Reply to: Qt

[Sysman]

I have family in last year's disaster zone: Tewkesbury, and there they've been building on the flood plain with obvious effect. Though I think the people of Tewkesbury were somewhat bemused by all the media attention as it floods there every year and always has.

In 98 (I think) where I was living in Banbury was flooded. The pictures of the street even made the national news. But again there were a load of new houses built on what would have been a flood plain, and as it happened all the new houses were built raised about 6 feet higher and so escaped the flood..

I remember a chap describing that he'd visited an area suffering where houses had been built on a flood plain and were all under water. The exception was a Victorian house which had steps up to the front door. It's cellars were flooded but the main living area was intact. They should really look at what our ancestors built and ask why, and I'll add that that includes the building materials used in a given area.

[OwlHoot]

Events like the cockermouth flooding are going to happen from time to time.
On one of the BBC blogs they showed the peak year on year rain fall for cockermouth. It was consistanly higher 100 years ago

The year on year rainfall may not be higher; but if freak events like a foot of water falling in a day or two become more common, that in itself indicates something about the climate is changing.

Also, cynics crowing about the supposed warming trend stopping and even going into reverse should bear in mind that the Sun is as quiet and subspot-free as it has been for decades, perhaps centuries. That means it blocks fewer cosmic rays, and the resulting increase in these triggers more rainfall.

[threaded]

I have family in last year's disaster zone: Tewkesbury, and there they've been building on the flood plain with obvious effect. Though I think the people of Tewkesbury were somewhat bemused by all the media attention as it floods there every year and always has.

In 98 (I think) where I was living in Banbury was flooded. The pictures of the street even made the national news. But again there were a load of new houses built on what would have been a flood plain, and as it happened all the new houses were built raised about 6 feet higher and so escaped the flood..

They've done that with a load of houses they built in a drained lake near me. Is quite amusing to see all these houses on their little hills, and when it rained it was like a chess board, quite pretty.

[VectraMan]

Cockermouth Fellow: We're getting flooded
Timberwolf: That's because you live on a floodplain, dummy
CF: We're getting flooded much more than we used to
T: Yes, because of the flood plain
CF: I think the floodplain was there before the flooding got worse...

I have family in last year's disaster zone: Tewkesbury, and there they've been building on the flood plain with obvious effect. Though I think the people of Tewkesbury were somewhat bemused by all the media attention as it floods there every year and always has.

In 98 (I think) where I was living in Banbury was flooded. The pictures of the street even made the national news. But again there were a load of new houses built on what would have been a flood plain, and as it happened all the new houses were built raised about 6 feet higher and so escaped the flood..

[Spacecadet]

Events like the cockermouth flooding are going to happen from time to time.
On one of the BBC blogs they showed the peak year on year rain fall for cockermouth. It was consistanly higher 100 years ago

[d000hg]

I believe Cockermouth had higher than average rainfall in a short period of time, but nevertheless building on flood planes and creating efficient drainage systems that push water all at once into rivers must play a huge contributory role too. Its surprising how much water soil and vegetation hold, as anyone who has tried to dry washed lettuce will be able to confirm.

Hmm...

Cockermouth Fellow: We're getting flooded
Timberwolf: That's because you live on a floodplain, dummy
CF: We're getting flooded much more than we used to
T: Yes, because of the flood plain
CF: I think the floodplain was there before the flooding got worse...

[Bagpuss]

What nobody put to Marcus Brigstock, is if what he was saying was true and that the planet hadn't stopped warming for the last 10 years as has been widly reported, then why did one of the leaked emails say "it's a travesty that we can't explain the lack of warming?".

What do you and Brigstock know that the climatologists don't, and don't you think you should share your information with the experts?

When did I say I agree with Marcus Brigstock? The concensus is there is a trend toward a warming of the climate. This doesn't have to mean a linear trend.

What the media choses to highlight is often irrelevant, they highlight information which backs their agenda and ignore what doesn't. If you're trying to model some sort effect there will always be data that doesn't fit the model perfectly, often scientists can't get their head around that, there may also be factors not taken into consideration.

Overal though; Scientists or journalists, who knows best? My money isn't with the ones who flunked science.

[moorfield]

I was very impressed with Brigstocke. I've only ever seen him wearing a yellow courdroy suit telling gags. He wiped the floor with most of the panel.

[VectraMan]

The climate is warming, whether man is influencing it is the debate. I do agree that the issue is being hyjacked for other puposes but She confused the issue by denying the planet was warming and hence made herself appear stupid.

What nobody put to Marcus Brigstock, is if what he was saying was true and that the planet hadn't stopped warming for the last 10 years as has been widly reported, then why did one of the leaked emails say "it's a travesty that we can't explain the lack of warming?".

What do you and Brigstock know that the climatologists don't, and don't you think you should share your information with the experts?

[Bagpuss]

There was brave man on question time last night, he dared to suggest that the argument behind AGW was possibly wrong?

The audience seethed in disgust, one red faced woman said "how can you say that, what about Cockermouth?" They cheered.

A journo said it was a scam, a comedian said he'd been to see the polar bears and was most definitely not a scam, a politician said he didn't know.

Today world leader will meet to discuss how they can stiff us for more cash and keep this farce going.

To be fair Melanie Phillips made a bit of a t1t of herself. The climate is warming, whether man is influencing it is the debate. I do agree that the issue is being hyjacked for other puposes but She confused the issue by denying the planet was warming and hence made herself appear stupid. I really wish journalists would get a better understanding of science before they misreport it, MMR springs to mind.

I'm pretty much with David Davis on this one the debate on man's influence should still be open, even if the evidence is pretty compeling.

[wurzel]

I did my first degree in environmental science & ISTR being told that the "Greenhouse Effect", as it was known back then, could not be explained statistically until the average global temperture had changed by +/- 0.5 degrees from some historical mean temperature. According to the lecturer at the time (late 80s) this increase of 0.5% wasn't going to happen for another 50 years or so. Of course, even if that increase has already occurred, it doesn't mean that it's down to the activities of humans but just that it is probably due to something other than randomness. I was crap at statistics....

[threaded]

Al Gore is on record as saying the the North Pole will be ice free in seven years. He made that prediction three years ago IIRC, now I know he aint a scientist but he is the cheer leader for the whole scam.

Well, that was a bit silly of him, but it helped sell the movie, so on the other hand maybe not. I think most of these AGW people are saying something like 30 years. Long enough for them to continue to scam^H^H^H^H receive funding up until retirement.

[EternalOptimist]

I meant within the working life of the scientists involved. It's more the self serving career I was trying to get at.

Al Gore is on record as saying the the North Pole will be ice free in seven years. He made that prediction three years ago IIRC, now I know he aint a scientist but he is the cheer leader for the whole scam.

[threaded]

Of course it can be. We have a whole bunch of predictions that can be tested by observation, all we have to do is wait.

In fact some of them have already proven to be false.

I meant within the working life of the scientists involved. It's more the self serving career I was trying to get at.

[EternalOptimist]

The thing is AGW is something that can't be proved one way or the other, but it is a wonderful opportunity to get research funding that is difficult to refuse, and a politicians wet dream: tax out of thin air...

Of course it can be. We have a whole bunch of predictions that can be tested by observation, all we have to do is wait.

In fact some of them have already proven to be false.