Storm with 106-mph gusts hits flooded Britain (Update)

Feb 12, 2014 by Jill Lawless
A truck is seen after being blown off the road on the A628, Woodhead Pass, near Preston between Manchester and Sheffield, England, Wednesday, Feb. 12, 2014. Winds gusting at speeds approaching 100mph are battering parts of the UK after the Met Office issued its first "red warning" of the winter. (AP Photo/Jon Super)

Britain's weather service says it sees the tentacles of climate change in a spate of storms and floods battering the country, but has stopped short of saying that global warming directly caused the extreme conditions.

The latest round of bad weather slammed into Britain's west coast on Wednesday with torrential rain and winds gusting up to 106 mph (170 kph). Trucks were toppled, trees were felled and a major chunk of the railway was closed.

The website of rail operator Virgin Trains greeted visitors with the words: "Do Not Travel."

England, which has been lashed by wind and rain since December, had its wettest January since records began in 1766.

The resulting floods have drenched the southwestern coast of England, the low-lying Somerset Levels and the Thames Valley west of London, where hundreds of properties have been swamped after the Thames burst its banks.

Britain's Met Office, the nation's weather agency, said in a paper published this week that "there is no definitive answer" on the role played by climate change in the recent weather and floods. But it said there is "an increasing body of evidence that extreme daily rainfall rates are becoming more intense," probably due to a warming world.

Met Office chief scientist Julia Slingo told the BBC that "all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change."

A local resident pushes belongings on a cart through the flooded part of the town of Staines-upon-Thames, England, as a police van patrols the area, Wednesday, Feb. 12, 2014. Prime Minister David Cameron insisted Tuesday that money is no object in the battle against the widespread flooding that has engulfed parts of England. Canceling a visit to the Middle East to oversee flood-fighting efforts, he told journalists that "whatever money is needed for this relief effort will be spent" as Britain deals with some of its wettest weather in 250 years. (AP Photo/Lefteris Pitarakis)

It was the latest in a series of assertions by weather agencies linking extreme weather events with human-made global warming. Last year the Met Office and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said events ranging from Superstorm Sandy flooding to U.S. heat waves to extreme rainfall in Australia and New Zealand had all been made more likely by climate change.

The Met office study discusses evidence of increasingly extreme weather events and links both Britain's damp winter and the extreme cold that has hit the United States and Canada to "perturbations" in the jet stream over the Pacific Ocean and North America. But it does not say outright that global warming caused the flooding. To do that, scientists take months, sometimes years, to conduct detailed computer simulations—and the report said such research was needed in this case.

In the United States, NOAA research meteorologist Martin Hoerling said the Met Office study "identifies many challenges for research" rather than drawing firm conclusions.

But Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann said it was "a remarkably blunt report for a group that is typically characterized by a staid approach."

"The bottom line is this: we are indeed now seeing with our very eyes the impacts of climate change on severe weather, record heat, drought, more intense hurricane activity," Mann said in an email. "The only question at this point is how far downstream this treacherous torrent we are going to paddle."

A similar question—when will it end?—was being asked by many Britons, from flooded farmers to riverside residents piling sandbags against the encroaching waters of the Thames.

"I tried to prepare for this, I bought 100 pounds of sand and I called the council," said Suhair Al-Fouadi, a resident of the town of Egham, who woke Wednesday to find a foot of water in her house. "But they would do nothing. Now I have water from the sewer coming in through my doors."

Celia, last name not given, a local resident pushes her dog In a wheelbarrow, in the flooded part of the town of Staines-upon-Thames, England, Wednesday, Feb. 12, 2014. Prime Minister David Cameron insisted Tuesday that money is no object in the battle against the widespread flooding that has engulfed parts of England. Canceling a visit to the Middle East to oversee flood-fighting efforts, he told journalists that "whatever money is needed for this relief effort will be spent" as Britain deals with some of its wettest weather in 250 years. (AP Photo/Lefteris Pitarakis)

The Met Office issued its highest-level red warning of "exceptionally strong winds" Wednesday for west Wales and northwest England. It said a gust of 106 mph (170 kph) was recorded at Aberdaron in northwestern Wales.

Railway operator Network Rail said the main west coast train line would close for several hours Wednesday evening because of the wind.

London itself was expected to be safe from the flooding since it's protected by the Thames Barrier, a series of 66-foot (20-meter) high metal gates across the entire river. The massive gates can be closed to stop the tide from coming up the Thames, which gives more space for the river to handle excess water from upstream. At low tide, the Thames barrier is then opened and the floodwaters flow to the sea.

Yet the Met Office says there will be no quick end to Britain's flood misery.

At least one more storm is forecast for later this week. It says some areas could get up to 2.75 inches (7 centimeters) of rain—a month's worth—by Friday.

Explore further: Southern England has wettest January since 1910

3.7 /5 (7 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Recommended for you

UN climate talks shuffle to a close in Bonn

9 hours ago

Concern was high at a perceived lack of urgency as UN climate negotiations shuffled towards a close in Bonn on Saturday with just 14 months left to finalise a new, global pact.

Study shows no lead pollution in oilsands region

Oct 24, 2014

New research from a world-renowned soil and water expert at the University of Alberta reveals that there's no atmospheric lead pollution in Alberta's oilsands region—a finding that contradicts current scientific ...

User comments : 49

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

The Shootist
1 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2014
Where's Top Gear's Hover Van?
ScooterG
1.7 / 5 (16) Feb 12, 2014
Of the 11 paragraphs in this "science article" on the physorg "science" website, 6 were dedicated to AGW propaganda.

AGW is bullsh*t, physurg is bullsh*t
Cocoa
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 12, 2014
Another interesting article - brought to us by my favorite web site - Physorg.com If I did not feel that way about Physorg, I would not waste my time learning from the great variety of articles they bring to my attention. I wonder greatly about the mentality of people who think Physorg is bullshit - but insist on wasting their time reading it.....
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 12, 2014
"the worst spell of winter rainfall in at least 248 years"
"Pickles said the winter was the "wettest since George III was on the throne", referring to Britain's monarch from 1760-1820."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

That was prior to the Industrial Revolution.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 12, 2014
The extreme weather events in Britain are yet another example of predictions made by the IPCC as early as their first report in 1990 being very much on the mark. For those who are not caught up in denial, it means that the more dire predictions from that report and the later ones have to be taken seriously.

There is a Chinese curse that goes "May you live in interesting times". It appears that we are.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 12, 2014
Did the IPCC retrodict 248 years ago?
omatwankr
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2014
There is a Chinese curse that goes "May you live in interesting times".

"May you live in interesting times", often referred to as the Chinese curse, is the purported translation of an ancient Chinese proverb and curse. However, no Chinese source has ever been found. http://en.wikiped...ng_times

Another mistruth from an anti-agw-deniers proving yet again how full of ozone-holes agw is, I'm off to the denier glory hole known as wattsuckwithdat to suck some more Koch, can't get enough Koch.

om out :)
aksdad
2 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2014
Interestingly, the UK Met Office's monthly rainfall summary dating back to 1910 shows no appreciable short-term or long-term trend. If you want to be really precise, the short-term trend starting from about 1995 shows decreasing rainfall. See their summary page here:

http://www.metoff...monthly/

Click on "Rainfall" under "Climate variable." Also look at England and UK under "Country." Whatever moderate trend there is shows a very slight decrease in rainfall over the last couple decades. Though this January has set records, it appears to be an anomaly and not part of any trend.

Apparently Julia Sling and Michael Mann see no problem with making predictions that are inconsistent with the evidence.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 13, 2014
Of the 11 paragraphs in this "science article" on the physorg "science" website, 6 were dedicated to AGW propaganda.

AGW is bullsh*t, physurg is bullsh*t


Really? well you certainly talk a lot of it Scooty. That's for certain.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 13, 2014
"the worst spell of winter rainfall in at least 248 years"
"Pickles said the winter was the "wettest since George III was on the throne", referring to Britain's monarch from 1760-1820."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

That was prior to the Industrial Revolution.


ryggy:
Another corker .... classic denialist "engage denial/ignorance" before any thinking process.

Err, you * ...* (insert noun of choice).

1760 is WHEN records start.
NOT since the last comparable event.

"In other words, one or even a few of these storms would be perfectly ordinary for Britain, but one after another after another is pretty much unprecedented.

Slingo says there's been nothing like it since the British began keeping records in the 1760s, almost 250 years ago."
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 13, 2014
Did the IPCC retrodict 248 years ago?


Compounding your stupidity by repetition.

runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 13, 2014
Interestingly, the UK Met Office's monthly rainfall summary dating back to 1910 shows no appreciable short-term or long-term trend. If you want to be really precise, the short-term trend starting from about 1995 shows decreasing rainfall. See their summary page here:

http://www.metoff...monthly/

Click on "Rainfall" under "Climate variable." Also look at England and UK under "Country." Whatever moderate trend there is shows a very slight decrease in rainfall over the last couple decades. Though this January has set records, it appears to be an anomaly and not part of any trend.

Apparently Julia Sling and Michael Mann see no problem with making predictions that are inconsistent with the evidence.


Another I see, Uba ryggy et all, have competition for ignorance.

Err ... it's the EXTREME that is germaine here.
alfie_null
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 13, 2014
"the worst spell of winter rainfall in at least 248 years"
"Pickles said the winter was the "wettest since George III was on the throne", referring to Britain's monarch from 1760-1820."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

That was prior to the Industrial Revolution.

Ryg's tactic of cherry-picking and/or mis-interpreting data just doesn't do it for me. He has no grounding in the subject matter. He exhibits bias, which he then fails to acknowledge. Then again, what does he expect to accomplish by arguing the subject in this forum? Certainly not changing the science. Or does he believe science is defined by popular opinion?

I listen when science talks. Not some pundit with an agenda. It's something he'll never be able to provide. Hint: dumping a bunch of links into comments doesn't work. If I searched enough, I could provide links "proving" pigs can fly and the moon is made of green cheese.
aksdad
2.1 / 5 (8) Feb 13, 2014
runrig, weather extremes happen all the time, but that's weather, not climate. It tells us nothing about a trend and we can't predict future weather based on it. It's a one-time event.

However, if you can identify a pattern of increasingly extreme weather (rainy, dry, warm, cold, windy, etc.) then you can float some predictions about the future. For example, from about 1970 to 1998 there was a pattern of increasing planet-wide warming which is why people started worrying about global warming.

If you look at the UK Met Office rainfall data going back to 1910 to which I linked, there's really no significant trend, and what little there is shows decreasing, not increasing, rainfall. So in this case, Slingo and Mann are using a single anomaly in a long term pattern of slightly decreasing rainfall to declare signs of global warming. That's not science, that's speculation.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 13, 2014
what does he expect to accomplish by arguing the subject in this forum?

Like a good AGWite, the 'science' is settled so shut up?
REAL science continually demands challenges to theories.
When climate 'scientists' tell people to shut up and stop demanding they provide more date to support their weak theories, that is not science.
So you agree then that physorg is not really a science site but an AGW propaganda site.
A real science site would be open to challenges.
So if the 106 mph winds and flooding are from AGW, then explain why a similar significant event occurred 248 years ago?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 13, 2014
Did the IPCC retrodict 248 years ago?


Compounding your stupidity by repetition.


if a GCM can predict the next 100 years is should explain the past.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2014
Slingo and Mann are using a single anomaly in a long term pattern of slightly decreasing rainfall to declare signs of global warming. That's not science, that's speculation.


They do no other than say there can be no scientific causal connection with AGW, But that "all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change."
The AGW signal is but a small modulation underlying Climate - however theory says that large disturbances are likely in Polar circulation. This event is due to that. The persistent/intense PV further south over the E US/Canada than is usual - aiming the Polar jet straight at the UK.
I have seen nothing like it in the 40 years since I became interested weather and joined the UK MetO.
Of course it's speculation but speculation matching expectation. AND the extreme, as I pointed out. is the nub of it.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2014
So in this case, Slingo and Mann are using a single anomaly in a long term pattern of slightly decreasing rainfall to declare signs of global warming. That's not science, that's speculation.
runrig has dealt with this more than adequately, but I want to ask a question or 2. Please askdad, do explain: If the trend is towards less precipitation overall, and there is suddenly an event that is essentially unprecedented in both scope and extent, is this not a classic example of "an extreme event"?

And when you combine this with the facts that overall temperatures are the highest for January as have been recorded, and that the actual days of sunshine are also among the highest recorded for January in the UK, does that not make you wish to sit back and say "hey, what's going on"?

Then finally, when you look at what science has been saying for over 30 years (overall less rain, more warmth and increased chances of extremes) do you not have to consider the science may be correct?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 14, 2014
I have seen nothing like it in the 40 years since I became interested weather and joined the UK MetO.


So?
Climate is measured in decades, so we are told.

What is it about the Baby boom generation? Why do they seem to think that everything that happens has never happened before? If it is new to THEM it is new to the history of the earth.

Have the Danes started farming Greenland yet?
aksdad
2.2 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2014
Mann said "...we are indeed now seeing with our very eyes the impacts of climate change on severe weather, record heat, drought, more intense hurricane activity"

The IPCC notes in AR5 (2013) Chapter 12 that there is no increase in drought (10.6.1.3) neither is there more intense hurricane activity (10.6.1.4 and 10.6.1.5). Mann has frequently made statements that contradict current climate science.

Met Office chief scientist Julia Slingo is more circumspect, simply saying "all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change." She doesn't say which evidence specifically, but the article infers the record rainfall in January is a sign. As I pointed out--twice--the Met Office rainfall record shows no pattern of increasing precipitation in January (or any month other than July and August, by the way).

IPCC AR5 Chapter 12 addresses the difficulty of linking occasional extreme weather events to global warming in 10.6.2 "Attribution of Weather and Climate Events".
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2014
She doesn't say which evidence specifically, but the article infers the record rainfall in January is a sign.
That's disingenuous askdad. She infers the extreme nature of the event is a sign, not the event itself.

Even Mann's quote above points to several aspects, one of which he cannot, as a scientist, prove but which he, as a human, believes. And frankly looking at the intensity of cyclones this year (which are also hurricanes but in a different hemisphere) he may even have a point there.

No one event can be pointed to and said to definitively be linked to global warming. A series of events, however, suggest a link. The IPCC says several times in their report that the expectation is that there will be more severe weather events. They first said this in their 1990 report.

So as I've not pointed out, twice, this unusual weather is an example of the type of extreme event predicted by the IPCC.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2014
the extreme nature of the event is a sign

What was sign for the extreme event 248 years ago?
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2014
the extreme nature of the event is a sign

What was sign for the extreme event 248 years ago?


Weather.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2014
..........
Met Office chief scientist Julia Slingo is more circumspect, simply saying "all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change." She doesn't say which evidence specifically, but the article infers the record rainfall in January is a sign. As I pointed out--twice--the Met Office rainfall record shows no pattern of increasing precipitation in January (or any month other than July and August, by the way).........

Rainfall is dependent on many variables. Not just temperature. In fact that is the least of the controlling factors for the UK.
In the UK most rainfall in terms of frequency comes from winds in the S to W'ly quadrant. Which is highly modulated by Atlantic SST's (this is rainfall brought by Atlantic depressions and their attendant fronts – as has been happening this winter FI).

cont
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2014
cont

The highest rainfall in terms of extreme totals comes from winds in the S – E'ly sector in Summer time. This is destabilised air which has it's boundary layer moisture sourced from the region of the Azores towards the African coast/Spain (Spanish plume) and is released as thundery rain. Any precip from the W to N quadrant is Pm air ( Polar maritime and is cold sourced and has moisture evaporated into it from it's sea track. The N – Ely quadrant is the driest and produces little overall precip on average.
In short, rainfall (or snowfall quiv) is much more dependent on the temp of the seas around this small island and the link to rising temps caused by AGW is tenuous.
The warmer it is here the drier it is in general.
You are looking for the wrong signal in the wrong place my friend.
What stands out in the UK is an EXTREME in terms of any AGW modulation.
aksdad
1.9 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2014
Maggnus, IPCC AR5 Chapter 12 notes no evidence of weather extremes or droughts and also finds slim evidence for precipitation extremes (10.6.1.2): "There is only a modest body of direct evidence that natural or anthropogenic forcing has affected global mean precipitation, despite a robust expectation of increased precipitation and precipitation extremes."

It is impossible to attribute a single extreme event to global warming. Only when you can demonstrate a regular pattern of extremes can you begin to (perhaps) establish a possible link.

You say the "science" has been predicting for 30 years "overall less rain, more warmth and increased chances of extremes". Scientists have also observed no pattern of increased extremes in either intensity or frequency in the last 30 years, except for temperatures. And global temperatures have not increased for roughly the last 15 years.

As for UK temperatures, check the link I provided. Decreasing for January for 10+ years except this year.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2014
the extreme nature of the event is a sign

What was sign for the extreme event 248 years ago?


FFS ryggy - there was NO extreme event 248 years ago - can't you, won't you read anything posted here that contradicts your bigotry?

For the LAST fucking time - 248 years ago was when records BEGAN.
aksdad
1.9 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2014
runrig, as ryggesogn2 has been helpfully and concisely illustrating, alarmists point to extreme events, whether hot or cold, wet or dry, as evidence of climate change. Fine, you're welcome to believe that. The rest of us look at the long term data and see nothing other than natural variability. Which is it?

I will not convince you or Maggnus, but anyone who sees these comments can go look at the data for themselves rather than rely on your word or Julia Slingo's or Michael Mann's (or mine) and draw their own conclusions. Once more, for the UK from the UK Met Office:

http://www.metoff...monthly/
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2014
The rest of us look at the long term data and see nothing other than natural variability. Which is it?

Then you might want to try some glasse - because you must be blind as a bat (or completely uneducated as to the nature of statistical analysis)
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2014
248 years ago was when records BEGAN.

History only began 248 years ago?
So the Vikings farming Greenland is not a record?
"It may seem a far-fetched idea nowadays even when it feels bitterly cold outside, but the River Thames has frozen over at least 23 times since the 1300s.

Read more: http://www.dailym...tLElU9lw
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

If records were not being kept, how does anyone know the Thames froze over in 1309?
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2014
Ok, first askdad you are quoting chapter 10, not 12. So as to be clear, we are discussing extreme weather events as defined by the IPCC report in the preamble to 10.6.1. I will gloss over the findings on temperature increases, as you have not argued that aspect, and focus only on the evidence of extremes in weather, as described in section 10.6.1 and 10.6.2 of the report.
Your quote is accurate, as far as it goes, but the report goes on to state "However, mean precipitation is expected to increase less than extreme precipitation because of energy constraints" and "we assess that there is medium confidence that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to a global scale intensification of heavy precipitation.." The "medium" rating is given because of "the difficulty in difficulties in simulating extreme precipitation by climate models and limited observational coverage". The problem, then, is not that there are no extreme events, but rather the difficulty in determining cause definitively.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2014
"1163

December 21

Hurricane hits villages in Holland/Friesland, causing floods."
http://worldtimel...weather/
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2014
ryggesogn2 has been helpfully and concisely illustrating
OMG troll food!
I will not convince you or Maggnus
Well, ok then, and here I thought we were having a conversation. Ok askdad, now we know where you stand, and I agree with one aspect for sure: anyone who wants can read the information themselves: The IPCC report: https://www.ipcc....ar5/wg1/
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2014
248 years ago was when records BEGAN.

History only began 248 years ago?
So the Vikings farming Greenland is not a record?
"It may seem a far-fetched idea nowadays even when it feels bitterly cold outside, but the River Thames has frozen over at least 23 times since the 1300s.

If records were not being kept, how does anyone know the Thames froze over in 1309?


I shouldn't but ... Please get it into your head that no one is saying that "history only began 248 yrs ago" - just that the current rainfall is the most extreme we know of. Full stop.

So? What is it about Frost Fairs on the Thames in London that you find significant?
+ cue myth about Greenland farming again.
FYI: just as rainfall can/is largely independent of temp in these Isles - then so (was) Frost Fairs, as the most significant thing concerning them was the restrictive nature of the old London Bridge - you can see it on the illustrations - many arches that caught the ice-floes and choked it's passage.
aksdad
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2014
You are correct, Maggnus, IPCC AR5 Chapter 10, not 12 as I misstated.

http://www.climat...INAL.pdf

When the IPCC report says "mean precipitation is expected to increase" and wherever else they make predictions they are relying on computer generated global climate models (GCM) not actual observations. When they mention observations they are much more reserved because the data shows virtually nothing to support the alarming predictions.

The GCM are the broken reed that the IPCC leans upon and the AR5 draft showed clearly that all of the global climate models overstate global warming.

http://curryja.fi.../ar4.png

When governments reviewed AR5 they removed the offending graph because it showed how bad the models are. The IPCC scientists know the GCM are off. That's why so much hand wringing among alarmists. Nevertheless they continue to publish statements about "high" or "medium" confidence based solely on the GCM.
aksdad
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2014
For more discussion on global climate models (GCM) and their overly high sensitivity to CO2:

http://www.drroys...e-wrong/

http://judithcurr...part-ii/

http://climateaud...repancy/

It is these models that form the basis of virtually every prediction in the IPCC reports. The fact that they are increasingly off is a subject of much discussion among climate scientists, climate alarmists, and climate alarmism skeptics. When in doubt, look at the actual observed data because the computer models are not very accurate.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2014
It is these models that form the basis of virtually every prediction in the IPCC reports. The fact that they are increasingly off is a subject of much discussion among climate scientists, climate alarmists, and climate alarmism skeptics. When in doubt, look at the actual observed data because the computer models are not very accurate.

I don't accept that there's "much" discussion - the thread dealing with the ENSO cycle gives the major reason for it. You do realise how much "heat" can be sequestered by this mechanism?
Also one can very plausibly add in aerosol pollution being produced in Asia as a cooling factor.
Also the Arctic is not adequately quantified in the "Global heat budget" as the Cowton & Way paper has revealed (also obviously given practically zero data towards the NP).
Also, the models are doing fine thank-you. Their error-bar envelope does allow the mean line to bounce around you know? That is all GCM's can ever do, given that climate cycles such as ENSO/PDO, AMO etc have uncertain length and GCM's are an ensemble of members. But NO it matters not as they are cycles and only move heat around the system. Solar absorbed vs LWIR emitted is the bollocksed-up equation.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2014
For more discussion on global climate models (GCM) and their overly high sensitivity to CO2:

http://www.drroys...e-wrong/

It is these models that form the basis of virtually every prediction in the IPCC reports. The fact that they are increasingly off is a subject of much discussion among climate scientists, climate alarmists, and climate alarmism skeptics. When in doubt, look at the actual observed data because the computer models are not very accurate.


I'm sorry, linking to denialist Blogs is not credible to me nor anyone who really knows the science.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2014

"Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA's Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites."

http://www.drroys...m/about/

Who is a denialist here runny?

How does Spencer's CV compare to yours?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2014
"While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations."
http://www.mdpi.c...3/8/1603
runrig
4 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2014

"Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology a
http://www.drroys...m/about/

Who is a denialist here runny?

How does Spencer's CV compare to yours?


To (mis)quote Eddie Izzard - "this is not a case of what-the-Fuck is your CV"

Don't give a shit ryggy - he is on the side of the tiny minority of climate scintists that deny the consensus - therefore by definition HE is the denialist.

This is the real world ryggy - and not your rabbit hole - so common-sense and democracy rule - cue the real motivation for ryggy - tyrannical socialism and world domination by AGW.

I have seen the bollocks talked on his forum and posted on there too. I have read and know the poor science he is doing. His ideas have no credibility, sorry.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2014
Just what I thought, runny.
It is not about science, but faith.
Anyone who doesn't toe the line, regardless of their credentials in climate science, must be personally attacked and motivations questioned.

Note how emotional runny gets?
aksdad
2 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2014
Fun little postscript to this discussion: A senior scientist at the Met Office--no global warming "denier" himself--has challenged Julia Slingo's statement.

Mat Collins of the Met Office, a professor in climate systems at the University of Exeter and co-ordinating lead author to the IPCC, said the winter storms are driven by the jet stream which has been stuck further south than usual. "There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge."

And the flooding? Largely due to not dredging--for decades--rivers that form the primary drainage channels in the Somerset Levels.

The damaged rail line on the coast? Poor maintenance. It was damaged more--and more often--when it was first built in the 19th century.

And for runrig, Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. Roy Spencer are renowned climate scientists and Stephen McIntyre is an expert statistician, unlike Michael Mann.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2014
And yet, askdad, with one quick check to see what the met office has to say, they note that Prof. Collins was misquoted and that his words were taken out of context. http://metofficen...-office/ Unfortunately, this is a typical tactic by those attempting to deny global warming; take scientists' comments out of context and highlight them in such a way as to suggest they are saying something they are not saying.

The flooding is largely due to the amount of rain that fell. Dredging may have lessened the impact, but there still would have been flooding; therefore you are making a misrepresentation of the evidence.

Dr Curry has her place, and while I don't often agree with her views, she is mostly reasonable in her discourse. Spencer is a straight up denier, and is infamous in climate circles, not renowned. McIntyre is even worse, and is an economist, not a climate scientist.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2014
Hey Maggie, the head of the IPCC in not a climate scientist.
Cocoa
5 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2014
@askdad
And for runrig, Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. Roy Spencer are renowned climate scientists and Stephen McIntyre is an expert statistician, unlike Michael Mann.


Hey Maggnus - try to not get discouraged.

Wonder what askdad is talking about. Michael Mann has an incredible CV.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2014
Lindzen and Spencer have incredible CVs.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2014
"Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer is sick of being labeled a global warming 'denier' by politicians and environmentalists. So sick of it, in fact, that he's going to start calling detractors "global warming Nazis" until he is no longer called a "denier."

"Yeah, somebody pushed my button," Spencer wrote on his blog. "When politicians and scientists started calling people like me 'deniers', they crossed the line."
"Environmentalists and politicians often use the term to malign those who argue against government action on climate."
"The League of Conservation launched $2 million ad campaign against "anti-science" congressmen in competitive districts. The group targeted Republicans Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Rep. Mike Coffman of Colorado, Rep. Rodney Davis of Illinois and Rep. Dan Benishek of Michigan."

Read more: http://dailycalle...txLpjBat
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2014
"Mann is attempting to legally punish any attempt to "question his intellect and reasoning"—that's from the DC Superior Court, which preposterously backed his argument—on the grounds that Mann's scientific claims have been investigated by multiple government panels, which have exonerated him.

This claim, by the way, is already falling apart. As Steven McIntyre explains, one of the examples Mann cites is a British panel that did not actually investigate Mann—its focus was on the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, the epicenter of "Climategate"—and in its announcement of its results criticized Mann's methods as "inappropriate" and his results as "exaggerated."

Read more: http://www.realcl...u0EEupGG
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter