observer Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 Changes in the jet stream appear to be lining up successive storms from the Atlantic to batter Britain, with high tides and torrential rain causing the disaster we now see played out on our TV news. So what to do about it? Think perhaps we're past the notion of prevention by long term reductions in carbon emissions etc; these extreme weather events are with us now, and appear to be occurring more regularly. We've seen vulnerable, low lying flood plains turned into water world; with all the associated human distress. So, perhaps we now need to pay attention to how we build and where we build, and adapt to the changing situation. As King Canute demonstrated, we can't command the sea or indeed nature; we simply need to adapt and survive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 I keep getting feelings of Déjà vu. If like you say we just need to adapt to survive Obs ... just how hard is it to grow webbed feet, fins or gills and are scientists currenly working on it ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 wonder if the africans etc will hold a concert to send aid and assistance to us? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Many moons ago Diz, in the Far-East, I visited the homes of local rice farmers; and guess what: in an region subject to regular flooding, their "huts" were built on stilts - that's "adapting". Our pre-historic ancestors moved into S/Russia, faced an advancing ice age and a treeless landscape, with only the hairy Mammoth to hunt - so they built their shelters out of Mammoth tusks and skins, and used their dung for fuel - they adapted and survived, a stratagem that set humans above other species. So not quite Kevin Costner in Water World ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stallard12 Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 We are having an unusually cold winter in Southeast Texas, low temps, frost and even a few snow flurries. Normally we play golf in shorts on Christmas Day, but this year it never got above 40 degrees. The usual fanatics are jumping all over the 'climate change' as usual, but the facts are that it has all happened before. These exact weather patterns occurred in 1922, 1947 and 1980, in fact the lowest temp recorded in Texas was in 1939. What happened to the CO2 in those twenty and thirty year breaks - did it just all dissappear? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Drastic changes in the weather are nothing new. During the Roman occupation they grew grapes around the encampment in Chester. A period in the Victorian era was so warm it prompted the building of Piers, even at northern sea-sides which were very popular until the weather changed again! There are historical accounts of winters more severe than any we have ever known and also recordings of great floods. "A small tongue of land on the Cheshire side, but belonging to the township of Warrington was encircled by the Mersey until the middle of the 18th century when during a great flood the river cut through the neck of the isthmus and took it's present course" ref. Beaumont, Warr in 1465 (Chet Soc) 86 There is also reference in the history of Warrington to areas of marshland on the edge of the town at Arpley and Howley. The danger of flooding in many areas is not new it is centuries old knowledge so how foolish to build on them! Yet when there is a disaster it's classed as 'an act of God' rather than the foolishness of idiot men. Perhaps if the no-brainers who gave planning consent for such idiot schemes were held legally responsible they might adopt a more responsible approach with regard to future risk. There are also areas with no previous history but now prone to flooding due to excessive building on sites with inadequate drainage. Again the shoddy work of planners! I think it's ridiculous that in the 20th century we should have these problems in Britain. We are an island with no place that far from the coast and should, with our rivers and canal system, be able to drain excess rainfall back into the sea. If we used our resources wisely we could solve our energy problems long term with water power, be free from the dangers of fracking and nuclear and be independent of foreign investment. I think the only blocks to common sense are those who hope to profit on their own investments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Stallard 12, you must have posted that as I was typing! Yes, there has always been cyclic weather change. There has been scientific evidence of cyclic weather change throughout the centuries from experiments of drilling deep holes in the arctic regions. Though there is little publicity about this - probably because they wouldn't be able to terrorise the world into accepting nuclear power with the 'climate change' threat. Whilst I certainly don't think we are doing the earth and the health of humankind much good with high levels of pollution I really don't believe that the 'climate change' propaganda is anything other than calculated profiteering. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Agree folks, and the idea that humans can alter the natural developments in climate are a testament to the arrogance and stupidity of mankind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Weren't the Somerset Levels little more than a swamp with islands during the times of Alfred the Great ? The Lincolnshire Fens & much of East Anglia is reclaimed land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stallard12 Posted February 9, 2014 Report Share Posted February 9, 2014 Quite right Obs, just go outside on a clear night and look up, are you kidding me? How can a woman with a can of aerosol hairspray, or a million women, or a cow farting in Norway put a dent in that ???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted February 9, 2014 Report Share Posted February 9, 2014 Stallard, have you heard of the ozone layer, aerosols blew holes in it, no one disputes what aerosols did to the ozone layer, that's why they were banned. The gases in aerosols blew big holes in the ozone layer. Just let you know how out of date you are they started fazing them out in 1978. Might be wrong but I don't think the green lobby was that strong back then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2014 Believe "that hole" has now healed up?! The idea, that we can impact on the forces of nature is quite arrogant, and even if it were true; the results would take 50 or 60 years to kick in; what we have is here and now - and requires an immediate response, in how and where we build. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stallard12 Posted February 9, 2014 Report Share Posted February 9, 2014 At the height of the 'frenzy, the biggest hole in the ozone was supposedly directly over Africa, which apart from the poles, has the lowest CO2 production. As an engineer, I find the measuring techniques and equipment used in this data collecting as dubious at best. However KJ, you have the right to your opinion and the majority has a right to theirs, the only difference is that the minority are demanding that countries be driven to the edge of bankcruptsy to, supposedly, solve an unsubstantiated theory. Here is an example of the 'green' groups idea of democracy. A schemer President of the US wants green votes, so he is dragging his feet in approving the Keystone pipeline project. It would transport oil from Canada to the US Gulf Coast for refining. A five year investigation by the government was released last week proving that there were absolutely no enviromental concerns in the project. However the 'green' nuts are now demonstrating and promising cicvil disobedience disruptions to the whole project, they don't care that it would immediately produce 20,000 new jobs. In the meantime. the oil is being shipped by rail and there has already been two disrailments with subsequent spills. KJ, do you approve or disapprove of their attitude? No malice intended in any part of this post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted February 9, 2014 Report Share Posted February 9, 2014 Stallard I am also an engineer, and it is not the minority, you will find that most Countries scientists now agree about mans effect in global warming, it is you that is in the minority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2014 Scientist are like economists, put them together and you'll get an argument - usually for funding their ideas ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stallard12 Posted February 9, 2014 Report Share Posted February 9, 2014 All a matter of opinion - has a definitive list of the number of 'scientists' in existence and a definitive list of those who support the hypothesis ever been compiled? If so I would like to see it. It is very easy to say 'the majority', but to be effective you have to provide proof and that is where the whole global warming / climate change argument fails. It's still a matter of opinion, but from what I have read, the majority of this forum, as a test group, would appear to be sceptical. Anyway, off back to retirement now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted February 9, 2014 Report Share Posted February 9, 2014 Just to remind you Stallard, it was you that said the majority were with you, I countered, Most first World governments now believe that man has a hand in global warning now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2014 So do flatulent cows ! :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 man has a hand in those as well, especially if he is a vetinarian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stallard12 Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 So, the politicians are with you? Considering their decisions on all other worldly matters, I wouldn't put that in the plus column. Ask one of the 'scientists' to tell you which week next August to take for sunny vacation - would you put money on him being right? I think not, but you are willing to gamble billions of Dollars / Pounds on what will happen a hundred years from now. It's all emotion, no worthwhile facts. Two points, most of the people who go into the enviromental field do it because they have already been contaminated and brainwashed. So sure they are going to support what they desparately 'hope' is true. The other point has already been made by Obs, the fact is, with weather patterns the way they have been over the past few years, they know that they are wrong, but to admit it would remove their ability to put food on their table. You can't keep changing the name every time events prove you wrong, or, like the Univ of East Anglia, tamper with the evidence. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 How to succeed as a scientist. 1) come up with a brilliant theory. 2) set up an experiment to prove that theory. 3) ignore any results that disprove the theory and label them as spurious anomalies. 4) publish the theory with the "proof" sit back and rake in the money as an authority on that paticular field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 Are you sure it's not you that's been brain washed, Stallard. If that's what you think you might as well put your head back in the sand, you will continue to do what you do , be damned to those who come after you, you will not be around for the consequences, I hope you have no kids or grand kids, be thankful that you will not be around to explain your arrogance, the future be damned!!, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 I have every faith that my grand children will develop into tomorrow’s problem solvers and no amount of personal sacrifice that I can make now will have any affect on that. I don’t blame my parents for bringing me into a world full of polluting chimneys and stinking rivers because that was the norm at that time but as a society we made things better and so will future generations. Guess that'll get me damned as well Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 The difference Bill is they did not know the effect they were having, you do Bill, and choose not to do anything, their is a difference, I would like my Grandchildren to the same animals I can in their own Enviroment not just in a zoo, and not to go hungry because the climate has changed and they can not grow enough food. We know better, but some choose to do nothing because they will not be around to suffer the consequences 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 I think we may assume that due to its geographical location , being at the mercy of Atlantic depressions & the variability of the jetstream that Britain is prone to changes in the weather whether on a daily basis or indeed as part of long term recurring cyclic change. Some of these affected areas have been wetlands since prehistoric times & have only been turned into farmland due to intensive land drainage over the millenia....that is why the soil provides the country with some of its most fertile land but the land & its drainage needs to be maintained to keep it in the condition it is now. Perhaps the decline in farming in these areas & the land being turned towards more residential use has affected the focus of whoever should be ensuring the land stays dry as the years have gone by due to lack of old fashioned farming input. Has complacency by the relevant people ,councils or government departments led to the area not being able cope with the present weather ? Has there been a historic weather related reason that building should have been avoided in some of these areas ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.