Weather in NW Europe

[skirtingtoday]

And more effects of stormy weather completely eroding this railway track - main line to SW corner of Britain

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26044428

[crfriend]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26044428

Well, that's quite the mess, isn't it. That'll take weeks to put right, especially as the seawall has been knocked out.

[john62]

Today is the five year anniversary of Black Saturday here in Victoria, about 170 people died in the fires that day many towns were destroyed and hundreds of homes. Tomorrow the temp. will be again in the 40s.

John

[Sinned]

We're relatively unscathed here in Yorkshire. I've noticed a couple of locks on the Rivers Ouse and Derwent have been overcome and the fields round about submerged but here in York we've missed a lot of the serious flooding even though the Ouse is highish. They have just put in a lot more of the flood defences nearby to us but there's nothing they can really do with the city centre.

[skirtingtoday]

And more effects of stormy weather completely eroding this railway track - main line to SW corner of Britain

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26044428

Remember this water damaged railway in early February - well the railway has reopened today but as you can see, the road has still to be built back up. I note that the workers effort was 24/7 since the railway was closed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-26874503

[crfriend]

Remember this water damaged railway in early February - well the railway has reopened today but as you can see, the road has still to be built back up. I note that the workers effort was 24/7 since the railway was closed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-26874503

That was a substantial main that was wrecked, and represented a choke-point between the southeast of the UK and the southwest. Of course they put a lot of muscle behind it, and I'm glad they've put it back in such a good time. If that happened here, probably the owning railroad would merely abandon the line altogether.

[Jack Williams]

The weather in many parts of the World is becoming more extreme and unpredictable.
My brother does not believe in Global Warming, but I certainly do.
We have been having a very long dry spell here. No signifiant rain since before Christmas.
I'll bet the milk prodution will be down for the dear ole Chinese, who are the big market these days.
As I type on my Chinese produced IBM designed "Lenovo" laptop.
Lovely machine. Built for repair and upgrade, like equipment of old. Parts to be had, but can't imagine a problem (touch wood!). But I notice my bank has Lenovo kit..
Anyway, lovely summer for us bods who are not on the land. I await a reply from my niece, however, who married a dairy farmer. They are at Whakatane. I reckon they are pretty together, and will have plenty of hay and/or silege laid in.

[Tor]

Ah, Global Warming. If you mean caused by the sun, then yes, the Earth will warm, just like every other planet. If, on the other hand, you are thinking that in increase in carbon dioxide will raise global mean temperature... well, having read and thought about a comparison of Earth and Venus temperatures I can't buy that as having any validity (hint: in a hydrostatic ocean of gas, one must compare points of equal pressure). Human induced climate unpredictability, however, I'll grant you, though I'm not sure we would ascribe the same source cause, but it's not something I'm willing to be the first to elaborate on in this forum.

[crfriend]

Ah, Global Warming. If you mean caused by the sun, then yes, the Earth will warm, just like every other planet. If, on the other hand, you are thinking that in increase in carbon dioxide will raise global mean temperature...

The question here is not whether the average atmospheric temperature of the Earth is rising -- it is, mainly because the planet is still clawing its way out of the last ice age. She cycles this way quite normally. She'll get cold again, too.

What is in question, and which a lot of ink and spleen has been spilt about, is whether human activity is making a meaningful impact on the rate of that natural change -- and the overwhelming majority of scientists who specialize in this kind of thing are in overwhelming agreement that human activity is accelerating the change based on what's been observed from the "frozen record" entombed in the Antarctic ice cap. This time 'round it's going quite a bit quicker than other observed cycles.

I don't see Earth becoming another Venus, and comparing the two are fairly meaningless -- as are comparisons between Earth and Mars. However, the gradual warming that's going on at the moment will have profound impacts on humanity and its civilisations. The only question is, "How fast will it occur?" Another logical extrapolation from that would be, "What can we do to either (1) dodge the bullet or (2) to slow it down so we have a bit more time to dodge?"

We have no doubt whatsoever that the world around us, and the climate that it supports, is changing. Within the span of a single human generation we have seen weather patterns change and sea levels rise. I have personally noted the loss of what New Englanders in my local region have always known as the "Mid-January Thaw" where it warmed up for a week or so to the point of being comfortable -- that's gone now. Guys I know who live closer to the sea and are more tied to it than I have commented, "I've never seen high tides like this!" Can we deny those observations? Of course we can -- if we have a vested interest in making profit from one of the causes! So, let's stick our heads in the sand. The only problem is is that this time 'round we may not be "passing it on to our grandchildren" -- some of US may have to live with the results. Enjoy.

Finally, it's worth noting that on a geologic scale extinction is the rule not the exception. Humans are not exempt from that. Since we've thrown the technology to get off-planet pretty much away things don't look real good -- and even if we did have the tech to get off-planet, who would get selected to go? I'll bet that it'll be the least desirable portion of the population -- the richest.

[Tor]

I don't see Earth becoming another Venus, and comparing the two are fairly meaningless -- as are comparisons between Earth and Mars.

No, the Earth won't become another Venus - unless, somehow, the atmosphere acquires a few hundred times it's current mass. What is of import is that in comparing Earth tropospheric pressures (above the troposphere the lack of pressure causes the pattern to fail) to the points of equal pressure on Venus we find that the higher temperature of the latter is exactly that predicted by the increased solar insolation. This in spite of the fact that the Venus atmosphere is almost entirely CO2. I've not been able to poke any holes in the analysis either.

Earth and Mars, however, is a worthless comparison because there isn't enough atmosphere on the latter to support a hydrostatic negative temperature lapse rate - tropospheric conditions. While I have not seen a proof, I suspect that gas composition does have a notable effect below about 200mb, and it may have an impact on the minimum pressure required to sustain a negative temperature lapse rate.

Yes, climate is changing, and I do believe that some forms of current human activity are having a major impact on climate. What the comparison shows is that global mean temperature is not meaningfully subject to human activity, but rather to solar insolation.

[crfriend]

Yes, climate is changing, and I do believe that some forms of current human activity are having a major impact on climate. What the comparison shows is that global mean temperature is not meaningfully subject to human activity, but rather to solar insolation.

So, not to be crass, since we can't do much about the matter, does it make sense that we do nothing at all? (There are also a whole raft of sociological questions that will swirl around this question, especially as civilization as we know it spirals downwards.)

The bald fact is that the rate of heating is increasing, and it's down to human activity. That the planet warms and cools quite naturally has been known for decades. The question then becomes, "Should we try to do something or just let it happen around us?"

I rather like opossums, they're sort of cute and for the New World marsupials are rather rare, but when I was a youngster I never saw one here. Nowadays they're common; they're moving north as the habitat changes. High tides are already threatening developments (high/over-priced ones for yuppies) on Boston's waterfront (I wish them all the ill they deserve) even in tame weather; New England is overdue for a hurricane.

As a troubleshooter, I'm a "take action" sort of guy. "Coping tactics" don't sit well with me, so I'm firmly in the "Let's see if we can do something about this before it overcomes us" camp. If we don't, there's always the alternative -- extinction. Recall that it's the rule not the exception. We -- as a species -- are the underdog in this.

[dillon]

One note of interest concerning sea level rise is the geographic variability projected aong the US Atlantic seaboard. The Gulf Stream current appears set to increase the rise from NC up to MA above that of the deep southern coast. In my state of NC, our Department of Environment and Natural Resources had projected a rise of thirty inches by the end of this century. Naturaly, our Republican-controlled State Legislature, in its zeal to repress any science that counters their party line and a triumphant revival of the Dark Ages not seen since the heresy trial of Galileo, passed a law prohibiting the Department from making projections or models to reveal the extent to which areas of the coast will face innundation. The many barrier islands, our famed Outer Banks, will essentially disappear as the saturation causes large portions of the islands to disintegrate. Coastal communities like Edenton and Washington, NC, face major risks, these towns sitting a mere six feet above sea level. The GOP legislators may have protected the short-term profits of the coastal real estate lobby, but at what ultimate cost to the state? Our failure to heed the warnings and prepare for a watery future will injure NC for generations to come.

[Tor]

So, not to be crass, since we can't do much about the matter, does it make sense that we do nothing at all? (There are also a whole raft of sociological questions that will swirl around this question, especially as civilization as we know it spirals downwards.)

The bald fact is that the rate of heating is increasing, and it's down to human activity. That the planet warms and cools quite naturally has been known for decades. The question then becomes, "Should we try to do something or just let it happen around us?"

There are a couple ways that heat can increase. Local ground temperature can increase from increased retained absorbtion of heat - something that from the pictures I have seen of this effect is caused by solar insolation on non-water bearing features (e.g. bare ground, roofs, asphalt, walls, etc.). This will cause localized heating that drives weather - a good way to increase storms and cause strange weather patterns. This, however, does not, as near as I can understand the science, have any meaningful effect (it seems to be zero) on the global mean temperature.

The preceding is what is shown by the Earth and Venus comparison I referred to. As a note, the author tends to use "strong" language, in the sense of strength, not impolite words. I've read his other work as well, and it is hard to accept, but I haven't been able to poke holes in his Earth Venus comparison. Maybe you'll have better luck with that than I.

As a troubleshooter, I'm a "take action" sort of guy. "Coping tactics" don't sit well with me, so I'm firmly in the "Let's see if we can do something about this before it overcomes us" camp. If we don't, there's always the alternative -- extinction. Recall that it's the rule not the exception. We -- as a species -- are the underdog in this.

I'll agree with doing something - but my experience is that trying to address the wrong problem is as likely to make the real problem worse as it is to fix anything. If the comparison I linked above is correct, than fretting about such natural things as carbon dioxide, cattle flatulence, and so forth is a waste of energy that could be better spent on figuring out how to really fix things and following through on those conclusions.

[crfriend]

Local ground temperature can increase from increased retained absorbtion of heat - something that from the pictures I have seen of this effect is caused by solar insolation on non-water bearing features (e.g. bare ground, roofs, asphalt, walls, etc.). This will cause localized heating that drives weather - a good way to increase storms and cause strange weather patterns. This, however, does not, as near as I can understand the science, have any meaningful effect (it seems to be zero) on the global mean temperature.

I fretted for a while about this phenomenon for a while until I realized that many of the temperature reports at the time were coming from airports -- large slabs of dark material with an abundance of jet exhaust to boot. However, with the increasing density of the "Internet of things" temperature sensors are remarkably abundant indeed, including in quite quiet and remote forest locations -- and even those are showing an upward trend.

Now, that upward trend, as I mentioned earlier, is entirely expected as the planet "recovers" from the last ice-age (and we only have entirely precise measurements from the last 150 years or so -- far shorter than the normal planetary cycle), but the evidence is pretty strong that this time 'round it's faster than it has been in the past few. Is this cause for alarm? I'm 53. I have several pals who are in their 20s, and know several children of other pals who range from 5 to 20. They all know me personally, but what's the legacy I'd like to try and leave behind for everybody else who's younger than I?

I'll agree with doing something - but my experience is that trying to address the wrong problem is as likely to make the real problem worse as it is to fix anything. If the comparison I linked above is correct, than fretting about such natural things as carbon dioxide, cattle flatulence, and so forth is a waste of energy that could be better spent on figuring out how to really fix things and following through on those conclusions.

Indeed, but the overwhelming view as presented by the science as we have it now is that the contribution of heat-retaining compounds ("greenhouse gasses") is a very real problem. Shall we just stick our collective heads in the sand? Shall I buy a Ford Excursion as my next single-passenger commuter vehicle (thereby not just raising my middle finger to all drivers in my immediate vicinity but to the environment itself)?

[Tor]

Indeed, but the overwhelming view as presented by the science as we have it now is that the contribution of heat-retaining compounds ("greenhouse gasses") is a very real problem.

And that is what the comparison I linked to is driving at (or more accurately, driving stakes into). For a given Earth tropospheric pressure the temperature, if you calculate from the orbital distances the increased solar radiation, that multiple gives you the Venus temperature at that pressure point to -1K,+5K - i.e. Venus is the same to colder than expected, in spite of having an atmosphere of some 96.5% CO2. From there, in order to claim "greenhouse gasses" are a real phenomenon in a hydrostatic ocean condition one must also explain what other factors mitigate the same, such that the observed net effect is zero, leaving solar insolation as the only factor required to explain the observed difference in temperature.

I fretted for a while about this phenomenon for a while until I realized that many of the temperature reports at the time were coming from airports -- large slabs of dark material with an abundance of jet exhaust to boot. However, with the increasing density of the "Internet of things" temperature sensors are remarkably abundant indeed, including in quite quiet and remote forest locations -- and even those are showing an upward trend.
...
...but the evidence is pretty strong that this time 'round it's faster than it has been in the past few. Is this cause for alarm?

I'll defer to your notes on thermometers here, as you appear to have looked at that more deeply than I. As for being faster, yes, if it can be shown to be anthropogenic. If, however, it is merely the sun changing output faster than in the past for reasons unknown, then it may be cause for alarm, but it would be a great stretch at minimum for me to believe the cure would be the same in both cases.

Shall I buy a Ford Excursion as my next single-passenger commuter vehicle (thereby not just raising my middle finger to all drivers in my immediate vicinity but to the environment itself)?

There are plenty more issues than CO2 alone, and all else being equal, burning less fuel reduces pollution. A handful fewer microchips (that I recall you railing against in cars) can make up for quite a bit of tailpipe emissions in the grand scheme of things, even considered over the life of the vehicle. Still, though it may be far better to to the right thing for the wrong reason than to do the wrong thing, I believe it is better still to do the right thing for the right reason.

I've looked over the analysis I linked to and read it thoroughly. I can't prick holes in it. Some of you have more knowledge in this area than I, so you may have better luck in that endeavour. Until such time as I can see the message shot through with one or more fatal holes, I'll keep to the observation that many cherished modern theories and facts have been derided by the dominant scientific institutions of the time.