|
Post by louise on May 14, 2011 12:16:58 GMT 1
My post on expectional weather was referring to the drought in the USA at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 14, 2011 12:19:12 GMT 1
it will turn out to be, not as bad as first stated [or its happened before]. It has already happened - it's not a forecast or hype, it is a reported occurance and is breaking records so no, it will not turn out to be not as bad as first stated.Perhaps your own spin on this report says more about your prejudices than any science?
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 14, 2011 12:35:49 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on May 14, 2011 12:53:51 GMT 1
You seem like the web equivalent of the 'sandwich board man' stating the 'End of The World is NIGH'. Shouting me down will not make a scrap of difference, I can stomach the possibility of being wrong, and telling me that I have prejudices is no revelation. One of my prejudices is 'sandwich board men'. So pardon me if I indulge. So accepting Your assertions as TRUE, what should be done? Cheers, StuartG
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 14, 2011 13:03:25 GMT 1
I apologise if you got the impression that I was shouting you down. I highlighted part of my comment in bold as you did not seem to have realised that my quote was referring to records recently broken, not forecasted to do so (your comment about hype).
This is a science board and this thread is in a section on Environment which includes weather. As such, my comments are referring to the science of the weather and not either the politics or engineering solutions for the consequences of this weather. I stay firmly away from the politics as that has no place on a science board and I am not as interested in the 'what should we do about it' as the 'why is it happening' question, hence mostly staying away from the engineering dicsussions.
As I said, why are we having such a lot of extreme record breaking weather is my interest.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on May 14, 2011 13:15:48 GMT 1
If someone is in the middle of it, then there is a tendency to think that it is worse then it really is. You are talking 'politics' [note small p] because whatever observations are made, their effects are Worldwide hence the dub 'Global Warming' and to divorce Yourself from the cure is not logical as the highlighting of the problems causing such events [Coil, Nuclear, Oil from Your cartoon] which is in effect to imply 'what's done here is wrong' and coupled to the windmill [with nimby] suggests the cure. So [even if You didn't realise it] is 'political' and 'engineering' all in one pic'. Cheers, StuartG
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 14, 2011 13:17:20 GMT 1
Sorry, no, again, Louise. The "exceptional" is all part and parcel of normal "variability". Surely I have explained this before? You can't have been listening as well as you are supposed to! Haven't you seen these discussions of the southern United States weather? chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/to-tell-a-tale-of-tyler-texas/#comment-17497chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/southern-states-have-no-warming/I know you don't read very widely, Louise, so you wont have noticed that NOAA specifically repudiated that the tornadoes were caused by anthropogenic CO2. www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/events/2011/tornadoes/climatechange.html Others have pointed out that the apparent observed frequency of tornadoes has changed with the use of improved radar spotting from 1990 onwards and with the media interest in "storm chasing" as a spectator sport. It's like all other reported "extreme" weather events - the apparent increase in frequency is merely a function of media interest (disasters SELL newspaper and tv advertising!) and global telecommunications. Every newsworthy weather event is now ROUTINELY (key word!) viewed on every tv or computer or mobile phone in the world. Surely you are not so naive as to believe this represents a "REAL" change in frequency, Louise? Being a little older than you I can remember a time when we were not bombarded with graphic live images of every disaster as it happened. You will not be aware that the drought in the South West USA is no big deal in historical terms and neither was the one in Australia which was predicted to be permanent, thanks to CO2, but which ended in the way Australian droughts always end - with rain! Your own quote reveals that similar Mississippi floods occurred in 1927. Do you have no historical sense at all? So what's NEW, dearie?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 14, 2011 13:23:54 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 14, 2011 13:26:18 GMT 1
You are talking 'politics' [note small p] because whatever observations are made, their effects are Worldwide hence the dub 'Global Warming' Stuart - you seem not to have noticed that I used the word 'weather' throughout my post. I am interested in the cause of this exceptional extreme weather, not in the 'what should we do about it' argument. I can appreciate the humour in jokes without agreeing with any supposed sentiment they are expressing - I get on really well with my mother-in-law yet I can enjoy the humour behind traditional mother-in-law jokes. I can appreciate the humour in 'blond' jokes or jokes about women drivers without agreeing with these (as I am both of those). Do you have any comments on the possible cause of the extreme weather events in my post? Otherwise, your comments don't seem to belong on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 14, 2011 13:29:10 GMT 1
From your link "The phenomenon was caused by severe drought coupled with decades of extensive farming without crop rotation, fallow fields, cover crops or other techniques to prevent erosion.[20] Deep plowing of the virgin topsoil of the Great Plains had displaced the natural grasses that normally kept the soil in place and trapped moisture even during periods of drought and high winds." i.e. caused by over-farming What do you think has caused these droughts in Texas?
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on May 14, 2011 13:37:25 GMT 1
My point here made by Wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Mississippi_Flood_of_1927This article is about Great Mississippi Flood of 1927. For the Mississippi Flood of 1993, see Great Flood of 1993. The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 was the most destructive river flood in the history of the United States.[1] It's happened before, several times, therefore it will probably happen again. That's the way it is, it's a combination of weather factors culminating in such events. n.b. 'in the history of' and may well have been worse prior to the formation of the USA. Those events in 1927 were probably eclipsed again by the '1929 crash'. Now we've [they've] had a flood, crash, flood. Cheers, StuartG
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 14, 2011 13:45:49 GMT 1
After the 1927 flooding a number of 'spillways' were built to help prevent the devastation that happened then. The fact that the current flood is going to break the 1927 records despite these spillways says a great deal.
At what point do three* nearly simultaneous truly exceptional weather events in the same part of one country become something beyond exceptional?
* Exceptional tornado swarm Exceptional flood Exceptional drought
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on May 14, 2011 14:03:03 GMT 1
Yes these events are truly exceptional when your tiny brain can only think in the time period of the last century.
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 14, 2011 14:06:06 GMT 1
Yes these events are truly exceptional when your tiny brain can only think in the time period of the last century. Do you genuinely believe that personal insults make your arguments stronger? Perhaps you should think about this approach and your success as a politician - there could be a link.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 14, 2011 14:08:25 GMT 1
"Natural Variation"? Swings and roundabouts? The same or similar causes that created previous droughts?
Combinatioin of slightly reduced precipitation with increased evaporation due to slight temperature rise?
The difference is that Louise thinks these can be attributed to CO2 whereas I look for something a little more, shall we say, *complicated*.
Climate changes, Louise. It's axiomatic. You tell us what you think accounts for the SW "drought".
(Incidentally I had never heard to the Dustbowl being attributed to farming methods before, I thought it was prolonged "drought". That's what wiki called it. How these alarmists do lurve to re-write history!)
|
|