbakc flips the prevailing climate.
The current regime of carbon pollution is unprecedented in geological history with the nearest analogs being meteor impacts.
WAKE UP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is included in all climate models or they would not have a hope in hell of being useful. Meanwhile climate skeptics arrogant pretend that scientists have overlooked it and are mistaking cycles for trends.
In fact the Milankovitch cycle aught to be already sending us toward the next glaciation. This IS the reason why scientists in the 1950s were telling us that we were headed for another ice age.
Until 1900 we were. The famous "hockey stick" graph showed the slow decline of average temperatures over a few hundred years. The next ice age would have set in over the next several centuries.
The temperature fluctuations through the first half of the twentieth century masked the fact that temperatures had actually begun to increase.
However by the 1980s it had become obvious that the temperature trend was upwards. Moreover half of the carbon added to the atmosphere since industrialisation has been put there since 1980 and we are now seeing accelerating Greenhouse effects.
Furthermore we have also removed the sulphur dioxide pollution which was actually shielding some of the Sun's energy.
We are moving steadily into positive feedback mechanism such as reduced albedo as the area of ice that once reflected the sun is replaced by ocean with absorbs it.
Now we are moving into melting permafrost which will release vast quantities of methane, an even stronger greenhouse has than carbon dioxide.
These kinds of feedback mechanisms are the reasons why the glaciation cycles are over such a long period of time. Triggered initially by Milankovitch cycles the plant is plunged into long periods of extremes as the positive feedbakc flips the prevailing climate.
The current regime of carbon pollution is unprecedented in geological history with the nearest analogs being meteor impacts.
WAKE UP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
birdie1971 //The only 'sick' people on this matter are zealots like yourself. The self-righteous purveyors of the apocalyptic who dismiss the concerns of those who doubt the apparent consensus as being unscientific or worse, sick. //
Interesting that you choose a religious term and accuse me of being a "zealot" (look it up why don't you) when it is clear that the climate skeptics who possess the ignorant religious faith in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.
You are a pathetic hypocrite. In R&S you post your disdain for those with religious beliefs that conflict with science while you come to Science and propound you own articles of faith. Indeed you even use the same terminology as the faithful.
Our previous debates have shown that you don't even understand the science you reject.
Every day we waste not taking action contributes to the exponentially growing problem we are leaving to our children.
Interesting that you choose a religious term and accuse me of being a "zealot" (look it up why don't you) when it is clear that the climate skeptics who possess the ignorant religious faith in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.
You are a pathetic hypocrite. In R&S you post your disdain for those with religious beliefs that conflict with science while you come to Science and propound you own articles of faith. Indeed you even use the same terminology as the faithful.
Our previous debates have shown that you don't even understand the science you reject.
Every day we waste not taking action contributes to the exponentially growing problem we are leaving to our children.
Latest Posts
Crosswords7 mins ago
News10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Film, Media & TV19 mins ago
ChatterBank21 mins ago
