The Science Is Settled, No It Isn’t..Oh..em…It Might Be..Or Not

 

 

Amazing what a difference a month makes.

One month ago:

Storms’ link to climate change uncertain – Met Office

 

One month later:

Met Office: Evidence ‘suggests climate change link to storms’

 

 

Originally they told us:

The recent storms that have brought heavy rain and floods to much of the UK cannot definitely be linked to climate change, the Met Office has said.

A spokesman said that was “a research project which hasn’t been done”.

 

Guess they must have rushed through that research project…..

Now we have:

Dame Julia Slingo said the variable UK climate meant there was “no definitive answer” to what caused the storms.

“But all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change,” she added.

“There is no evidence to counter the basic premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly rain events.”

 

 

I guess that’s ‘all the evidence’ as in ‘all the evidence points to the Boston Bombers being white supremacists’.

 

Don’t you just love that ‘There is no evidence to counter the basic premise…..’?

…but there is no evidence to prove the basic premise either…..

and hang on….the lack of evidence to counter AGW causing storms?…..emm….17 years of no warming is evidence of no warming….for 17 years…so how is global warming causing storms?

 

The lack of evidence that CO2 causes global warming doesn’t stop them closing down Western industry does it?

 

Science eh….who needs it when you’ve got the Voodoo princess, Julia Slingo, making it up as they go along and the BBC unquestioningly printing everything she prophesises.

 

Guess…conjecture, surmise, speculate, reckon, dare say, dodgy…hocum.

 

Some words for any BBC environmental journo looking to investigate the issues.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

119 Responses to The Science Is Settled, No It Isn’t..Oh..em…It Might Be..Or Not

  1. OldBloke says:

    Alan, the whole met Office talk in a language that leaves one guessing, such as: Might, could, possibly, there is a chance, 20% chance, probable, probably, there is a risk of, could possibly, this may last….etc etc . All she has said is weather speak which like many of their forecasts are meaningless.

       53 likes

  2. Ember2013 says:

    Groupthink on a huge scale. The BBC has been inserting “climate change” into almost every report on the Somerset flooding. I guess the Met office has finally caved in to the meme.

       47 likes

    • John Anderson says:

      The more I have read about Julia Slingo at the Met Office over the months, eg at Bishop Hill, the more she sounds like a right piece of work. Called a scientist – but avoids answering scientific questions, is basically a total shill for the Global Warming cult. Her words today are being taken apart at Bishop Hill :

      http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/2/9/julia-slingo-on-the-storms.html

      The truth will out on all this. Firstly – there Is no global warming – it all stopped 17 years ago. Secondly – storms along the southwest coast and heavy rainfall are not unprecedented. There is plenty of historical evidence for this – including lots of instances of the Dawlish rail line being damaged.

      Thirdly and most importantly – The Somerset levels are often flooded, have always been. Dutch engineers helped put in a river drainage system centuries ago – it is the failure to dredge this system that has caused exceptional problems. And that is down to the Environment Agency and Lord Smith – and to European Community directives.

      No amount of Warmist bluster by Julia Slingo will contradict these facts. As a “denier” of all the mounting scientific evidence that Global Warming theory is a crock, she ought to be sacked.

         67 likes

      • OldBloke says:

        The Labour party also turned the draining pumps off so the levels after many years of no draining became saturated over this winter. The excess of water had nowhere to go.

           42 likes

        • Amounderness Lad says:

          Yes, it’s a good scam. Stop doing all the things which have prevented flooding for countless generations, wait until there is a period of heavy rain followed by flooding and Bingo – “It’s all because of Al Gore Warming”. No it’s not, it’s all because of the pointless destructive activities of the Global Warming fanatics who are using the scam to further their own anti-capitalist, anti-western agenda.
          Heck, it is even being used as an excuse for continuing to pour billions of pounds into so called Foreign Aid on the grounds that giving massive handouts to corrupt foreign political systems and to countries able to run their own space and nuclear weapons programmes will somehow help stave off the alleged Global Warming. I can’t wait for somebody to explain exactly how that pathetic claim is supposed to work.

             38 likes

        • DP111 says:

          Labour, like the rest of the political parties, never reveal that almost all the policies that affect Britain, come from EU directives.

          Richard North and Chris Booker

          But now the story is out, with the EU’s Floods Directive taking centre stage, its presence so undeniable that even the Irish admit it’s there.

          http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84694

             28 likes

    • DP111 says:

      What is truly astonishing is the rapid maturity of Climate Science. Less then ten years ago, Climate science emerged from the failure of AGW as a “settled science ” science. But Climate science has avoided the fate of AGW as it predicts change. Thus all and any change, even zero change, is correctly predicted post-facto. This makes Climate science the first science in human history, to be 100% correct all the time, and thus can be regarded as “settled”.

      Even the Vatican in Galileo’s era, failed to “settle” science. What we have noticed is that when the state wishes a science to be settled, it can do so.

      Next up – The state, in the form of the High Representative for the environment, will get into a boat, and command the waters and storm to be still. And so it will be, and we will wonder at the awesome power and glory of the EU, and its anointed priests.

         22 likes

      • DP111 says:

        Correction to the above post.

        Read “Climate science” as “Climate Change science” – the correct name for this truly astonishing discipline of human endeavour.

           12 likes

  3. OldBloke says:

    From another blog:
    It took six attempts in the House of Lords before the Met Office finally revealed the rise in temperature we’d seen seems statistically insignificant, despite all the claims of an apocalypse in the making:

    The issue here is the claim that “the temperature rise since about 1880 is statistically significant”, which was made by the Met Office in response to the original Question (HL3050). The basis for that claim has now been effectively acknowledged to be untenable. Possibly there is some other basis for the claim, but that seems extremely implausible: the claim does not seem to have any valid basis.

    Plainly, then, the Met Office should now publicly withdraw the claim. That is, the Met Office should admit that the warming shown by the global-temperature record since 1880 (or indeed 1850) might be reasonably attributed to natural random variation….

    Lastly, it is not only the Met Office that has claimed that the increase in global temperatures is statistically significant: the IPCC has as well. Moreover, the IPCC used the same statistical model as the Met Office, in its most-recent Assessment Report (2007)…

    To conclude, the primary basis for global-warming alarmism is unfounded. The Met Office has been making false claims about the significance of climatic changes to Parliament—as well as to the government, the media, and others — claims which have seriously affected both policies and opinions. When questioned about those claims in Parliament, the Met Office did everything feasible to avoid telling the truth.

       46 likes

    • John Anderson says:

      and it was Julia Slingo and her Met Office that avoided, month after month, giving a proper answer to the series of straight statistical questions. I believe this was the series of PQs by Lord Bernard Donoughue – formerly a chief advisor to Wilson and Callaghan – that the Met Offic briefers failed to give a straight reply to, for many months.

      THAT is how damn slippery Julia Slingo and the Met Office are. And THAT is the appalling quality of advice being fed to Ministers. Slingo should be sacked.

         43 likes

    • Bonzo says:

      I’ve just spent a happy hour on the web trying to find out the year computer models were first used to predict global warming. No luck. But let’s say 1985. Do you remember how crap computers were in those days? But they managed to calculate projections that are believed by the majority of scientists today, even though there’s been no global warming for 17 years. They were crap machines operated by idiots, but they managed to spawn a religion, so I suppose you have to be impressed.

         11 likes

      • agentsmith says:

        The first projetion as tthe build up of Co2 and possible impacts were done in the late 60’s.
        As for no warming for 17 years I’m not youve been looking at the sea recently which have experienced warming. As for the lack of consistency the IPCC reports show a marked consistency between AR 4 and AR 5. It has to be said that all science progresses and many of the progressions are in relation to enhanced modelling and the ability to collect more data. Two big research impacts recently are the role of clouds in reflecting radiation and the role of the trade winds in lowering air temperature.

           2 likes

    • Mice Height says:

      Could I have link to that blog please.
      Good stuff.

         1 likes

  4. OldBloke says:

    When you here the term *Climate Change* what does it really mean? Here in Great Britain our weather is influenced by three climates. Maritime, Continental and Polar. Primarily it is the Maritime Climate that affects most of the U.K. most of the time. Indeed the weather we have been seeing this winter is simply a classic definition of what is meant by Maritime Climate. Strong winds and much precipitation, which as I’m sure you are all aware of, is localised to the South and South West of Great Britain. The Continental Climate, is that which affects most of Europe but from time to time reaches G.B. in the form of cold air from the East or very warm and turbulent air from the South East that gives rise to Thunder Storms mainly in Central and Eastern G.B. The Polar Climate is what it says and is normally dry air which comes from Polar Regions and contains in it fro time to time low pressure systems which gives the Northern Counties of G.B. cold snaps and the threat of snow.
    Now, when *Climate Change* is spoken of, what do these commentators mean? Climate change to what? Are we moving from Maritime to Continental? No, no evidence of that whatsoever. are we moving from Maritime to Polar? No, no evidence of that whatsoever. So, I can only surmise that those who promote *Climate Change* have no real understanding of what British Climate is really like, for simply because, we are having a normal Maritime Climate which is seen not only G.B. but also every other Maritime Climate around the World. If we are experiencing Climate Change, Climate Changing to what because it definitely is not Polar and definitely not Continental.

       41 likes

    • Richard Pinder says:

      In Astronomy, a Planet has a Climate, and if it changes, that’s weather.

         16 likes

      • Amounderness Lad says:

        So presumably the whole of the last Ice Age was nothing more than a bit of “Weather”.

           6 likes

        • Old Goat says:

          A tad nippy, too…

             6 likes

        • Richard Pinder says:

          There is only proof of ice ages on the Earth, although changes in the brightness of Neptune seem to correlate with Cosmic Rays, and if you look at Mars, then I suppose that any weather cycle more than one orbit long, could be described as Climate, but I do not know of any weather cycle longer than one orbit, other than those found for the Earth.

             0 likes

  5. OldBloke says:

    Dame Julia Slingo lives on my patch so maybe she is placating the locals:
    The damehood follows an OBE she received in 2008 for her services to climate science.

    She has also served as the director for climate research at the Natural Environment Research Council’s National Centre for Atmospheric Science and was the founding director of the Walker Institute for Climate System Research at Reading University.

       14 likes

  6. dayday says:

    I wonder if this guy is sleeping well.

       7 likes

    • OldBloke says:

      Send him the bill for sorting out the Somerset Levels. This guy is a danger to human kind. Did you notice in the clip where it shows the sea reclaiming the land that the graphics dept stayed clear of showing the farms four foot under water?

         21 likes

    • johnnythefish says:

      He’s obviously not worried about rising sea levels – or feeding our over-populated island, for that matter.

         0 likes

  7. OldBloke says:

    Dame Julia Slingo said the variable UK climate meant there was “no definitive answer” to what caused the storms.

    Julia, please let me explain, it is so very simple;
    The storms are weather and not climate. Everyone in the world is affected by climate and the weather within specific climates. In the northern Hemisphere, this winter, there has been a block of cold air which has extended approx’ (on average) 200 miles further south than the average for this time of year. Weather systems born around the equator are for the most part driven by the Gulf Stream, which as the name suggests, come from the Gulf of Mexico and travel northwards into the USA. These weather systems either dissipate inland or continue up the Easter Seaboard of the USA. Should they continue up the Eastern Seaboard then they gather moisture from a warm ocean and get caught in the Jetstream. The Jetstream in this instances travels west to east and is variable in its position. This winter the Jetstream has been forced about 200 miles further south because of the cold air block in the Northern Latitudes to the north of Scotland, across Greenland and at least across the Middle States of America. The weather systems have nowhere else to go but into the Jetstream and hit G.B. fair and square on the chin. But Julia, the strangest thing in all this, is that despite a lot of rainfall in the South West of England, there are place on the Eastern side of the U.K. that haven’t had any rain for over 6 days now.
    Climate Change? For all your scientific prowess, I’m sorry ma’am, you are talking through your ar@e. And ma’am, if you happen to be reading this, there, I have given you a definitive answer.

       37 likes

    • Guest Who says:

      Maybe Danny Cohen could force Mock The Week to get her on to fill the slots vacated by recent male purges?
      She sounds a right laugh.

         18 likes

    • agentsmith says:

      It was all going swimingly well until your last sentence.
      One of the key features of climate change is the disruption to localised weather patterns. That disruption is however difficult to ascribe to any one event because of the effect of random fluctuations and the chaotic nature of weather. It is nonetheless possible to predict that extreme weather will become more likely in the future and this does seem to be happening at the moment. I think Slingo is talking in these terms.

         2 likes

      • johnnythefish says:

        ‘It is nonetheless possible to predict that extreme weather will become more likely in the future and this does seem to be happening at the moment.’

        How so?

        Now the link between CO2 and warming has been disproved by real world evidence, what proof is there that CO2 causes ‘extreme weather’?

        And whilst you’re at it, maybe you can provide an explanation for the static Jet Stream which seems to be the real cause of the storms.

        Oh, and why similar storms occurred during The Little Ice Age.

        Oh, and………(you get the drift).

           0 likes

      • OldBloke says:

        Agentsmith, forgive me but, you have contradicted yourself in sentence one by your comment in sentence two. Yes, I can predict that *extreme* weather will become “more” likely (win win situation for the warmists out there) in the future, simply because there has always been “extreme” (please define) weather in the past. Such are the changes in weather, but not necessarily climate, that what has happened in the past will happen in the future. History has a history of repeating itself.
        Slingo is talking in Met Office terms, in other words, “I don’t really know but maybe…..and there is a 50/50 chance that…….”

           2 likes

  8. Sir Arthur Strebe-Grebling says:

    This, as usual, is nothing to do with biased-BBC, but all the climate experts posting here might like to read the Met Office’s paper that Dame Julia Slingo was talking about: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/n/i/Recent_Storms_Briefing_Final_07023.pdf
    The summary states ‘As yet, there is no definitive answer on the possible contribution of climate change to the recent storminess, rainfall amounts and the consequent flooding. This is in part due to the highly variable nature of UK weather and climate.’

       16 likes

    • John Anderson says:

      so either she is lying today – or the BBC is deliberately misquoting her to promote a lie

         26 likes

    • OldBloke says:

      Thank you Sir Authur for the given link. I have read all of it and understand the picture being painted. Unfortunately for the article, there are too many assumptions where Global Warming is taken as a given and where no other outside influences are taken into account. The section right at the end, *has Climate Change been a contributing factor*? kind of answers the question before they offer any answers or conclusions doesn’t it? I was bothered by the statement that: [The persistence of the recent storminess is unusual, and although clustering of storms is quite common, the continued run of deep depressions, through December, January and on into February, is not. It is this continued run of storms that has created the exceptional flooding conditions experienced in the Somerset Levels, for example.]
      I think we have all come to accept, that the flooding of the Somerset levels was due to not dredging and switching the drainage pumps off many years ago. Quite simply the levels became saturated and henceforth could take any more rainfall. In all probability, if the Levels were drained and dredge as in the past, then I propose that any flooding would have been very localised (as it has been in the past) and relatively minor. Much reference is given to the warming of the planet, the warming of the oceans and rises in sea level. Apparent rises in sea level can also be the same as a falling of land levels.
      But I thank you for the link and if I have things wrong in my post, then I stand to be corrected.

         19 likes

  9. uncle bup says:

    This, as usual, is nothing to do with biased-BBC, but all the climate experts posting here might like to read the Met Office’s paper that Dame Julia Slingo was talking about:
    —————————————————————————

    One doesn’t need to be a ‘climate expert’ to know a dirty steaming great scam when one sees it.

       26 likes

    • johnnythefish says:

      Or, to put it another way ‘113 out of 117 climate models can’t be wrong’.

      Oops! yes they were (and the other 4 only crept into the very lowest of the range of temperature predictions for the last 16 years after a bit of fiddling).

         1 likes

  10. JimS says:

    I was puzzled by Dame Julia Slingo reported statement. On the one hand she suggests there is uncertainty but on the other hand the ‘models predict’ etc.

    This is cart before the horse ‘science’, one can’t make a ‘model’ unless one understands the process that one is trying to model.

    It is like saying I’m uncertain why the stock market goes up or down but my ‘coin tossing’ model gets it right half the time and it is predicting ‘up’ so I’m pretty certain that is what will happen.

       26 likes

    • Richard Pinder says:

      “This is cart before the horse ‘science’, one can’t make a ‘model’ unless one understands the process that one is trying to model”

      Indeed, the other day, for the first time, I also heard the retrospective argument given to these morons by Peter Lilly MP.

      A computer model can be constructed using up to date hardware and up to date software, but you do not need to use up to date data. You can use the oldest data in storage, and start your run from say 1984, from there you could make a 100 year prediction, and for the first 30 years (as long as you do not cheat) you would be able to check your ideas for the software with observations.

      I recall, that Lilly could not get a clear answer from the morons as to weather they had done this or not as to respects of test runs for there idiotic ideas about aerosols.

         17 likes

      • 123456 says:

        For someone who pontificates at such length your grasp of how the science works is remarkably tenuous. But like an infinite number of monkeys you’ve had your “Shakespeare moment”. That is exactly what they do to test models.

           3 likes

        • JimS says:

          I think if you read Richard’s comment more carefully you will find that he is saying that Peter Lilly had asked if the models had been tested with historic data and it was the modellers that weren’t forthcoming with an answer.
          In any case a model can be constructed using a historic data set, say exam results from 100 schools, and by tuning the coefficients be made to match any other historic data set, say the price of Russian wheat. As to whether the model will continue to track into the future, well that is just pure luck or mighty powerful butterfly wings!

             2 likes

  11. OldBloke says:

    Nowhere in the Met Office summary does it state that they believe that the recent weather patterns are because of man made Co2 causing Global Warming and henceforth Climate Change. Respective climates around the World have and always will *change*.

       13 likes

    • Richard Pinder says:

      I think the none mention of CO2 is because they do not want to be found guilty of scientific fraud in the future.

         13 likes

      • agentsmith says:

        Are you seriously suggesting that Co2 isnt a green house gas?

           4 likes

        • johnnythefish says:

          None of (the many) sceptical scientists claim it isn’t a greenhouse gas – what they argue about is to what degree it is a contributing factor, and that there are a many other complex factors to be taken into account which are not properly understood and are not present in any modelling (even the warmists are finding the science isn’t ‘settled’ after all).

          Clearly the lack of warming over the last 16 years has blown the warmists’ climate models apart (CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased by nearly 10% over the same period) and in any other science this would have been a ‘back to the drawing board’ moment as it disproves the AGW theory. In fact, the opposite has happened and even more hysterical pronouncements are being made about ‘climate change’ – which is why any reasonably logical person with half a brain and the ability to scour the internet gets a tad angry that either the science is not being treated seriously by those who support the IPCC view or it’s a massive eco-political scam. If you have been a regular visitor to this website for at least the last 2 years, I think you’ll find there is overwhelming evidence for the latter.

             2 likes

  12. OldBloke says:

    The BBC have stated:
    Climate change is likely to be a factor in the extreme weather that has hit much of the UK in recent months, the Met Office’s chief scientist has said.
    The Met Office have stated:
    ‘As yet, there is no definitive answer on the possible contribution of climate change to the recent storminess, rainfall amounts and the consequent flooding. This is in part due to the highly variable nature of UK weather and climate.’
    Now then Sir Authur, I think you’ll find this article by Alan has everything to do with BBC bias, don’t you agree?

       17 likes

  13. James says:

    My favourite quote was:

    “We have records going back to 1766 and we have nothing like this,” she said. “We have seen some exceptional weather. We can’t say it is unprecedented but it is exceptional.”

    So is it exceptional, unprecedented or both? If it’s not unprecedented, why the 1766 reference?

       22 likes

    • Richard Pinder says:

      I think it is not worth listening to anything she says because of the highly confused language, probably caused by brain damage, which seems to have been a personal benefit for her advancement with regards the global warming weather changing climate newspeak language industry scam.

         21 likes

    • Guest Who says:

      I started viewing climate/weather-related claims by the usual suspects differently after the first ‘…unprecedented since..’ attempt.
      If it happened before, it can hardly be unprecedented.
      The word has been totally corrupted. For what reason is another matter…

         15 likes

    • johnnythefish says:

      Of course, the BBC moron would be too ignorant of the subject to point out that 1766 was in the middle of The Little Ice Age, so similar storms now couldn’t be the result of global warming.

         1 likes

      • AgentSmith says:

        Logical falacy I’m afraid ,An event happening because of local conditions isnt precluded from happening again because of other determinants.

           1 likes

  14. Richard Pinder says:

    The above is evidence that anyone employed at the Met Office who was taught the scientific method, has been sacked for not being part of the consensus.

    At the Met Office they guess that a premise is an assumption about a speculation that there is no evidence one way or the other, so the consensus supports the speculation which is taken for granted that this is caused by Global Warming which unfortunately is not happening, but because of wishful thinking at the Met Office, is assumed to be still happening, as extreme weather is solid proof that the Met Office can or cannot explain how carbon dioxide rules the weather or change the climate.

    Employment at the Met Office is dependent on making nothing clear or finding any answers, as this would stop further funding towards finding any answers.

    On the other hand, Weatheraction is funded by providing customers with answers, otherwise the customers would not continue to buy the long range forecasts in preference to the fictitious long range forecasts of the Met Office which are skewed by ignorance and wishful thinking.

       25 likes

    • OldBloke says:

      Well said sir.

         12 likes

    • agentsmith says:

      That’s all very clever but clearly the Met are not attaching any one weather event to a particular causation. This would be like saying ,if it snows , thats due to global cooling. The fact is there will be an increasing probability in extreme weather events as the global temperature increases. That’s pretty much all that any of the climate scientists have been saying.

         4 likes

      • OldBloke says:

        Well, global temperatures have been increasing since the last ice age, so I guess there will always be *extreme* weather events, which of course is all down to mankind. (Not)

           2 likes

      • johnnythefish says:

        Do they know what weather ‘events’ might be a sign of global cooling? Millions in the US are probably wondering that right now (that is, when they get a chance to pop their heads out of the snowdrifts). Some of them probably even remember the warmists saying snow would be a thing of the past. Eh, them were t’ days……

           1 likes

  15. bannerman says:

    Countryfile BBC Sunday night. Coastal erosion…..yes I was waiting and it didn’t take long. Funny just after Beeboid Talking head explained that in Roman Times the coast was about 3 miles further offshore than it is now. Then it came those words….its down to Climate Change!! Those pesky Diesel Chariots….they don’t know when to give up do they.

       19 likes

    • Sceptic says:

      It’s a classic case of equivocation: switching between two different meanings for the same word or phrase in order to trick people into believing what you want them to believe.
      In this case he refers to ‘climate change’ causing coastal erosion over thousands of years.
      [Technically correct, in some senses, because Britain is still righting itself from the weight of the ice from the last ice age and the coast really is being eroded by the higher sea levels now that the ice is gone – these last 12,000 years. Most clearly evidenced by the areas now under the North Sea that used to be inhabited back then.]
      But they expect their audience to understand the magical phrase ‘climate change’ in its other sense as a substitute for ‘global warming’.
      Thus they attempt to prove global warming by falsely claiming coastal erosion – a known fact – as evidence for it.

      If they had evidence for their beliefs they would not need to use rhetorical tricks to make people believe them. If it was true the evidence would speak for itself.

         19 likes

  16. Old Goat says:

    I think that we can come to the inevitable conclusion, that it’s all bollox – commodity with which the Met Office, the BBC, et al are all familiar.

       14 likes

    • GCooper says:

      It was being described as ‘Brunel’s only mistake’ back in the 19th Century.

      This is what happens when education is stopped for a generation or two. People think what was once a commonplace is unique.

         3 likes

  17. Sir Arthur Strebe-Grebling says:

    Everyone in Somerset seems to think that dredging is the answer, along with some b-BBC contributors (although not, I notice, the people in Surrey, Kent, Oxfordshire etc), but how about a bit of arithmetic?
    Using numbers that are not exact but for ease of mental arithmetic and for sake of argument: the Somerset Levels are drained by one main river, the Parrett which is, say, 50km long, with a width of 5m and depth of 3m. Assume it were dredged and maintained as a trench with hard walls and base. The volume of water in this entire hypothetical river is thus 5x3x50,000 = 750,000 cubic metres. In fact I doubt that it is as much as 5m wide or 3m deep, but never mind. It was reported at the end of January that the Somerset Levels were inundated with about 65 million cubic metres of water (and it is presumably more now). So my hypothetically dredged river would hold only about 1 percent of the flood water.
    Obviously the key to draining the area is how quickly the water would move down the river. Short of going there and playing Pooh-sticks, let’s guess a flow-rate of 1 metre per second. This hypothetically-dredged river would then shift 15 cubic metres per second and it would thus take 65,000,000 / 15 = approximately 4 million seconds = 50 days to drain the lot.
    This assumes no more rain, no other water coming down the river, and ignores the fact that much of the water coming off the fields will be laden with silt and clog up the river again; it also ignores the fact that the river is tidal for half its length so water comes back up the river from the Bristol Channel.
    I appreciate that the poor people whose houses are inundated don’t need all the water removing, just a lower level that doesn’t flood their homes; and that they are all encouraged by the media (and their MP) to blame the Environment Agency. But why do most of them think that dredging is the solution?

       8 likes

    • John Anderson says:

      Sir Arthur

      Leaving aside your theorising, we have 2 schools of thought. On the one hand, the green-obsessed Environment Agency which mostly denies blame for what is happening in the Somerset Levels, and the local people who have witnessed the cessation of most dredging for up to 2 decades. Including the sale of much of the equipment.

      Who do you believe ? Why is there any problem in accepting what the locals say ?

         11 likes

    • agentsmith says:

      Because it requires the least thought.

         5 likes

      • johnnythefish says:

        No, because it’s what has been proven to work over centuries. You might go ask the Dutch, too.

           1 likes

  18. GCooper says:

    No one is saying dredging will have prevented flooding but it would have eased it, as it has done for generations. It was halted for political reasons.

       8 likes

    • agentsmith says:

      Yes but the question is by how much would it have eased it.
      I think we are agreed that this is not a usual weather event.
      What makes it unusual is an uncharacteristic amount of water ,too much for dredging to make a huge difference. The guy that did some sums is on the right track. Lets all take our shoes and socks off and begin!

         5 likes

  19. OldBloke says:

    Well, my seaweed is telling me that this time next week, we will in fact be seeing Climate Change. That is one from a Maritime Climate to one of a Polar Climate. Stock up on the de-icer and rock salt.

       2 likes

  20. OldBloke says:

    So according to our British Met Office, within their report on the recent bad weather, the report states in nearly every sentence that Global Warming is the root cause for the problems concerning the recent Climate Change. Funny that. Because this flies directly in the face of what the IPCC has actually stated:

    http://canadianawareness.org/2013/02/ipcc-head-rajendra-pachauri-acknowledges-17-year-stall-in-global-warming/

       8 likes

    • agentsmith says:

      The science behind ‘the stall’ is well understood. The stall is in air temperature not global temperature. Sea temperature has consistently risen because of sustained trade winds. If those wind stop then the air temperature will rise. If they continue then the sea temperature will continue to rise until an equillibrium is reached . At that point the air temperature will rise. Either way the total energy is rising.

         4 likes

      • OldBloke says:

        But these same scientists who were predicting global warming and pedalling that religion for some reason couldn’t predict *the 17 year stall* using the same modelling could they?

           0 likes

      • johnnythefish says:

        Came up with that one last year, didn’t they? Only took them four years of desperate in-fighting after Trenberth’s ‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t’ to come up with that wild theory.

        And all that when the science was so ‘settled’, eh? Is it finally ‘settled’ now, do you happen to know?

        And by the way, until the Argo Project (completed 2007) there was no reliable method of measuring deep ocean temperatures (and there was no temperature record for the Southern Hemisphere oceans at all), so they have no way of knowing whether the oceans have warmed or not.

        Raymond Schmitt, in justifying the budget for Argo said: ‘But new technology, the vertically profiling ARGO float (Figure 4 [not included].), promises to give us the data we need to begin to understand this largest component of the global water cycle.’

        Best if you go and do a bit of research rather than parrot the clapped out mantras of the desperate environmentalist lobby – else you’re in danger of showing yourself up on here.

           1 likes

    • agentsmith says:

      If you are going to look at this stuff you might like to also inform yourself of the peer reviewed evidence supported by 97% of the science community. It is very easy to say that nothing is changing but you have to use scientific papers and evidence to show that this is the case. Unfortunately the fossil fuel industry and their fellow travellers are rather underepresented in this area.

         6 likes

      • GCooper says:

        That ‘97%’ claim has been disproved. It is utter twaddle and the fact that you try to get away with quoting it simply shows that you are part of the problem – the willingness of AGW ‘true believers’ to resort to blatant lies in support of their beliefs

           5 likes

        • agentsmith says:

          Try reading the IPCC reports rather than attempting to bollster to lacklustre position with red herrings. If you have something to say then back it up with peer reviewed data.

             4 likes

          • johnnythefish says:

            Would that be the IPCC ‘Summary for Policymakers’ constructed word for word by a combination of environmentalist pressure groups (Greenpeace etc), politicians and a group of largely inexperienced scientists?

            Or the 4000-page ‘scientific’ report a third of which is based on non-peer reviewed papers and environmentalist leaflets?

            Either way, hardly ‘science’ is it?

               2 likes

            • GCooper says:

              It seems agentsmith is another of those semantic geniuses who cannot appreciate the difference between peer reviewed and pal reviewed.

                 4 likes

              • Guest Who says:

                Grabbing a few moments’ rest over a cuppa, I have been rather ironically juggling gen sets, back-up batteries, inverters and sump pumps today, as I’d rather prepare and protect than wail, head for the nearest credulous reporter and/or seek compo when a bit of contingency saves a ton of time and money.
                Much on this thread has been of great interest, all things considered.
                It’s just a pity it has been diluted to a vast degree by the Dreadnaught Class attrition by a poster whose parrot-like volume and patronising-erring-on-rude tone seems oddly familiar from old, and it seems a long line of Germans & Simpsons Characters are now being joining from the regenerating Borg box now by those from the Matrix.
                Sadly for him/her/it, saying it often enough merely makes them, and the BBC who seems to be the object of defence, look ever more dire from the association.

                   2 likes

  21. richard D says:

    Quoting from the OP – Dame Julia Slingo said the variable UK climate meant there was “no definitive answer” to what caused the storms. “But all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change,” she added. “There is no evidence to counter the basic premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly rain events.”

    Hmmm – talk about convoluted and misleading language ?

    Questions.

    1. If there is ‘no definitive answer’ as to what caused these problems, then any proposed answer (like ‘Climate Change’ for instance) is purely hypothesis – why is this hypothesis given any more prominence than simple ‘weather variability’ ? Could it simply be the bias of the proposer of the hypothesis ?

    2. “But all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change” – all of what evidence about this particular incident ? And isn’t a ‘suggestion’ nothing more than just a hypothesis ? It most certainly isn’t proof of anything.

    3. “There is no evidence to counter the basic premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly rain events.” And there’s the final whopper, which is designed to fool the simple mind into believing that the ‘science’ is there. But the lack of evidence of the non-existence of something does not equate to proof of its existence. And as for the ‘basic premise’ not being disproved, well, a premise is just a proposition…. i.e. another hypothesis, it is not a proof.

    One might equally say that ‘There is no evidence to counter the basic premise that the BBC is rife with people, including many at a senior level, who colluded in, condoned, or committed gross and widespread acts of paedophilia’.

    That is a true statement – the premise is mine, and since the broad statement has never been tested, then there is clearly no evidence to counter it, but that does not make it fact.

    The Climate Change Cabal is basing most of its claims on that final type of argument. There is absolutely no definitive proof that Anthropogenic Global Warming exists – i.e. that man-made Carbon Dioxide is the major contributor to the changes being wrought in our climate. So, the Climate Change Cabal has stood science and the basic code of scientific analysis, the Scientific Method, on its head by claiming that, in the absence of any evidence otherwise, because THEY couldn’t, or chose not to, explain ‘Global Warming’ other than in terms of man-made Carbon Dioxide output, then it must be so- and are basically shifting the burden of proof from themselves to others, to show that their hypothesis is not true – they are making no attempt now to prove their own hypothesis (and it it still only an unproven hypothesis) – relying on the mantra that ‘The science is settled’ – the science cannot be settled by a hypothesis.

    But now, we have the CCC making claim after claim couched in similar terms, i.e. that ‘ there is no definitive evidence to counter my hypothesis’, thereby inferring that their hypothesis must therefore be the only true explanation.

    The BBC should be rooting out and exposing charlatan methods such as these.

       10 likes

    • Ember2013 says:

      Some of these environmentalists seem to thrive on the idea of chaos caused by man. To the degree that they prefer to throw their arms up in the air when an environmental hazard occurs rather than look for solutions. I guess they think that as western man created the problem then they can ballywell suffer the consequences. (It does beg the question: what are we paying these people for? But they won’t discuss that.)

         3 likes

      • agentsmith says:

        It is the hallmark of a mentally idle person to characterise others without taking the effort to understand what they are doing. Climate scientists are investigating climate changes and what is driving them. How policy makers interpret their findings is down to the policy makers. No-one is thriving on anything.

           3 likes

        • johnnythefish says:

          ‘Climate scientists are investigating climate changes and what is driving them.’

          True, but why do you close your ears to those climate scientists who challenge the AGW theory, especially when they use real world evidence?

             2 likes

    • agentsmith says:

      This is nothing but rambling nonsense. There are clear scientific associations between the production of Co2 and Global warming. The science behind this is extremely well understood. As to the day to day manefestations of this process that is another question. You cannot look into your boiling kettle and predict with any accuracy where the next bubble will occur. That doesnt invalidate the fact the the kettle is boiling. Slingo is talking about attributing localised occurences to a global trend. No to difficult to understand.

         5 likes

      • GCooper says:

        What ‘global warming’? To the extent that it ever existed, it appears to have stopped 17 years ago.

        Not that the BBC appears to have noticed.

           3 likes

        • agentsmith says:

          No it didnt. The air temperature rose less slowly but the sea temperature increasingly warmed. This was ,recent research suggests ,because of extended and uninterupted trade winds. When these stop it will be double bubble.Both air temperature will increase and the sea will reliquish some of its stored energy. Should dry out Somerset though.

             3 likes

          • GCooper says:

            Failing to come up with an even remotely convincing explanation for 17 years with no warming, Climate Witchdoctors invented the preposterous claim that ‘ the sea is warming’ without a single convincing mechanism as to how this might be happening, why it is happening now and not in the past and who conveniently suspended the law of thermodynamics.

            You are going to have to do a heck of a lot better if you seriously think you are going to convince anyone here. We’ve heard this faux science before and the joke has worn a bit thin.

               3 likes

      • richard D says:

        As usual, the Climate Change Cabal and its supporters completely, and almost certainly deliberately, miss the points that other people are making. As I stated, there is absolutely no definitive proof that man-made carbon dioxide is the key generator of so-called Global Warming.

        Almost everyone agrees that there are changes happening to the climate – there always has been – but no-one has provided any definitive proof that this is significantly as a direct result of Man’s actions.

        If there had been that proof, then there could be absolutely no argument from anyone, and there would be no need for any of the many unsubstantiated assertions or hypotheses, the hiding and fiddling of the data used to make these assertions, and the constant exaggerated claims (which are usually shot down in flames as soon as the actual data is provided to be examined) from the Climate Change Cabal that everyone is arguing about. The models being used are so wide of the mark as to their projected results, that they are now being fast abandoned for the use of rhetoric rather than real science.

        Absolutely not too difficult to understand.

           4 likes

  22. stuart says:

    see here is the fact that breaks the back of this false lie being spread about by the climate change extremists and fanatics,these are the worst if not equal to the floods in 1776,bingo they have been lying through there teeth about climate change and global warming because correct me if i am wrong was climate change and global warming blamed for the floods they had in 1776 compared to these same floods in 2014,i dont think so you know,next time i meet a greenie i will asked them the question that i have raised above about the 1776 floods was it caused by climate change

       4 likes

    • agentsmith says:

      You’ve gloriously missed the point Slingo has made which is you cannot attribute local variations to global changes. You can only express the probability that future extreme weather events are more likely. What you expect to see are more extreme weather events globally and indeed this is what we are seeing; Californian drought,Australian drought,Middle eastern drought, African drought, retreat of artic ice, forest fires in the artic circle,retreat of water tables, higher strength tornados etc etc.

         6 likes

      • Ember2013 says:

        It’s about the variance not how close to the mean the weather events are. And if you look at the graphs going back decades you see large variance.
        The weather has never floated close to the mean. Ever.

           3 likes

        • agentsmith says:

          Absolutely right. The issue is the frequency of variation and whether the causation of that variation is local or global.

             3 likes

      • OldBloke says:

        The strange thing is agentsmith, all those events you talk of have happened before and many times before, before the words *Global Warming* and *Climate Change* became part of the vocabulary. The Climate has been Changing ever since the last ice age and will continue to do so, but is it all down to mankind producing Co2?

           5 likes

        • agentsmith says:

          Not strange at all. There are a lot of things that go into the pot of global climate change both on earth eg volcanism as well as outside eg solar variation/Milankovian cycles etc. The issue of Co2 is however a key issue because the growth of this gas is closely associated with the intensification of industrialisation. Co2 is a proven absorber of infra red and is well understood to trap heat. On a purely subjective basis it is easy to understand that reliquishing stored energy ,trapped underground for millions of years, in just a couple of hundred years is likely to have some effect. As for other effects like solar radiation ,these have either been found negligible in there impact or have been accounted for in the climate models.

             3 likes

          • johnnythefish says:

            400ppm is nowt to get excited about as research into historical levels of the gas have shown.

            So why did the models get it so wrong? A bit incomplete, maybe – based on a ‘science’ that isn’t so ‘settled’ after all? Or maybe a few too many assumptions about the warming effect of CO2? Whatever, they sure have a lot of egg on their sunburnt little faces now, don’t they?

               4 likes

          • OldBloke says:

            There have been many recorded extreme weather events, more severe than of recent times and before the intensification of industrialisation. So what caused these events if it wasn’t the increase in Co2? And if it wasn’t co2 then, why is said to be now?

               3 likes

      • johnnythefish says:

        ‘What you expect to see are more extreme weather events globally and indeed this is what we are seeing; Californian drought,Australian drought,Middle eastern drought, African drought, retreat of artic ice, forest fires in the artic circle,retreat of water tables, higher strength tornados etc etc.’

        Er, no we’re not seeing (and there are a host of websites which will prove it). The BBC just want make it appear that way to comply with their commitment to their 28gate mates to promote global warming.

        And as for ‘expect more extreme weather events’ – where is your evidence?

           4 likes

        • OldBloke says:

          And it has to be said agentsmith that the weather events you have spoken about are pointing to Global Warming. But what about those events which point their finger to global Cooling, such as record low temperatures in Alaska last year, record snow levels in Italy this year, record low temperatures in Slovenia and Norway, and of course not to forget the antics of the *Ship of Fools” who encountered plenty of thick ice when there shouldn’t have been any. There have also been many recorded *cooling* effects on temperatures and subsequent weather from other parts of the world too. So, is Co2 also cooling the planet?

             4 likes

          • OldBloke says:

            There’s cold, and then there’s Antarctica cold. … How does a frosty reading of 135.8 degrees below zero sound?

            Based on remote satellite measurements, scientists recently recorded that temperature at a desolate ice plateau in East Antarctica. It was the lowest temperature ever recorded on Earth, though it may not get that recognition in the official record book.

            A NASA satellite measured that temperature in August 2010; on July 31 of this year, another bone-chilling temperature of -135.3 degrees was recorded.

            “I’ve never been in conditions that cold, and I hope I never am,” said ice scientist Ted Scambos of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. “I am told that every breath is painful, and you have to be extremely careful not to freeze part of your throat or lungs when inhaling.”

            The -135.8-degree reading is “50 degrees colder than anything that has ever been seen in Alaska or Siberia or certainly North Dakota,” he said.

               2 likes

            • OldBloke says:

              Miley Cyrus was a baby and Bill Clinton had just been inaugurated the last time this happened: For the first time in 20 years, the USA saw more record cold temperatures than record hot temperatures in 2013, according to statistics from the National Climatic Data Center.

              “For the first year since 1993, there were more daily record lows than daily highs that were either tied or set in 2013,” reported Weather Channel meteorologist Guy Walton, who keeps track of the data from the climate center.

              Through Dec. 28, there have been 11,852 daily record lows in 2013, compared with 10,073 daily record highs, according to Walton.

                 1 likes

              • OldBloke says:

                The most alarming reports have come from Ukraine, where the death toll has topped 100. To fight the -34-35C freeze, Ukraine has opened some 2,940 “warming posts” which have been visited by more than 17,000 people since last Friday. In just over three days, the country used 1 billion cubic meters of gas – a huge jump from the usual rate of 160 million cubic meters per day.

                In Belarus, over 900 schools had to close as temperatures there hit the -25C threshold, which is extreme for the country. Kazakhstan’s authorities took similar measures, with the temperature dipping to -52C.

                The Russian capital, meanwhile, has seen a series of record low temperatures, with last night’s temperature plummeting to -28, the lowest for more than 60 years. On February 1, Moscow also broke its record for daily energy consumption, with 17,333 Megawatts being used.

                   2 likes

                • OldBloke says:

                  “Temperatures hit -41 in Swedish cold snap”

                  “The village of Karesuando, right at the very northern tip of Sweden, clocked the epic cold temperature during Sunday reports the Swedish weather agency SMHI.

                  “It is also a seasonal record,” said SMHI meteorologist Lars Unnerstad to the TT news agency. The recorded temperature of -41.2 was a record for that region which is right on the Finnish border.

                  Unnerstad added that he expected more cold records to break during the next 24 hours due to the high pressure, lack of wind and the continuing clear weather.”

                  http://www.thelocal.se/20140119/temperatures-hit-41-in-swedish-cold-snap

                  Thanks to Terry Homeniuk for this link

                     2 likes

                  • Ember2013 says:

                    In a nutshell: the storms experienced in Britain lately are a consequence of the Polar vortex in the US and occur every so many decades (and were first observed in the 19th century).

                       3 likes

                    • agentsmith says:

                      Except looking just at patterns in localised areas does not inform you of ALL the changing patterns across the world. These are detailed in various reports including IPCC publications. There are a number of military assessments as well which you would find informative.

                         0 likes

          • agentsmith says:

            Nope. Again you misunderstand the relation of local weather to Global warming. Weather will become more extreme. Cold events in places where they are not usually found can be regarded as extreme events. I think your’ll find that the expeditionary trip which encountered the ice was in a very cold place so not too surprising there really.

               1 likes

            • johnnythefish says:

              The floods of mantras from agentsmith – an extreme gobshite event.

                 2 likes

            • Ember2013 says:

              The point I was making is that both the US and western Europe is experiencing the effects of the irregular polar vortex phenomenon. By its very nature it is extreme. As are the seasonal hurricanes that hit America.

              I believe the IPCC said there was no evidence that the frequency of extreme weather had changed over the decades.
              You can pretend to surmise this as the start of more frequent extreme weather (as Newsnight tried to do last night) but by doing so you fall into a trap of assuming without evidence.

                 2 likes

  23. Llareggub says:

    A UKIP politician was rightly ridiculed for attributing the floods to God’s displeasure over gay marriage. However, the Church of England and the Guardian are united in denouncing sinners who encourage the the demon of climate change. What is the difference? Deniers to the stake eh?

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/12/church-climate-change-investment-great-demon-flooding?CMP=twt_gu

       2 likes

  24. OldBloke says:

    I wonder why we haven’t heard from the BBC (on a daily basis) of those Global Warming “cold events” I have just listed??

       3 likes

    • agentsmith says:

      Probably for the same reason you never heard of forest fires in the artic circle. The BBC doesnt like to mention Global warming at all during its news broadcasts. In fact it regularly cuts people off who try to talk about it. It may have something to do with the fact that the politicians dont want to discourage the continued use of fossil fuels. Pretending nothing is going on is cheap. Reengineering society would be expensive ,change the relationship between rich and poor and alter society in unimaginable ways.

         1 likes

      • johnnythefish says:

        ‘The BBC doesnt like to mention Global warming at all during its news broadcasts. In fact it regularly cuts people off who try to talk about it.’

        Done by proxy, me old mucka, in case you hadn’t noticed. ‘Climate change’ (the ‘science’ formerly known as global warming – what a crafty re-branding exercise that one was) is endlessly parroted by the BBC’s selected ‘experts’ or activists masquerading as politicians. ‘Extreme weather’, now synonymous with ‘climate change’ is used ad nauseam by BBC broadcasters, not to mention same selected ‘experts’/politicians – some local authorities wallah managed to squeeze it in no less than 5 times in a 2-minute interview on TWATO yesterday.

        Or did you mean the Bolivian Broadcasting Corporation?

           1 likes

  25. OldBloke says:

    And just for good measure, just over a year ago:

    Play Video
    Japan says it’s recorded its lowest-ever temperatures, with 14 cities and 3 counties in the north and coastal areas experiencing snow-created crises demanding the country’s assistance. So far, the extreme conditions have led to 63 deaths.

    Heavy snowfall across Japan is finally subsiding. But almost the entire country experienced on Friday rock bottom temperatures of this winter. And what’s more extreme, Japan reported the coldest morning EVER, since records began, minus 32.6 degrees Celsius in Esashi, Hokkaido.

       1 likes

    • agentsmith says:

      again you confuse how global warming affects weather patterns. If Japan experienced record lows its because extremely cold air was being uncharacteristically fed to that area,not that the whole world suddenly got colder. I really urge you to check this subject out. There are some good scientific explanations on the web which do not involve any politics.

         1 likes

  26. johnnythefish says:

    A valiant effort by agentsmith to support his BBC on its global warming stance but unfortunately repetitive clapped-out mantras do not constitute debate.

    So – must do better, BBC (for your mucky fingerprints are all over this thread), though no doubt your relentless Common Purpose/Agenda21-inspired propaganda (what’s it called again – neurological programming or summat?) is swaying much of the population who like their news delivered on a plate in easily digestible sound-bite chunks.

    In the meantime, agentsmith, open your eyes, ears and mind to those scientists who just keep to the science and don’t pollute it with eco-political agendas.

    Start here:

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2012/12/06/new-report-extreme-weather-report-2012-latest-peerreviewed-studies-data-analyses-undermine-claims-that-current-weather-is-unprecedented-or-a-new-normal/

    Unless, like the BBC, the science and real-world evidence are irrelevant to you.

       0 likes