UPDATE: MET Office Scientist Tells ITV storms consistent with Climate Change:
Climate Change is a key factor in the storms that have battered parts of Britain this winter, according to the Met Office’s chief scientist, who also warned that the country should prepare itself for similar events in the future.
Dame Julia Slingo said while there was not yet “definitive proof”, “all the evidence” pointed to Climate Change, and suggested that detecting when and how storms develop would become increasingly important.
“Is it consistent with what we might expect from climate change?
“Of course, as yet there can be no definitive answer on the particular events that we have seen this winter, but if we look at the broader base of evidence then we see things that support the premise that climate change has been making a contribution.”
Dame Julia said while none of the individual storms had been exceptional, the “clustering and persistence” were extremely unusual.
It’s one thing to see man made structures swallowed by the gigantic waves and relentless jet-stream driven storms that have hit the UK this winter – but when geological features that have stood for hundreds, if not thousands of years, are erased, one has to pause.
The accelerated re-arrangement of coastlines due to climate change and sea level rise is underway, but we haven’t seen anything yet.
Hate to give traffic to the Daily Mail, but there is this:
A huge ancient formation known as Pom Pom Rock has been destroyed after constant pounding by ferocious waves on the South coast.(below)The rock off Portland, Dorset, was said to have weighed hundreds of tonnes and dates back 150 million years to the Jurassic age.
It comes as a landmark rock arch that has stood for centuries in Cornwall was reduced to rubble by towering waves and 70mph winds. Porthcothan Bay is famed for its picture-postcard beach and caves – but its massive stone archway has now collapsed into the sea.(above)
The towering outcrop once resembled a giant rocky doughnut. Now, though, it looks like someone has taken a huge bite out of it.
David Petley in AGU Blogosphere:
The recent UK storms have brought exceptionally wild coastal weather, in particular to southern and western England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This has had a profound impact on the geomorphology of the British coast. The Met Office has a nice summary of these storms. The combination of strong winds, high tides, large waves and saturated ground has greatly accelerated coastal processes, promoting failure of large rock masses. The BBC has a nice article that highlights some of these changes.
I suspect more than a few Brits are having a “You’re going to need a bigger boat..” moment.
You say, “accelerated re-arrangement of coastlines due to climate change and sea level rise is underway”
That’s untrue.
The closest GLOSS long-term tide gauge to Pom Pom Rock for which NOAA has computed a trend is Newlyn. They have a 99 year sea-level record there, and there’s been no sign of any acceleration at all in all that time:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=170-161
Storms and sea-level rise happen, and precarious “natural stone arch” rock formations inevitably fall down. It was, after all, wave action which eroded that hole in the rock, to begin with. But there’s no evidence of any influence on those processes from anthropogenic GHGs, nor of any “accelerated re-arrangement of coastlines.”
nothing to see here, move along..
The only thing one sees is the desperate running after whatever happens in the even more desperate search of “climate change” signs.
Basically this post says “coastline carved by the sea for millennia, is being carved by the sea”.
Well, nice for you to remind us about it. Next on Climatecrocks: WATER IS WET.
Yeah, I usually trust a couple of IT guys for my climate sciences. Next, can you two(daveburton and omnologos) take a look at this mole I have? IT guys are great for medical work too, I hear.
as I often say, if I had a brain tumor, I would not go see a proctologist.
No matter what my wife has told you. She lies.
You wouldn’t go to a proctologist for a brain tumor? That’s exactly who daveburton and O-Log go to for treatment of their “brain tumors”, considering where their brains are located. (Do you think O-log has any idea what we’re talking about there?)
followed by “Maurizio speaks gibberish.”
Wish omninogoes would take a long walk on a short, giant-wave-battered pier.
You could hardly describe as the rock arch as precarious and the current conditions could hardly be called a normal storm that happens all the time.
Your state denial is just flabbergasting to insane, it would be extremely dangerous if you held any position in public service.
Having lived in that area and having friends affected in flooded towns and villages I find you very offensive this time.
“A huge ancient formation known as Pom Pom Rock has been destroyed after constant pounding by ferocious waves on the South coast.
The rock off Portland, Dorset, was said to have weighed hundreds of tonnes and dates back 150 million years to the Jurassic age.
It comes as a landmark rock arch that has stood for centuries in Cornwall was reduced to rubble by towering waves and 70mph winds.
Porthcothan Bay is famed for its picture-postcard beach and caves – but its massive stone archway has now collapsed into the sea.”
please redskylite tell me what carved those caves?
Please omnologos tell me what does jurassic mean ?
Alas, “dates back 150 million years to the Jurassic age” does not mean it had been out there by the sea for 150 million years and got destroyed a few weeks ago.
But “Jolly Old England” has been there for many centuries, and some folks down through the years must have have looked at the rocks that have gotten hammered so badly only recently. Are there any records—postcards, photos, paintings—-of what those rock formations looked like 20-50-100-150 years ago?
Seems to me that if they were seemingly unchanged for a long time but suddenly collapsed RIGHT NOW that something happening RIGHT NOW is likely to blame?.
I think it was James Hutton who compared rock landmarks known in Roman times to what they looked like in his time (he died in the last decade of the 18th century) and decided attrition (erosion) happened on a timescale that dwarfed our own concept of antiquity (regarding the history of civilization); concluding that the mechanics of the earth work most profoundly in ‘deep time’. In other words, concerning the formations he observed, they seemed to match their historic descriptions.
Redskylite,
Remember Creationists think the Jurassic period was just 4,500 years ago and that Jesus rode around on the back of dinosaurs.
;D
Wait …before the latest clever commenter pops in, I am no creationist, I think the world is 5Gy old and all that. And a Jurassic rock formed in the Jurassic and not by the seaside. Its erosion depends on how long it’s been exposed to the ocean and the atmosphere, not on how old the rock is.
The British coast changes within human lifetimes and pictures of a changing British coast cannot be taken as evidence of never-seen-before phenomena, until proven otherwise.
O-log
“…I am no creationist…”
Then you agree that anyone who is a creationists hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about sciencewise and shouldn’t be standing for election?
….note, you’ve just as a consequence excluded about 70% of the Republican party, including most of the climate deniers.
daveburton said: “Storms… happen, and precarious “natural stone arch” rock formations inevitably fall down.” Except England has been settled since Roman times, and these formations have been noted for hundreds of years. Coincidence that they are crumbling now? I think not.
Dave has misread the comment. This happens frequently. As soon as he heard acceleration his lizard brain went into overdrive and he spit out the usual sea level rise is not accelerating canard in rebuttal. Unfortunately, that’s not what the statement says. It says “accelerated re-arrangement of coastlines due to climate change and sea level rise is underway”. Nowhere does it state anything about SLR acceleration. This is not a case of misquotation. This is a case of not even comprehending the text before he responded. Coastline erosion can occur due to SLR without SLR acceleration. Finally, in classic denier fashion, after numerous pictures and videos documenting wholesale seashore infrastructure on a massive scale unheard of for centuries if not millenia, he replies
“there’s no evidence of….“accelerated re-arrangement of coastlines.” Who are you going to believe? Dave or your lying eyes? Dont try to make sense of it. You can’t.
I spotted the same mistake by Dave—the non-mention of acceleration in the RATE OF SEA LEVEL RISE in the post, and the fact that it didn’t stop Dave from spouting the same old horsepucky about same.
Since I am tiredolddumbguy, thanks to smartyoungguywithmuchenergy for pointing that out to those who may have missed it. Dave is so eager to read to us from his horsepucky book that he he can’t be bothered really seeing what it is he wants to talk about.
Thanks. Not as young as I look, but my brain still works mostly well. Good night. And good luck.
It’s so fascinating (in an unpleasant sort of way) to watch db and omno squirm and wriggle to avoid the obvious. It’s obviously very important to them to say, every time a new piece of evidence arises, “but, but, but that isn’t absolute proof!!!’. Evolution deniers and vaccine deniers play the same game. The point here is that it is evidence of what’s coming, and fits together with other evidence in ways that make a very strong case that we are changing the climate. The case is one that insurance companies understand already, and the rest of the the world is coming to understand: weather extremes are on the rise, they’re increasingly damaging, and it’s time we actually did something about slowing that trend and avoiding much worse outcomes that ongoing change will bring.
as scientists point out, we will have to wait for decades to have sufficiently long time series to make the forensic connections of individual years or events to climate change, but the physics of increasing global heat are unavoidable.
You add more energy to a system, the system gets more, well, energetic.
I’ve heard that if Greenland melts profoundly that the sea level will actually drop around the UK as it’s the gravitational tug of that big ice mass against the ocean water that is causing the sea to be at whatever level it’s at presently.
In the North of England and Scotland the land is rising due to isostatic rebound due to large volume of ice that has melted since last ice age, in the South the land is sinking, which will make London and the South Coast more susceptible to flooding. I don’t fully understand the physics but my understanding at this point is that the Antarctic melt will affect the U.K more than the Arctic melt. Hope to learn more shortly through the World Bank course I’m taking (Turn down the heat).
The dearth of arguments in answering the obvious about sea-carved rugged coastlines is noticeable.
Jolly old England is full of places that are eroding away http://www.geography.learnontheinternet.co.uk/topics/holdernesscoast.html
If climate isn’t understood by IT guys then neither it is by anybody else here. Lead by example and don’t talk climate. None would dare blog or comment about brain tumors or proctology.
The DM isn’t a source of scientific facts only when so convenient.
I didn’t make no argument about “absolute proof”. It’s irrelevant – if climate change means it rains where it rained and it’s dry where it was dry and coasts erode where coasts were eroding, only a bit harder, there’s no need for “absolute proof”: everything that happens is climate change, in other words, nothing that happens is.
Typical omnologos – this article is about a stuck Arctic jet stream configuration that has been bringing record floods and high seas to Ireland and Britain. Yes coastal erosion is taking place and eventually those rocky icons would have folded, this storm has knocked out part of a Victorian built railway, countless sea front properties and monstrous and phenomenal waves, way out to sea and on sea fronts. It has been going on since January and there is no end in sight. Nobody has said it is definitely down to climate change. What use are you on here ? You just take a counter-stance to everything and propose nothing yourself.
“None would dare blog or comment about brain tumors or proctology.”
Wrong. I honestly believe that if YOU presented with symptoms of a brain tumour, the first specialist engaged would be a proctologist.
Yes, I believe that was in a link in a Crock post not too long ago. Seemed a bit hard to believe, but it is plausible—-gravity pulls “up” and “sideways” as well as “down”.
Folks should remember that gravity pulls toward mass (weighted inversely by distance-squared) whether it’s below us, above us, or alongside us. We all think of gravity as “pulling straight down” because center of the biggest mass in our little corner of the universe is right underneath us.
But a massive ice-sheet will also induce a “sideways” gravitational pull on the ocean water near it. Areas close enough an ice-sheet could actually see a reduction in local sea-level if the entire ice-sheet melts.
And the reason for that is that gravitational force decreases by the square of the distance. So if an ice sheet that it is much closer to you than most of the Earth underneath you is disappears, there can still be enough of effect on the total gravitational field to cause several feet of local sea-level change.
My bad – sorry Caerbannog. That should have been your kudos for mentioning Greenland ice sheet gravitational pull raising n Europe sea level. I’m tired. Everyone who got that or watched Mitrovica and learned, take a bow.
And sea level only increases in the center. The shores dont go up. Wonder how that happened. Oh. I know. Carolina real estate. Dave seems obsessed with one tide gauge. I think it was actually in Florida. Hey, somebody go find out where Dave’s Florida real estate is and buy it. Then we wont have to listen to his mind numbing rants anymore. I wish.
You may be thinking of Jerry Mitrovica and Scotland as per http://climatecrocks.com/2012/06/30/the-weekend-wonk-measuring-sea-level-in-detail/.
Yes, the second half of that talk is what I was thinking of. It has been either reposted by Peter or linked to by others in comments since its first appearance.
Yeah, that’s a good video….
http://youtu.be/RhdY-ZezK7w
Andrew – Thanks. Nice. Glad everyone now knows what to post when seal level comes up. 🙂 I love this video. Peter, listening? Another favorite is Brill, but he is not a CC, just a poster’s reference.
duh..which video?
No problem – credit goes to jsam – I keep favoriting this on Youtube, but then it gets lost in the hundreds of things that i’ve favorited. Glad folks still post it here and there.
Peter – my bad. It’s Dan Britt, not brill.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Yze1YAz_LYM&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DYze1YAz_LYM
See what you think.
Andrew – that fact is often a point of contention with SLR deniers who look myopically at N. European tide gauges ( local ) to refute global SLR. Jerry Mitrovica explains that in the vid. I bet you watched it. Kudos. SLR is a complex subject worthy of as much careful study and learning as climatology.
I’ve watched it 3 times or so since it’s first posting on Youtube. Pretty informative and easy to follow.
Unpleasantness is the mark of the failed commenter admitting his own total inadequacy, not to mention having misunderstood the meaning of Jurassic.
In the meanwhile the BGS tells us coastal features disappear regularly (with pictures) http://www.bgs.ac.uk/landslides/beachyHead.html
Well, seeing as you’re serially the most unpleasant sonofabitch I’ve ever seen around here…
Here’s some serious scientific work about coastal change in the Channel region using archaeological and artistic/photographic evidence (the latter for the past 500 years)
http://archmanche.hwtma.org.uk/
Feel free to browse the site, that talks climate change continuously.
They’ll soon report about a site in Western Cornwall too. Better than the latest journalistic sensational reporting.
As usual dave and omno is just taking the classic denial stance. It doesn’t really matter if there was erosion before. It doesn’t make it any less true that this this winters weather has had a major impact on the coastal areas in UK, and it doesn’t make it any less true that the configuration of the jet stream has made this possible, and it doesn’t make it any less true that the mangled jet stream is caused by Arctic warming, and it doesn’t make it any less true that the Arctic warming is caused by our CO2.
Somehow your thoughts doesn’t seem to stretch longer than your own noses. I doubt neither of you would do any good as Sherlock Holmes as your deduction skills have serious holes. And this is so plain obvious that you have to be a complete idiot not to spot it.
Why attacking posts showing obvious impacts of climate change? Why not be more constructive and spend your time learning about global warming and climate change? If you need anything explained I am sure there are plenty here that would help point to the science that explains it.
Jcl – your promise to be less confrontational didn’t last long. The obvious signs of climate change aren’t obvious despite the Dame’s phraseological contorsionisms. Her words go against all the IPCC has ever said and after all it’s weather not climate.
Enough with this post-hoc prostitution of science.
Ah, you mentioned prostitution. Is that something you’re any good at?
I am sorry for being blunt. Its very hard to sit and listen to the stance you immediately took although I am really not expecting much more now. I understand that you are mocking the “newsworthyness” of this observation Peter made, and I couldn’t disagree more. I think Peter is very correct to emphasize the clear effects of climate change, just as I think its correct to show clearly that e.g. overfishing has changed the species availability in the oceans. Why on earth are people going to bother when its not told to them plainly and repeatedly? I hear you say that this does us no favor and call it “alarmism”, but its not alarmism to tell the public the butt ugly truth now is it? Unless you are in deep denial that is.
Its very clear that a large majority of people think like you omno (and I am sure you are happy for that), turn the blind eye on ecological problems – after all human progress is about isolating humanity totally from nature and produce “food” that we can drink out of straws like 2001 A Space Oddysey right? Perhaps some people take pleasure in viewing humanity’s power over nature and how we manage to survive no matter what nature dishes out. Don’t get me wrong, humanity has done some fantastic things to stretch the lifespan of everyone (including me), but we never really stop and ask what the real cost is.
And to be perfectly clear, the external cost of CO2 pollution is really not something we handle well yet, and it doesn’t help to have a majority of people stand there blinking “I didn’t know it was this bad” when the shit hits the fan. Although personally I feel the shit has been hitting the fan for a very long time now, but at a pace where our brilliant adaptive brains just have gotten used to the bad smell.
It’s good to see you mention “the external cost of CO2 pollution is really not something we handle well yet”. I am at the point in Sanderson’s Terra Nova book where he addresses Adam Smith’s ideas and extends them into the thinking of Pigou. Simply put, he says that our little human economic house spins its wheel of production, consumption, and technological “progress” without recognizing that resources come in the front door and wastes go out the back door to the larger world, and that they are totally “unpaid for” at either end, and will be the factor that causes the S to HTF all too soon. He terms them “externalities”. It’s not just because “our brilliant adaptive brains just have gotten used to the bad smell”, but because in our hubris we have adopted an economic system that is narrow and human-centered, and values monetary “profit” above all else.
We need Pigouvian taxes on ALL the externalities to put us on the road to balance. Soon.
“Unpleasantness is the mark of the failed commenter admitting his own total inadequacy,”
“prostitution”
“sad loser”
“climate losers”
I could not agree more.
FYI – Hey anyone wondering if they are alone in their impressions of omni, take look at the comments on a completely different blog. I mean, you could almost save the trouble of commenting him by cut and pasting the comments on another blog site. I often find they say what I had in mind extremely well.
http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/the-science-museum-climate-change/
Its why I stopped engaging in discussion with him a long time ago. Its never about the science or education or advancing the discussion. He did provide a rare example of citation, however, so that is a minor improvement. But generally, he adds little to any discussion and moves it off topic, usually to a discussion of himself. He even has arguments for why he never discusses the topic. Unbelievable.
” Provide a citation. Be specific. What page, what paragraph?”
“Your resort to insult is a little sad omnologos. ”
“Once again semantics.”
“omnologos is typical of those deniers who have no idea how science works.”
“My earlier comment about the possibility of pigs flying, reminded my of a Monty Python ”
Sound familiar?
‘Enough with this post-hoc prostitution of science.’
The Order of the Wooden Spoon is on its way to you.
Well it would be once you return it since the last award.
Seriously people, it is a waste of time trying to pin this jelly to the wall, the jelly that uses shape shifting rhetoric by way of argument.
JCL pinned it in the first para’ of his February 9, 2014 at 5:48 am if you think that is prostitution of science then I have news for you for here is an example of such:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100257206/climate-science-is-for-second-raters-says-worlds-greatest-atmospheric-physicist/
and JCL does not qualify, not by a long chalk cliff (that has just collapsed into the sea).
Halftime stats on this thread (quickly done and not checked, may be off a bit)
27 comments in total
9 comments by the pair of idiots known as DB & O-Log
12 comments by nine others in response to the idiot pair
Leaving only SIX comments that focused primarily on the topic. We DO know how to waste our time, talents, and energies at times, don’t we?
(And we need to add “post-hoc prostitution of science” to the little red book of “Sayings of Omnologos” that we must hope will never be published).
I burned a bit of time responding to Burton in this thread: http://climatecrocks.com/2014/02/04/behind-blue-eyes/#comments
I knew that he wasn’t going to post any thoughtful replies to my posts, but I thought that I might be able to use him as an educational “prop” for lurkers.
Read through his responses to my posts and you will see that when it comes to scientific/analytical skills that require more than rote memorization, Burton is all talk and no substance.
The best way to evaluate someone’s scientific/technical ability is not to watch that individual regurgitate material he/she has learned via brute-force “plug and chug” rote memorization, but to see how that individual handles unfamiliar material outside his/her specialty.
Can that individual effectively “climb the learning curve” and master the unfamiliar material even at a basic “blog discussion-board” level? If that individual is totally unfamiliar with a particular subject and needs to do additional “homework” to understand the material, is he/she self-aware enough to realize that? Or honest enough to admit it?
Read through Burton’s responses to my posts at the above link, and you will see that for him, the answer to the above questions is clearly “no”.
I followed your “one-sided discussion” with Dave on the “blue eyes” thread closely, and chipped in with a couple of small asides myself. It was both fascinating and nauseating in what it revealed about Dave. You repeated and improved on some of the same arguments that have been used before to try to get Dave to see reason, but Dave listens only to those voices in his head that drive him, not to rational argument.
“Burton is all talk and no substance”, you said. I have used the cattle country euphemism that means the same thing to describe Dave—-“All Hat, No Cattle”
Re: the rest of your comment that ends with “Read through Burton’s responses to my posts at the above link, and you will see that for him, the answer to the above questions is clearly “no”.
Yes, and you are not the only one to make and prove those points (or rather, given Dave the opportunity to prove it to us himself). Many others have. I myself am still waiting for him to explain for us such things as:
1) the relationship between density, mass, and volume
2) why he measures volume in meters
3) why liquids expand “up” but not “sideways” as they heat up
4) what he meant by “sloshing” in the interior of the earth
As you say, his comments (and his non-responses) are due to his lazy “looking up” and incomplete “learning” from “Physics for Dummies” and “Geoscience for Dummies”.
As for self-awareness and honesty, Dave will need to go to his dictionary and study it for days to understand what they mean. He shows little evidence of that so far.
Yep — I posted that link in this thread because I want as many people as possible to see Burton in his full glory.
Lurkers, definitely do check out: http://climatecrocks.com/2014/02/04/behind-blue-eyes/#comments
That thread will tell you all you need to know….
You can add to that why sea level only rises in the middle of the ocean. Of course the theory is whack, but even the lemma are cuckoo. db idea depends on center ocean heating, not shores. Unproven. Piles of bs. Its not one little error. Its mountains. Forget about shoveling it. Just empty the septic truck and walk away.
Yup. You see this on SkS also. People come on with their own opinions and a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing and you are off to the races. Without the benefit of an open mind to inform him, he is unable to assimilate a wider range of knowledge and falls victim to self serving mentality and error. It prevents him from learning. Most of all, its not a discussion. Its not a shared experience. Science is about standing on the shoulders of those that came before us and collaboration and building. Denierdom is about standing in a corner and mumbling to yourself.
Hi smartguy – touche. Right on target. Omni just loves latin. Makes it sound like he knows something. His witticism is not limited to this blog site. Makes you wonder. Doesnt look old enough to be retired. With that many comments on so many websites, it looks like he is a paid denier troll. Only purpose is to derail and obfuscate.
http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/the-science-museum-climate-change/
I just looked up the Latin translation for “unbelievable stupidity”, and it’s “incredibilem stupiditatem”.
Pretty close to both modern English and Maurizio’s native tongue, and since he loves his Latin, perhaps we should append an “IS” to his handle? Omnologos IS—-sort of a question that answers itself—-LOL.
I can see the trolls in this blog and it’s you guys inexorably drawn to talk about something else than the blog’s topic. Unless I missed Peter’s discussion on my Latin prowess (alas just a consequence of speaking English with Italian as mother tongue).
What next, will you include links to unrelated discussions by me on some other blog …oops..you’ve already done it. Keep the free comedy up.
Says Maurizio—-“What next, will you include links to unrelated discussions by me on some other blog …oops..you’ve already done it. Keep the free comedy up”.
Ooops! Maurizio’s comment is in fact illustrative of his sometimes “difficulties with English”, although we have all pointed out to him it’s a bit more than that.
May I suggest that we reword this sentence to better state the facts? It should say “we will next point out his discussions on some other blogs that are unrelated to the topics under discussion there, just as they are on Crock”.
Yes, we have done that a number of times, and few of us find it funny. It’s quite sad, actually, that Maurizio is so “IS” (Latin or English) that he can’t see that.