Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Ed Miliband: 'Britain is sleepwalking to a climate crisis'"
- cancel all renewable subsidies and feed-in tariffs
- stop wind power development
- reopen closed and don't shut any more coal fired power stations
- repeal the 2008 Climate Change Act
- urgently asses shale gas potential
- urgently build gas generation capacity
- base the energy strategy on gas, nuclear and coal
Should be sorted...
I've probably helped the UKIP here because that's their energy policy
And calling a 25% increase 'roughly the same' is bizarre. Plus its the intensity that causes the floods, they were probably a result of the record rainfall in January falling on saturated ground rather than the integral of the previous months.
And calling a 25% increase 'roughly the same' is bizarre. Plus its the intensity that causes the floods, they were probably a result of the record rainfall in January falling on saturated ground rather than the integral of the previous months.
A weather man who has published in a prestigious journal on global weather stations
You mean Fall et al 2011 which was actually about US temperature stations, and Anthony Watts was a coauthor, his only foray into the 'literature' so far. This is a good microcosm of the 'debate'.
On his blog and in his ludicrous Heartland-funded 'reports' Watts has continually claimed that the US station record is corrupted and biased warm, and as this is the best in the world .... e.g.
Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.
But of course blogs and self-published reports are not peer-reviewed. When subject to that scrutiny, the resultant paper, of which Watts was a coauthor, found no difference in the trend in mean temperatures recorded by 'good and 'bad' sited stations, and that the statistical QA methods applied to the data were doing a reasonable job of ensuring accuracy. Must suck to be him.
William Michael Connolley (born 12 April 1964) is a British software engineer, writer, and blogger on climatology. Until December 2007 he was Senior Scientific Officer in the Physical Sciences Division in the Antarctic Climate and the Earth System project at the British Antarctic Survey, where he worked as a climate modeller.
It is not a new study, it's two years old and was published in an open-access journal with an impact factor of 0.00 and sank without trace. There's a reason for that.
Slightly better than a blog post by a weatherman I guess.
Has he published in the field of Astrophysics, or is he just a "guy with a blog".
A weather man who has published in a prestigious journal on global weather stations perhaps has somewhat more credence, than "a bloke", don't you think?
the EO approach. dredge the rivers, reinstall the pumps, get the decision making back into local hands. Recover the power to dump the silt onto farmland back from Brussels
Dredging is rarely an effective anti-flooding measure, it is massively expensive, has to be repeated after each flood, and may just move the water more effectively downstream to the next town. A river only holds a tiny fraction of the water flowing through a catchment, so even if you double the flow rate by dredging it will not make much of an impact.
The river channel is not large enough to contain extreme floods, even after dredging. Dredging of river channels does NOT prevent flooding during extreme river flows … The concept of dredging to prevent extreme flooding is equivalent to trying to squeeze the volume of water held by a floodplain within the volume of water held in the river channel. Since the floodplain volume is usually many times larger than the channel volume, the concept becomes a major engineering project and a major environmental change
In the specific case of the Somerset levels, the problem there is the land is so low-lying, the gradient to the sea is negligible, so you only get a decent flow at low tide. In fact deepening or widening channels might actually make things worse at high tide....
The closed-down pump is a red herring, there was no flood warnings in that region. But I'm with you on more local democracy.
Leave a comment: