|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 23, 2023 20:57:10 GMT
Yes it is in part as it is estimated to be 10 and 30% of the effect, as you have just confirmed for the SW. There is really no such thing as the norm, the coastlines the topography of the North Sea seabed are all radically different as is the behaviour of the Jet stream and the behaviour of each individual storm and how it ties in with tides and winds and temperatures You didn't say "In part" And let me reassure you they are not raising the defences by 50mm. I did say in part. What do you not understand about changing topography having an unknown effect on storm surges and said storm surges have been happening for thousands of years and you use the current 50 year norm as an indication that things are changing beyond what is 'normal'. We do not know normal, we only know current. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 23, 2023 21:04:43 GMT
Lol You definitely have a skill - I would hire you to do PR, but there is absolutely no way i would get in any plane you piloted. Just as well I'm not a pilot. However facts are much easier to fly. A rise from 24 to 28 degrees is 25% and more importantly a big change in climate, weather, storm strength, flooding frequency etc. But its all happened before 300,000 years ago. nothing to see here. Plenty to see here it is just that no one is quite sure what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 23, 2023 21:11:14 GMT
You didn't say "In part" And let me reassure you they are not raising the defences by 50mm. I did say in part. What do you not understand about changing topography having an unknown effect on storm surges and said storm surges have been happening for thousands of years and you use the current 50 year norm as an indication that things are changing beyond what is 'normal'. We do not know normal, we only know current. Apologies, you did say in part. Sorry. Not another "unknown" effect. I would propose that a 30mm fall in land height has virtually no effect compared to the increased pressure waves caused by a 6% rise in average temperature. We do know normal. Normal is the average temperature of the last 1,000 years. Which varied by only 0.5 degrees. We could look at normal over longer periods. The ice age was normal for a million years, but you see we know why that was, just as we know why now is 0.8 degrees warmer and climbing. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 23, 2023 21:32:57 GMT
I did say in part. What do you not understand about changing topography having an unknown effect on storm surges and said storm surges have been happening for thousands of years and you use the current 50 year norm as an indication that things are changing beyond what is 'normal'. We do not know normal, we only know current. Apologies, you did say in part. Sorry. Not another "unknown" effect. I would propose that a 30mm fall in land height has virtually no effect compared to the increased pressure waves caused by a 6% rise in average temperature. We do know normal. Normal is the average temperature of the last 1,000 years. Which varied by only 0.5 degrees. We could look at normal over longer periods. The ice age was normal for a million years, but you see we know why that was, just as we know why now is 0.8 degrees warmer and climbing. Apology accepted easily done. I am not sure your percentage rises in temperature are meaningful. What I am saying is we do not know the norm of storm surges, we can guess the temperatures the last thousand years with proxies but even some of those are now in question as the tree ring data has more variables than originally thought. The seabed, the coastlines are all changing and having an unknown effect on storm surges. Sediment is being deposited along the Yorkshre coast, do these increased areas of higher seabed cause the storm surges to act like waves and pile up in the shallows. There are many pertinent question along these lines. Saying A is bigger and it must be caused by B is a tad too simplistic. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 23, 2023 21:45:12 GMT
Apologies, you did say in part. Sorry. Not another "unknown" effect. I would propose that a 30mm fall in land height has virtually no effect compared to the increased pressure waves caused by a 6% rise in average temperature. We do know normal. Normal is the average temperature of the last 1,000 years. Which varied by only 0.5 degrees. We could look at normal over longer periods. The ice age was normal for a million years, but you see we know why that was, just as we know why now is 0.8 degrees warmer and climbing. Apology accepted easily done. I am not sure your percentage rises in temperature are meaningful. What I am saying is we do not know the norm of storm surges, we can guess the temperatures the last thousand years with proxies but even some of those are now in question as the tree ring data has more variables than originally thought. The seabed, the coastlines are all changing and having an unknown effect on storm surges. Sediment is being deposited along the Yorkshre coast, do these increased areas of higher seabed cause the storm surges to act like waves and pile up in the shallows. There are many pertinent question along these lines. Saying A is bigger and it must be caused by B is a tad too simplistic. I'm inclined to agree, there are very many variables, but that does not mean we can dismiss AGW as either harmless or non existent. For whilst many things may add or mitigate human effects, that does not mean we can carry on regardless and expect to get clean away with it. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 23, 2023 21:52:06 GMT
Apology accepted easily done. I am not sure your percentage rises in temperature are meaningful. What I am saying is we do not know the norm of storm surges, we can guess the temperatures the last thousand years with proxies but even some of those are now in question as the tree ring data has more variables than originally thought. The seabed, the coastlines are all changing and having an unknown effect on storm surges. Sediment is being deposited along the Yorkshre coast, do these increased areas of higher seabed cause the storm surges to act like waves and pile up in the shallows. There are many pertinent question along these lines. Saying A is bigger and it must be caused by B is a tad too simplistic. I'm inclined to agree, there are very many variables, but that does not mean we can dismiss AGW as either harmless or non existent. For whilst many things may add or mitigate human effects, that does not mean we can carry on regardless and expect to get clean away with it. Golly gosh, I almost totally agree. I must sit down I have come over faint. I am not aware of anyone saying carry on regardless what is at issue is whether or not it is an emergency or wheter it is something we should look at seriously over the course of the next few generations to assess the problem in the long term and to mitigate the effects of a changing climate whether it is a natural event or helped along by Man. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 23, 2023 22:16:02 GMT
I'm inclined to agree, there are very many variables, but that does not mean we can dismiss AGW as either harmless or non existent. For whilst many things may add or mitigate human effects, that does not mean we can carry on regardless and expect to get clean away with it. Golly gosh, I almost totally agree. I must sit down I have come over faint. I am not aware of anyone saying carry on regardless what is at issue is whether or not it is an emergency or wheter it is something we should look at seriously over the course of the next few generations to assess the problem in the long term and to mitigate the effects of a changing climate whether it is a natural event or helped along by Man. Had we not already spent 3 decades pretending its not happening, then pretending its all natural, then arguing its happened before, so no worries. But we are already coming late to the party. I don't know if we have more time, its possible we are trying to catch up to fast, pushing too hard, but for me there are still too many people saying the economy is more important than the planet. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 23, 2023 22:28:14 GMT
Golly gosh, I almost totally agree. I must sit down I have come over faint. I am not aware of anyone saying carry on regardless what is at issue is whether or not it is an emergency or wheter it is something we should look at seriously over the course of the next few generations to assess the problem in the long term and to mitigate the effects of a changing climate whether it is a natural event or helped along by Man. Had we not already spent 3 decades pretending its not happening, then pretending its all natural, then arguing its happened before, so no worries. But we are already coming late to the party. I don't know if we have more time, its possible we are trying to catch up to fast, pushing too hard, but for me there are still too many people saying the economy is more important than the planet. Oh dear we have diverged again. I do not think we have spent three decades saying it is not happening, Blair was strong on climate change and his successors and bought into the whole agenda. Remember Brown, was it Paris, the Science is settled and the flat earthers are the only ones who disagree.It depends whether or not you believe there is a party, which is the Emergency. I have said and do say we should not do anything but I also say that it is over egged, for political reasons (not all with the best of intents), and it is not an emergency it is an outlook. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 23, 2023 22:36:53 GMT
Had we not already spent 3 decades pretending its not happening, then pretending its all natural, then arguing its happened before, so no worries. But we are already coming late to the party. I don't know if we have more time, its possible we are trying to catch up to fast, pushing too hard, but for me there are still too many people saying the economy is more important than the planet. Oh dear we have diverged again. I do not think we have spent three decades saying it is not happening, Blair was strong on climate change and his successors and bought into the whole agenda. Remember Brown, was it Paris, the Science is settled and the flat earthers are the only ones who disagree.It depends whether or not you believe there is a party, which is the Emergency. I have said and do say we should not do anything but I also say that it is over egged, for political reasons (not all with the best of intents), and it is not an emergency it is an outlook. It maybe we can find common ground half way between our trenches. What would you slow down in this unhappy haste? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 24, 2023 8:44:56 GMT
Oh dear we have diverged again. I do not think we have spent three decades saying it is not happening, Blair was strong on climate change and his successors and bought into the whole agenda. Remember Brown, was it Paris, the Science is settled and the flat earthers are the only ones who disagree.It depends whether or not you believe there is a party, which is the Emergency. I have said and do say we should not do anything but I also say that it is over egged, for political reasons (not all with the best of intents), and it is not an emergency it is an outlook. It maybe we can find common ground half way between our trenches. What would you slow down in this unhappy haste? Seek alternatives to oil, slow down the race to electric, allow a gradual seeking out of different ways to live our lives, create the environment for people to willingly adopt a different lifestyle instead of trying to enforce that lifestyle upon them. Consider the British people instead of considering the planet as the first objective and, most importantly, accept that increasing the UK population is not the way to achieve any type of rescue of the planet. If there is an emergency then keeping people out is the most important part of emergency regulations. The divergence of net zero policy and immigration policy expose the lie that it is an emergency. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Mar 24, 2023 8:46:02 GMT
It certainly won't do anything to change the climate. It's rather like doing a rain-dance in your back garden and expecting the Sahara to turn green again. So do nothing? Carry on pumping out Co2 and ignore the warnings. Are you in the "Its a conspiracy to bankrupt the West " camp. Or the "I know better than the worlds leading scientific institutions" camp? You've misunderstood what bodies like, for example, the IPCC are. I wouldn't even call the IPCC "a scientific institution" - and it's not a world leading anything. The clue is in the word "Intergovernmental". It was set up as a body to give advice to governments on climate. This is not a "scientific" organisation that employs scientists to do research into climate with the object of understanding what's going on - which would involve investigating all different (and often incompatible) theories. That would be of little use to governments. The IPCC recognises this and has tried to build a model based on various selected theories. And their model is based on the hypothesis that the main driver of warming is CO2. It also leaves out a lot of important factors because they're not yet understood. This is not a scientific body - although it employs scientists in many disciplines to inform their models. But these scientists are all working to the same script and their work is not peer reviewed. Anyone who doesn't believe their basic hypotheses is not employed. I don't think you've ever understood this, although it has been mentioned in many of the links that you've been given - but not read. And the recent example of the danger of politicians being guided by selected scientists during the pandemic should be a timely warning about how dangerous it can be. The lockdowns that have done so much damage to this country (and many others) came out of a model designed by Neil Ferguson - a model that has always got its predictions completely wrong. Yet politicians are still stupid enough the believe what they call "the science". There is NO such thing. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 24, 2023 18:42:27 GMT
It maybe we can find common ground half way between our trenches. What would you slow down in this unhappy haste? Seek alternatives to oil, slow down the race to electric, allow a gradual seeking out of different ways to live our lives, create the environment for people to willingly adopt a different lifestyle instead of trying to enforce that lifestyle upon them. Consider the British people instead of considering the planet as the first objective and, most importantly, accept that increasing the UK population is not the way to achieve any type of rescue of the planet. If there is an emergency then keeping people out is the most important part of emergency regulations. The divergence of net zero policy and immigration policy expose the lie that it is an emergency. So just slow down again. I have often wondered if it would be possible to develop petrol vehicles with much lower emissions, maybe mixed with PHEV. I think its not good to simply ban all ICE vehicles stunting potential development. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 24, 2023 18:46:21 GMT
So do nothing? Carry on pumping out Co2 and ignore the warnings. Are you in the "Its a conspiracy to bankrupt the West " camp. Or the "I know better than the worlds leading scientific institutions" camp? You've misunderstood what bodies like, for example, the IPCC are. I wouldn't even call the IPCC "a scientific institution" - and it's not a world leading anything. The clue is in the word "Intergovernmental". It was set up as a body to give advice to governments on climate. This is not a "scientific" organisation that employs scientists to do research into climate with the object of understanding what's going on - which would involve investigating all different (and often incompatible) theories. That would be of little use to governments. The IPCC recognises this and has tried to build a model based on various selected theories. And their model is based on the hypothesis that the main driver of warming is CO2. It also leaves out a lot of important factors because they're not yet understood. This is not a scientific body - although it employs scientists in many disciplines to inform their models. But these scientists are all working to the same script and their work is not peer reviewed. Anyone who doesn't believe their basic hypotheses is not employed. I don't think you've ever understood this, although it has been mentioned in many of the links that you've been given - but not read. And the recent example of the danger of politicians being guided by selected scientists during the pandemic should be a timely warning about how dangerous it can be. The lockdowns that have done so much damage to this country (and many others) came out of a model designed by Neil Ferguson - a model that has always got its predictions completely wrong. Yet politicians are still stupid enough the believe what they call "the science". There is NO such thing. Ok, so point to the scientific institute that disagrees with AGW. (BTW scientific institutes are not bloggers) but to be honest, its hard to keep up with the conspiracy claims, are scientific institutes tricking Western governments into bankruptcy or are they governmental scientific institutes lying for another reason. Its so hard to keep up. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 24, 2023 19:04:09 GMT
You've misunderstood what bodies like, for example, the IPCC are. I wouldn't even call the IPCC "a scientific institution" - and it's not a world leading anything. The clue is in the word "Intergovernmental". It was set up as a body to give advice to governments on climate. This is not a "scientific" organisation that employs scientists to do research into climate with the object of understanding what's going on - which would involve investigating all different (and often incompatible) theories. That would be of little use to governments. The IPCC recognises this and has tried to build a model based on various selected theories. And their model is based on the hypothesis that the main driver of warming is CO2. It also leaves out a lot of important factors because they're not yet understood. This is not a scientific body - although it employs scientists in many disciplines to inform their models. But these scientists are all working to the same script and their work is not peer reviewed. Anyone who doesn't believe their basic hypotheses is not employed. I don't think you've ever understood this, although it has been mentioned in many of the links that you've been given - but not read. And the recent example of the danger of politicians being guided by selected scientists during the pandemic should be a timely warning about how dangerous it can be. The lockdowns that have done so much damage to this country (and many others) came out of a model designed by Neil Ferguson - a model that has always got its predictions completely wrong. Yet politicians are still stupid enough the believe what they call "the science". There is NO such thing. Ok, so point to the scientific institute that disagrees with AGW. (BTW scientific institutes are not bloggers) but to be honest, its hard to keep up with the conspiracy claims, are scientific institutes tricking Western governments into bankruptcy or are they governmental scientific institutes lying for another reason. Its so hard to keep up. when Point to a scientific institute that actually says 'we have found'. They usually refer to the IPCC reports when commenting on AGW. Being at odds with teh IPCC narrative does mean one is not invited onto IPCC panels and that one's funding is at risk. It is a bad career move to disagree with the narrative which is why most of the 'dissidents' are retired or unattached. It is a neat way to claim and keep a consensus. Worth a listen. wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/23/climate-change-isnt-particularly-dangerous-richard-lindzen/ |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 24, 2023 19:15:10 GMT
Ok, so point to the scientific institute that disagrees with AGW. (BTW scientific institutes are not bloggers) but to be honest, its hard to keep up with the conspiracy claims, are scientific institutes tricking Western governments into bankruptcy or are they governmental scientific institutes lying for another reason. Its so hard to keep up. when Point to a scientific institute that actually says 'we have found'. They usually refer to the IPCC reports when commenting on AGW. Being at odds with teh IPCC narrative does mean one is not invited onto IPCC panels and that one's funding is at risk. It is a bad career move to disagree with the narrative which is why most of the 'dissidents' are retired or unattached. It is a neat way to claim and keep a consensus. Worth a listen. wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/23/climate-change-isnt-particularly-dangerous-richard-lindzen/Been through this. Science is about evidence. There is no facts, no proof unquestionable. Not on gravity, not on climate change. And no I'm not watching another video from the blogger on wattsupwiththat. wattsupwiththat is not a scientific institute. |
|
