On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:28:22 +0100, Graham P Davis wrote in


That would only be possible if their previous view that gw would make the
jet stream move further north is incorrect, given that the present weather
is supposed to be a consequence of said jet stream being too far south.

Coincidentally, I posted on the matter of the jet stream position
yesterday.

If their previous view was incorrect, then their present (conflicting)
view may also be incorrect.
On the other hand, they may just want to keep the cake which they are
eating.


They were referring to the *average* position of the jet-stream. Forecasts
of heavier rain events caused by AGW had nothing to do with jet-stream
positions. Warmer air can carry more water. Warmer seas evaporate more
water into the atmosphere. That extra water gets dumped somewhere.

We've had summers in the past with jet-streams further south than usual but
without the amount of rain we've seen this summer.

I'd agree with all you wrote above, bar the very last half sentence. The
amount of rain that fell recently *may* be unprecedented in recent times,
but the very fact that flood plains exist, together with their associated
fluvial deposits, indicates regular flooding over 100s/1000s of years.
Whether it was winter or summer floods though, I have no idea.

Third day of almost unbroken sunshine here!!

--
Mike Tullett - Coleraine 55.13°N 6.69°W posted 23/07/2007 13:50:26 GMT

On Jul 23, 6:52 am, wrote:
"England under water: scientists confirm global warming link to
increased rain"
By Michael McCarthy Environment Editor
The Independent
Published: 23 July 2007

(extract)

"...The study is being published in the journal Nature on Wednesday,
and its details are under embargo and cannot be reported until then.
But its main findings have caused a stir, and are being freely
discussed by climate scientists in the Met Office, the Hadley Centre
and the Department for Environment For Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs.
One source familiar with the study's conclusions said: "What this does
is establish for the first time that there is a distinct 'human
fingerprint' in the changes in precipitation patterns * the increases
in rainfall * observed in the northern hemisphere mid-latitudes, which
includes Britain.
"That means, it is not just the climate's natural variability which
has caused the increases, but there is a detectable human cause *
climate change, caused by our greenhouse gas emissions. The 'human
fingerprint' has been detected before in temperature rises, but never
before in rainfall. So this is very significant.
"Some people would argue that you can't take a single event and pin
that on climate change, but what happened in Britain last Friday fits
quite easily with these conclusions. It does seem to have a certain
resonance with what they're finding in this research."
The Hadley Centre lead scientist involved with the study was Dr Peter
Stott, who specialises in finding "human fingerprints" * sometimes
referred to as anthropogenic signals * on the changing climate. "

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/thi...cle2793067.ece

That abstract really says very little, disguised by the
pompous terminology, and is obviously designed for the media. When
they talk of "human fingerprint" in temperature changes does that mean
any more than simply that Global Warming is anthropogenic in origin
and that the temperature has gone up? It would be very surprising
indeed if there had not been a corresponding change in rainfall
patterns, and there has been. We have drier summers and wetter
autumns and early winters. So I cannot make head or tail of the
sentence "The 'human
fingerprint' has been detected before in temperature rises, but never
before in rainfall. So this is very significant."

We will have to wait for publication to see what is beneath
this apparent re-discovery of the wheel.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

On Jul 23, 2:50�pm, Mike Tullett
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:28:22 +0100, Graham P Davis wrote in






That would only be possible if their previous view that gw would make the
jet stream move further north is incorrect, given that the present weather
is supposed to be a consequence of said jet stream being too far south.

Coincidentally, I posted on the matter of the jet stream position
yesterday.

If their previous view was incorrect, then their present (conflicting)
view may also be incorrect.
On the other hand, they may just want to keep the cake which they are
eating.

They were referring to the *average* position of the jet-stream. Forecasts
of heavier rain events caused by AGW had nothing to do with jet-stream
positions. Warmer air can carry more water. Warmer seas evaporate more
water into the atmosphere. That extra water gets dumped somewhere.

We've had summers in the past with jet-streams further south than usual but
without the amount of rain we've seen this summer.

I'd agree with all you wrote above, bar the very last half sentence. *The
amount of rain that fell recently *may* be unprecedented in recent times,
but the very fact that flood plains exist, together with their associated
fluvial deposits, indicates regular flooding over 100s/1000s of years.
Whether it was winter or summer floods though, I have no idea.

Not so. A flood plain is a valley bottom with an "old" river running
through it.

The reason it floods is because therer is a river running through it
and that it is a plain.

So called Old rivers are merely named after their situation. The fall
is not great, though it doesn't mean that the water in the centre of
the stream isn't fast flowing.

It flows fast enough that it can undercut banks when it reaches a
curve.

wrote in message
ups.com...
"England under water: scientists confirm global warming link to
increased rain"
By Michael McCarthy Environment Editor
The Independent
Published: 23 July 2007

(extract)

"...The study is being published in the journal Nature on Wednesday,
and its details are under embargo and cannot be reported until then.
But its main findings have caused a stir, and are being freely
discussed by climate scientists in the Met Office, the Hadley Centre
and the Department for Environment For Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs.
One source familiar with the study's conclusions said: "What this does
is establish for the first time that there is a distinct 'human
fingerprint' in the changes in precipitation patterns * the increases
in rainfall * observed in the northern hemisphere mid-latitudes, which
includes Britain.
"That means, it is not just the climate's natural variability which
has caused the increases, but there is a detectable human cause *
climate change, caused by our greenhouse gas emissions. The 'human
fingerprint' has been detected before in temperature rises, but never
before in rainfall. So this is very significant.
"Some people would argue that you can't take a single event and pin
that on climate change, but what happened in Britain last Friday fits
quite easily with these conclusions. It does seem to have a certain
resonance with what they're finding in this research."
The Hadley Centre lead scientist involved with the study was Dr Peter
Stott, who specialises in finding "human fingerprints" * sometimes
referred to as anthropogenic signals * on the changing climate. "

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/thi...cle2793067.ece





I thought last years dry spell was linked to GW? I suppose in reality
everything is linked to GW. Hmmm I heven't felt that well
lately...........I know why now.

"Gianna" wrote in message
...
wrote:
"England under water: scientists confirm global warming link to
increased rain"
By Michael McCarthy Environment Editor
The Independent
Published: 23 July 2007

That would only be possible if their previous view that gw would make the
jet stream move further north is incorrect, given that the present weather
is supposed to be a consequence of said jet stream being too far south.

Coincidentally, I posted on the matter of the jet stream position
yesterday.

If their previous view was incorrect, then their present (conflicting)
view may also be incorrect.
On the other hand, they may just want to keep the cake which they are
eating.


--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *


Gianna you're getting all political and I like it. Snouts in the trough,eh?

"lawrence jenkins" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...
"England under water: scientists confirm global warming link to
increased rain"
By Michael McCarthy Environment Editor
The Independent
Published: 23 July 2007

(extract)

"...The study is being published in the journal Nature on Wednesday,
and its details are under embargo and cannot be reported until then.
But its main findings have caused a stir, and are being freely
discussed by climate scientists in the Met Office, the Hadley Centre
and the Department for Environment For Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs.
One source familiar with the study's conclusions said: "What this does
is establish for the first time that there is a distinct 'human
fingerprint' in the changes in precipitation patterns * the increases
in rainfall * observed in the northern hemisphere mid-latitudes, which
includes Britain.
"That means, it is not just the climate's natural variability which
has caused the increases, but there is a detectable human cause *
climate change, caused by our greenhouse gas emissions. The 'human
fingerprint' has been detected before in temperature rises, but never
before in rainfall. So this is very significant.
"Some people would argue that you can't take a single event and pin
that on climate change, but what happened in Britain last Friday fits
quite easily with these conclusions. It does seem to have a certain
resonance with what they're finding in this research."
The Hadley Centre lead scientist involved with the study was Dr Peter
Stott, who specialises in finding "human fingerprints" * sometimes
referred to as anthropogenic signals * on the changing climate. "

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/thi...cle2793067.ece


What happened last Friday is archetypal of extreme rainfall events that have
occurred in the past. E.g. the Tweed floods of 1948. Last friday's situation
also fits that pattern. Whether global warming has exacerbated the situation is
up for speculation, only time will tell.

Will (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
--

lawrence jenkins wrote:
"Gianna" wrote in message
...
wrote:
"England under water: scientists confirm global warming link to
increased rain"
By Michael McCarthy Environment Editor
The Independent
Published: 23 July 2007
That would only be possible if their previous view that gw would make the
jet stream move further north is incorrect, given that the present weather
is supposed to be a consequence of said jet stream being too far south.

Coincidentally, I posted on the matter of the jet stream position
yesterday.

If their previous view was incorrect, then their present (conflicting)
view may also be incorrect.
On the other hand, they may just want to keep the cake which they are
eating.


--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *


Gianna you're getting all political and I like it. Snouts in the trough,eh?


I vaguely recall some news item recently which mentioned a survey - regrettably
I cannot provide a reference because I have forgotten where to look for it.
It seems that many respondents (in the UK) do not believe that the global
temperature is rising at all, and most do not believe that if it is rising, that
it is their fault (i.e. caused by human activity).

Assuming that they were not all big brother contestants and had more than one
brain cell between them, why would they not believe any of it? The simple
answer is because of the pathetically poor publicity.

As you note elsewhere in this thread, it seems that everything is attributed to
gw and few people would believe that, even if it were true (which it is not).

Upon a time, almost everything was blamed on the weather, but now they need
something to blame for the weather (gw), and someone to blame for gw (people).
It is only a matter of time before they name names and sue for damages.



--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *

On Jul 23, 12:54 pm, wrote:
On 23 Jul, 11:50, Les Crossan





venthisk wrote:
wrote:
"England under water: scientists confirm global warming link to
increased rain"
By Michael McCarthy Environment Editor
The Independent
Published: 23 July 2007

(extract)

"...The study is being published in the journal Nature on Wednesday,
and its details are under embargo and cannot be reported until then.
But its main findings have caused a stir

Wasn't it last year that GW was going to cause more *drought* in the UK
with this country set to become a Southern Mediterranean scorched earth
climate??? And, erm, more hurricanes - which seem to be in very short
supply.

Well, it might be said that this was a prescient long range weather
forecast by John Mitchell.

He's now Chief Boffin at the Met office isn't he?

Why global warming could take Britain by storm
07 November 1992
by Paul Simons, New Scientist

" John Mitchell, head of climate modelling at the Met Office's Hadley
Centre, thinks global warming could precipitate storms nearer to
Europe in the eastern Atlantic. This means they will arrive in Britain
in a far more powerful and dangerous state: more water will have
evaporated from seas that have warmed with the climate, in turn
causing wider variations in atmospheric moisture and temperature, and
so stronger winds. Because such storms will occur nearer to the
continent, forecasters will have less time to spot them, predict their
paths and give the appropriate warnings. "

http://environment.newscientist.com/...-season/mg...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That article is 15 years old and is concerned with
deep lows and gale- or hurricane-force winds presumably in autumn or
winter. I can't quite see its relevance to the situation that caused
the recent floods in which a low developed from the near continent and
was quite weak, purely as a circulatory feature. The problem was the
rain it produced, not the winds.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

On 24 Jul, 14:43, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Jul 23, 12:54 pm, wrote:





On 23 Jul, 11:50, Les Crossan

venthisk wrote:
wrote:
"England under water: scientists confirm global warming link to
increased rain"
By Michael McCarthy Environment Editor
The Independent
Published: 23 July 2007

(extract)

"...The study is being published in the journal Nature on Wednesday,
and its details are under embargo and cannot be reported until then.
But its main findings have caused a stir

Wasn't it last year that GW was going to cause more *drought* in the UK
with this country set to become a Southern Mediterranean scorched earth
climate??? And, erm, more hurricanes - which seem to be in very short
supply.

Well, it might be said that this was a prescient long range weather
forecast by John Mitchell.

He's now Chief Boffin at the Met office isn't he?

Why global warming could take Britain by storm
07 November 1992
by Paul Simons, New Scientist

" John Mitchell, head of climate modelling at the Met Office's Hadley
Centre, thinks global warming could precipitate storms nearer to
Europe in the eastern Atlantic. This means they will arrive in Britain
in a far more powerful and dangerous state: more water will have
evaporated from seas that have warmed with the climate, in turn
causing wider variations in atmospheric moisture and temperature, and
so stronger winds. Because such storms will occur nearer to the
continent, forecasters will have less time to spot them, predict their
paths and give the appropriate warnings. "

http://environment.newscientist.com/...ason/mg...Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That article is 15 years old and is concerned with
deep lows and gale- or hurricane-force winds presumably in autumn or
winter. I can't quite see its relevance to the situation that caused
the recent floods in which a low developed from the near continent and
was quite weak, purely as a circulatory feature. The problem was the
rain it produced, not the winds.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

True, although it could be argued that the current floods are a series
of multiple weather events going back to May, rather than one single
event.
The area of flooding also seems to be wider than the examples of
similar floods often quoted to support the "natural variability"
thesis.
Also, there appears to be an unusually high recurrence rate for such
events since 2000.