"Victor West" wrote in message
...


But as I said, the lack of rainfall is unusual and is dissimilar to the
years mentioned.
Unfortunately, it is similar to 1947. :-(

You are quite right on both counts, Victor. But this thread was
about whether or not the present blocking situation was unusual
or not. You are, of course, perfectly at liberty to drag the thread
in a different direction, but I can always try to drag it back
again ... :-)

Philip Eden

"Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote in message
.. .

"Victor West" wrote in message
...


But as I said, the lack of rainfall is unusual and is dissimilar to the
years mentioned.
Unfortunately, it is similar to 1947. :-(

You are quite right on both counts, Victor. But this thread was
about whether or not the present blocking situation was unusual
or not. You are, of course, perfectly at liberty to drag the thread
in a different direction, but I can always try to drag it back
again ... :-)


But dragging it off again, isn't the lack of rainfall related to the
blocking?
......feel free to drag the topic back again Philip. :-))

Victor

In uk.sci.weather on Tue, 21 Oct 2003 at 19:09:22, Philip Eden wrote :

Surely the issue is the duration of the blocking? It started at the
beginning of August!
--
Well, actually, Paul, you just snipped the line where I gave an
example of a 90+ day sequence of blocked types - in
autumn 1993. And you also snipped the first line which
described the "issue" that I was raising. Duh.

So I did - sorry.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Email to pahyett[AT]activist[DOT]demon[DOT]co[DOT]uk

"Victor West" wrote in message
...

"Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote in message
.. .

"Victor West" wrote in message
...

But as I said, the lack of rainfall is unusual and is dissimilar to
the
years mentioned.
Unfortunately, it is similar to 1947. :-(

You are quite right on both counts, Victor. But this thread was
about whether or not the present blocking situation was unusual
or not. You are, of course, perfectly at liberty to drag the thread
in a different direction, but I can always try to drag it back
again ... :-)


But dragging it off again, isn't the lack of rainfall related to the
blocking?
.....feel free to drag the topic back again Philip. :-))

Yes, BUT ...
A prolonged shortage of rain in most parts of the UK would,
I reckon, nearly always be associated with long periods of
blocking. The one exception is eastern Scotland (and parts of
northeast England) where many dry months are the consequence
of the rain-shadow caused by a long period of westerlies.

So drought comes from blocking, but blocking does not
necessarily bring drought.

September and early-October 1993, for instance, were
outstandingly wet in southern Britain because the blocking
high was sufficiently far away, and the diverted depression
track lay across the UK for weeks on end.

None of which, dragging the thread back, should be regarded
as so unusual as to require a "global climate change"
explanation.

Philip Eden

"Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote in message
.. .


Snip


None of which, dragging the thread back, should be regarded
as so unusual as to require a "global climate change"
explanation.

But, Philip, this is an example of why you are regarded as a
GW skeptic.

How unusual does the weather have to get before it meets your
criteria for a global climate change explanation? Don't you see
that when those criteria are met, then it will be too late to stop a
rapidly deteriorating situation?

It may be 'scientific' to insist on proof positive before accepting
a theory as true, but in the case of real life if it starts raining we
shelter. We do not argue that there is no proof that this storm
will continue therefore we would be stupid to act. It is pretty
obvious to everyone that the world's climate is warming, and
we know why. Carbon dioxide emissions are increasing, so the
warming is bound to accelerate. Over 10,000 people died in
France and 4,000 in India this year from heat. How will you face
your readership when something similiar happens in Britain
in the near future? Are ten thousand lives the criteria you
need to accept then that GW is a serious problem, or will
you then write that it is not unusual, it happened in France in
2003?

Curious, Alastair.

"Alastair McDonald" k wrote
in message ...

"Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote in message
.. .


Snip


None of which, dragging the thread back, should be regarded
as so unusual as to require a "global climate change"
explanation.

But, Philip, this is an example of why you are regarded as a
GW skeptic.

How unusual does the weather have to get before it meets your
criteria for a global climate change explanation? Don't you see
that when those criteria are met, then it will be too late to stop a
rapidly deteriorating situation?

I have no criteria. Weather is irrelevant. Climate is what counts.

Philip Eden

--

Philip Eden wrote in message ...

"Alastair McDonald" k wrote
in message ...

"Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote in message
.. .


Snip


None of which, dragging the thread back, should be regarded
as so unusual as to require a "global climate change"
explanation.

But, Philip, this is an example of why you are regarded as a
GW skeptic.

How unusual does the weather have to get before it meets your
criteria for a global climate change explanation? Don't you see
that when those criteria are met, then it will be too late to stop a
rapidly deteriorating situation?

I have no criteria. Weather is irrelevant. Climate is what counts.

Philip Eden



But Philip then why are Defra investing £100Ks in the Met Office to investigate
the likely impact of global warming on severe weather events. Clearly the
weather is important for Defra.

Will.
--

" Love begins when judgement ceases "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A COL BH site in East Dartmoor at Haytor, Devon 310m asl (1017 feet).

mailto:
www: http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk

DISCLAIMER - All views and opinions expressed by myself are personal
and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote in message
.. .

"Alastair McDonald" k wrote
in message ...

"Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote in message
.. .


Snip


None of which, dragging the thread back, should be regarded
as so unusual as to require a "global climate change"
explanation.

But, Philip, this is an example of why you are regarded as a
GW skeptic.

How unusual does the weather have to get before it meets your
criteria for a global climate change explanation? Don't you see
that when those criteria are met, then it will be too late to stop a
rapidly deteriorating situation?

I have no criteria. Weather is irrelevant. Climate is what counts.

Climate consists purely of weather. I don't see how you can say
weather is irrelevant. Even if you consider climate as only average
weather, then record high, and even long periods of above average,
temperatures will alter that mean and signal a climate change. You
appear to be making the error of thinking that because weather and
climate are different they must be mutually exclusive. They are not.
They are just two (overlapping?) bands in a time based spectrum of
atmospheric behaviour.

You didn't answer my second question about how you would
explain to your readers why you had not warned them of the
disasters climate change will wreak. Do you really think they
will accept that because you were an expert in weather you
could not warn about a change in climate because "weather
is irrelevant"?

Cheers, Alastair.


Cheers, Alastair.

"Will" wrote in message
...



But Philip then why are Defra investing £100Ks in the Met Office to
investigate
the likely impact of global warming on severe weather events. Clearly the
weather is important for Defra.

Will.

If the Haskins report is acted upon there might not be a Defra in two years

(relevent to the point you made only to point out that this sort of money
might be spent for reasons other that proper science:-))

Jim Webster

"Alastair McDonald" k wrote
in message ...

"Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote in message
.. .

I have no criteria. Weather is irrelevant. Climate is what counts.

Climate consists purely of weather. I don't see how you can say
weather is irrelevant. Even if you consider climate as only average
weather, then record high, and even long periods of above average,
temperatures will alter that mean and signal a climate change. You
appear to be making the error of thinking .....

I suggest you don't put words in my mouth. Individual weather
events do not require a global climate change explanation any more
than the money that happens to be in my pocket this evening
requires in explanation in terms of the state of the national economy.
Now, an improvement or a deterioration in the UK's economy may well
have an impact on the amount of money in my pocket, but that is a
different subject ... not the one I was responding to. Perhaps you don't
see the difference. Clearly other contributors to this thread don't
either.

...that because weather and
climate are different they must be mutually exclusive. They are not.
They are just two (overlapping?) bands in a time based spectrum of
atmospheric behaviour.

You didn't answer my second question about how you would
explain to your readers why you had not warned them of the
disasters climate change will wreak. Do you really think they
will accept that because you were an expert in weather you
could not warn about a change in climate because "weather
is irrelevant"?

If you think that then you haven't read much of what I've
written. I've been writing about the disasters that climate change
may (not will) bring about since at least 1988, and I spent three
chapters in this year's book on this very subject. Can't really blame
you though if you haven't; it's really not much cop. And I only
get 90p per copy.

Philip Eden