Is the Earth's atmosphere warming and, if so, why?

[Will]

Example of an insult "Without control you feel weak and indecisive."

Example of a legitimate point: "Answer the question."

We all know what the problem is here, don't we?

[Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)]

Will wrote: "Example of an insult "Without control you feel weak and indecisive."

Example of a legitimate point: "Answer the question."

We all know what the problem is here, don't we?"

Yes, your inability to overcome control issues.

[Will]

So your refusal to answer any questions, to produce any data, to refute any points, to debate the topic that this thread is supposed to be about ... all that is my inability to overcome control issues?

Is that really the best you can come up with?

Let's try and return this thread to some semblance of maturity. The thread is supposed to be about "Is the Earth's atmosphere warming and if so why?"

I hope we can all agree that the Earth's atmosphere is warming up, right? I am not seeing anyone disputing that any more. Even if we accept the "global warming has stalled" argument (which we shouldn't), that is still a stalling at the highest recorded levels.

So let's park that question. It's been answered. The Earth is undoubtedly getting warmer.

The next question is "and if so why?" Here we have a disagreement. The scientists say that there is a clear correlation between man's activities (especially CO2 emissions) and global warming. But there are some who don't accept these figures.

Let's park this argument too. The evidence is overwhelming, but we are now getting to a rump of diehard deniers who won't be convinced by anything. As we will never be able to convince them (and they refuse to debate), it's probably not worth the effort.

Now let's add a third question. What should we do about it? Hopefully this is an area where we can find something to agree on.

Should we build higher flood defences? Waterproof houses in flood risk areas? Build on stilts? Abandon some communities in areas that can never be flood proof?

Should people in flood-free areas subsidise the insurance for people who live in flood zones?

Or do we accept that some risk is unavoidable?

Do we plan for even more extreme floods in the future or is this as bad as it is ever going to get?

Is that a topic where we could have some rational debate?

[Jim]

Will wrote: "Here's a worthwhile take on flood defence.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/..."

The Pickering example is a good one, they worked with what was possible and specific to their area. Then the article degenerated into generalities and anybody trying to apply them generally is going to end up in a mess.
For example with Cumbria there are far less sheep on the fells than there have ever been so over grazing is hardly an issue. Over walking on the other hand is, and we'll probably have to have a lot more fells with made footpaths to prevent this
https://greennewz.files.wordpress.com...

A combination of walkers and rainfall
https://onlinegeography.wikispaces.co...

So you can see why they're having to build paths.
People numbers are impressive, I remember doing an interview with one farmer and his lambing fields are on the way to Stickle Tarn. On the May Day bank holiday the National Park had done a survey and he had 1135 people an hour walking through his field.

[Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)]

Jim wrote: "So you can see why they're having to build paths.
People numbers are impressive, I remember doing an interview with one farmer and his lambing fields are on the way to Stickle Tarn. On the May Day bank holiday the National Park had done a survey and he had 1135 people an hour walking through his field."

The problem is that walkers, like water, like to take the route of least resistance. So walkers give water a free path, or is that the wrong way round?

[Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)]

So your refusal to answer any questions, to produce any data, to refute any points, to debate the topic that this thread is supposed to be about ... all that is my inability to overcome control issues? The questions have already been answered.

Is that really the best you can come up with?6 Still at it I see.

Let's try and return this thread to some semblance of maturity. The thread is supposed to be about "Is the Earth's atmosphere warming and if so why?"

I hope we can all agree that the Earth's atmosphere is warming up, right? I am not seeing anyone disputing that any more. Even if we accept the "global warming has stalled" argument (which we shouldn't), that is still a stalling at the highest recorded levels.We are still in an ice age so, of course these would be the highest recorded levels, within the limitations of the equipment used, the changes in the environment around the measuring sites and the longevity of the data collection.

So let's park that question. It's been answered. The Earth is undoubtedly getting warmer.

The next question is "and if so why?" Here we have a disagreement. The scientists say that there is a clear correlation between man's activities (especially CO2 emissions) and global warming. But there are some who don't accept these figures.

Let's park this argument too. The evidence is overwhelming, but we are now getting to a rump of diehard deniers who won't be convinced by anything. As we will never be able to convince them (and they refuse to debate), it's probably not worth the effort.6 - diehard deniers - always there with the antagonistic objectification.

Let me refer you to some research that has taken place:

http://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/1...

Whilst there are problems with the method that was used to illustrate their findings in the laboratory and their attempt to provide a solution using "pervecton" there are clear points they have highlighted and proven that there are severe difficulties in the models used to support carbon dioxide as the villain of the piece. This is why so many skeptics are physicists.

Now let's add a third question. What should we do about it? Hopefully this is an area where we can find something to agree on.

Should we build higher flood defences? Waterproof houses in flood risk areas? Build on stilts? Abandon some communities in areas that can never be flood proof?

Should people in flood-free areas subsidise the insurance for people who live in flood zones?We already do that:

https://www.abi.org.uk/Insurance-and-...

Unfortunately, this only covers households and not businesses.

Or do we accept that some risk is unavoidable?

Do we plan for even more extreme floods in the future or is this as bad as it is ever going to get?

Some planning has to be done as we do not yet know how bad the flooding will be before it hits its absolute peak. Will M's link to the Pickering work shows that returning to the past can often solve the future. It is interesting to ask, as global warming is blamed by many to be the cause of the flooding, were there flood systems in place hundreds of years before the Industrial Revolution.

Is that a topic where we could have some rational debate?

[Jim]

Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "The problem is that walkers, like water, like to take the route of least resistance. So walkers give water a free path, or is that the wrong way round? ..."

I think that it can be a bit of both, but the water seems to more often follow the walkers.

[Lynne (Tigger's Mum)]

I think chickens are coming home to roost with all the years of quangos and mismanagement of infrastructure. The EA being a perfect example of blaggers in highly paid posts , without a clue of what is feasible or practical and seemingly without any care or worry of repercussions when they fail.

[Will]

Ah, good. Some debate. Let's deal with it.

The paper you linked to is from November 2013. A small family group (mostly a father and son) come up with a home-brew theory called which they call "pervection". What is "pervection"? I tried googling it and found almost nothing. It is not a term which has been picked up by any scientific publication or any reputable organisation.

This page on yahoo answers gives their theory a good "going over":

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question...

Admittedly, this is a case of amateurs commenting on amateurs, but when it comes to this "pervection" we don't have anything else. No-one else has picked it up and looked at it, on either side of the climate change debate.

As you say, there are "problems" with their method. We have a Mom and Pop outfit with no expertise in climate change (they are chemists and housebuilders), expounding a theory that no-one else has been impressed by. A scientific theory which they haven't published for peer review in a scientific journal. And a website that is two years old - and will therefore not include the hot years of 2014 and 2015.

And we are supposed to take that theory over research published by NASA, the Met Office, the IPCC et al?

The internet is full of cranks and amateurs. This is, I am afraid, another example of that.

You say that this proves "that there are severe difficulties in the models used to support carbon dioxide as the villain of the piece. "

Which parts of their website prove that? I've been through it and found nothing of the sort. And if their research is as credible as their theory of "pervection" why should we give it any credibility?

Perhaps you would care to explain it to us?

You asked why there would flood defences in place hundreds of years before the industrial revolution. That's because flooding happens occasionally. Now ask yourself the killer question. Those ancient flood defences were adequate for century after century. But right now we are needing flood defences that are far higher than we have ever needed in the past.

Why?

[Will]

Lynne - I am not so sure that we should be harsh on the EA. They have been asking the Government for more money for flooding for many years. Governments of all political colours have turned them down, not believing that the flood risk was genuine.

The EA also has a massive problem about how we prepare for extreme weather. Until very recently, all extreme weather planning was based on history. Drainage engineers would look at the last one or two hundred years of floods and base their defences on that. And it was the same for highway engineers stocking up on salt and snow-clearing equipment or the water companies working out how much reserve water we need in case of drought. Until recently, you knew how much salt to buy because you had a pretty good idea how much snow would fall.

We can't do that any more. History is no longer a good indicator of future problems. The extra flood defences put in place in Cumbria after 2009 should have been enough to defend against a one in one hundred year storm. Those defences have been breached three times in the last month. And will probably be breached again in the next few years.

Sure, with hindsight the Government or the EA could have done more. But who really knew that it would be this bad?

[Jim]

Will wrote: "Lynne - I am not so sure that we should be harsh on the EA. They have been asking the Government for more money for flooding for many years. Governments of all political colours have turned them do..."

I think that when they had a chair who famously remarked that she wanted to see ‘a limpet mine attached to every pumping station’ the main fault of the government is appointing her

When you look at who government did appoint it was obvious they didn't take it seriously

[Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)]

I apologise for my last post, Will and I have now deleted it. I had not factored in your current circumstances.

I will be leaving this thread for the next few weeks. You may write as you wish here, during that time, if you feel you need to, but I will not reply.

[Lynne (Tigger's Mum)]

That's the whole point about quangos and ministers, they know very little technically about what they are in charge of. Time was civil servants and the people who actually did the work could carry the department but they too have been politically interfered with. I'm sorry but I do feel very depressed about the state of our country at the moment. Common sense is not as common as it used to be.

[Will]

Lynne - it may not be as bad as it looks. The vast majority of civil servants do know what they are talking about. Quangoes and local authorities in particular have people who specialise in their professions. Their most senior people will have twenty to thirty years of experience, usually backed up with a specialist degree and mandatory refresher training.

There are problems. Right now, every Government department, quango and local authority is struggling for cash.

There is also an increasing politicisation of civil servants. That was one of the reasons that I stopped being a Whitehall civil servant and moved into local Government.

The other big problem is that society as a whole is getting better at complaining and picking fault. Opposition politicians will criticise at every opportunity. Rags like the Daily Mail love to run stories about Whitehall or town hall incompetence. That can make it seem as if every civil servant is incompetent.

These floods have happened because we have seen unprecedented levels of rainfall. We ought to cut the authorities a little slack. After all, hindsight is 2020 vision.

[Lynne (Tigger's Mum)]

It's not just rainfall Will. I'm seriously worried about the NHS. I know for a fact that references and qualifications are not verified as they used to be. There are people who have blagged their way into a well paid job who are totally out of their depth running very important organisations. Have you ever read Spike Milligan - he has some stories which are totally relevant to this type of conversation. Where inept management is promoted as the only only means of saving face for appointing them in the first place and effectively passing them onwards. Like cream scum rises to the surface.