Atlantic Ocean circulation nearing ‘devastating’ tipping point

“I just don't understand why some people are so opposed to the idea of global warming. They seem to think because the recent floods have not affect the whole country GW does not exist. They are ignoring the fact that the ground is waterlogged and there are still large puddles or small lakes on many fields.”

Dinahmo, have you always been a pessimist, we have February Filldyke fields are at capacity, reservoirs are full, we have had no prolonged cold spell it’s looking good for the coming year. There are puddles in fields but crops are looking pretty good at present, farmers are looking forward to a dryish March and a warm April.

I just don't understand why some people are so opposed to the idea of global warming. They seem to think because the recent floods have not affect the whole country GW does not exist. They are ignoring the fact that the ground is waterlogged and there are still large puddles or small lakes on many fields.

There is evidence the world over of climate change and yet the possibility that it is going to cause problems in the near future is denied. The rate of coastal erosion in East Anglia is faster than anticipated with more homes now much closer to the cliff edge than were originally thought to be in danger.

In the Middle Ages Blythburgh near the Suffolk coast was once one of the richest towns in the country because of its port. Dunwich, another thriving town, disappeared under the waves many years ago. Blythburgh is now famous for its church with 12 carved and decorated angels along the central roof beam. It is rumoured that when there is a storm the church bells can be heard from under the sea at Dunwich. The deniers will no doubt use these as examples that coastal erosion has always happened. Which is true but much faster now.

SOME scientists analyse their results like that. That is why peer-reviewed studies, (where experienced fellow scientists read ALL the report, including the raw data and the statistical methods employed to reach conclusions, and point out the weak spots in the design, execution and write-up), are more reliable than the mentions by non-scientist journalists who skip over the methods, just read the conclusion and take the "workings" for granted.

Remember when maths exams contained instructions to "show your workings"? You couldn't get away with guessing the answer, or copying it from a friend who had paid attention in class. Teacher could tell whether you really knew what you were doing, or were flying a kite. Peer reviews are like teacher.

I understand that scientists choose the data points that suit their agenda.
You seem to think that it’s all honest and bias free, everything around climate change is monetarised these days, the more outrageous the prediction the more attention it gets.

Katie59

GrannyGravy13

Katie59 do you actually think climate change and it’s consequences are made up?

It the extreme predictions of impending doom that seem to be supported on Gransnet that I disagree with.

I also think that the UK has gone too far in its pursuit of zero carbon. All it’s done is increase imports from nations with few goals on climate change, that is part of the reason that the UK economy is so fragile.

You do understand the science behind modelling don’t you?

GrannyGravy13

Katie59 do you actually think climate change and it’s consequences are made up?

It the extreme predictions of impending doom that seem to be supported on Gransnet that I disagree with.

I also think that the UK has gone too far in its pursuit of zero carbon. All it’s done is increase imports from nations with few goals on climate change, that is part of the reason that the UK economy is so fragile.

Katie59

GrannyGravy13

My first post regarding paddy fields in the South West was tongue in cheek.

Now having done some reading it is not beyond the realms of possibility, as long as the fields are sufficiently flooded the other deal breaker is the crop needs for the temperature to be above 15° C for approximately 3 months.

With advances in technology and the dreaded poly tunnels I cannot see any reason not to grow rice in the U.K. if the climate changes predicted materialise.

So all these climate prediction are “tongue in cheek and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

That I do agree with

Whose tongue-in-cheek climate predictions are you talking about, Katie? Someone posting what was obviously a humorous aside, lightening the discussion of the possibility of far-reaching modifications to the weather/climate patterns, and their potential side effects, with a mental image of a workforce of matronly retirees in sunny Bournemouth, wearing ccccoolie hats and cotton trousers, knee-deep in muddy water planting rice shoots? Or people who have studied climate and weather patterns for a lifetime, who have experience interpreting data going back thousands of years recorded by humans, and millions of years recorded in core drills and in the rocks under our feet?

Katie59

GrannyGravy13

My first post regarding paddy fields in the South West was tongue in cheek.

Now having done some reading it is not beyond the realms of possibility, as long as the fields are sufficiently flooded the other deal breaker is the crop needs for the temperature to be above 15° C for approximately 3 months.

With advances in technology and the dreaded poly tunnels I cannot see any reason not to grow rice in the U.K. if the climate changes predicted materialise.

So all these climate prediction are “tongue in cheek and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

That I do agree with

Of course, Katie59.

A non scientist poster on a message forum making a single jokey prediction (which she subsequently discovered wasn't actually very far fetched) is proof that science based predictions of the effects of climate change shouldn't be taken seriously.

Katie59 do you actually think climate change and it’s consequences are made up?

GrannyGravy13

My first post regarding paddy fields in the South West was tongue in cheek.

Now having done some reading it is not beyond the realms of possibility, as long as the fields are sufficiently flooded the other deal breaker is the crop needs for the temperature to be above 15° C for approximately 3 months.

With advances in technology and the dreaded poly tunnels I cannot see any reason not to grow rice in the U.K. if the climate changes predicted materialise.

So all these climate prediction are “tongue in cheek and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

That I do agree with

GrannyGravy13

^I agree there well maybe more rainfall in the future, having monsoon to grow rice is not likely at this latitude^

Sorry Katie59 the attached shows that rice is grown at latitudes further north than the U.K.

It’s not clever calling posters unhinged by the way.

I’m pretty sure they don’t grow rice in Siberia or Alaska although in southern US or Russia with massive irrigation is is possible I’m sure.

My first post regarding paddy fields in the South West was tongue in cheek.

Now having done some reading it is not beyond the realms of possibility, as long as the fields are sufficiently flooded the other deal breaker is the crop needs for the temperature to be above 15° C for approximately 3 months.

With advances in technology and the dreaded poly tunnels I cannot see any reason not to grow rice in the U.K. if the climate changes predicted materialise.

Thanks, Elegran I was a bit startled by your post

I agree there well maybe more rainfall in the future, having monsoon to grow rice is not likely at this latitude

Sorry Katie59 the attached shows that rice is grown at latitudes further north than the U.K.

It’s not clever calling posters unhinged by the way.

It isn't just flooding, Avalon, it's about excessive rainfall and permanently waterlogged soil which has an effect on our food production.

I live in a fairly rural area. We haven't had any large scale'flooding', affecting towns and villages as it has in other areas, but just driving around I can see mini 'lakes' in fields which are constantly being replenished and which will be affecting farming practices.

It was aimed at Katie59, not you, Maizie. Perhaps I should have made that clearer. I was well aware that the first mentions of rice by you and GG13 were lighthearted, but Katie59 picked up on them to continue about the madness of taking climate change predictions seriously.

I and some others picked up on the same mention to have a look at the possibilities of growing rice - even without climate change, some farmers might find that a useful addition to their crops. I found the differences between different varieties of rice were interesting. I did wonder whether it was a good idea to have free-range ducks so close to the trial rice paddy, given that ducks are not house-trained.

The problem is it’s worse case scenarios based on computer modelling so there is no absolute. Everything gets blamed on climate change even when it’s other factors. For example the flooding on the Somerset Levels was caused by non maintenance of the rynnes and pumping stations - in Holland the Polders were claimed from the sea and the Dutch make sure it stays that way, just as the monks at Glastonbury did. We seem to have a lot of climate alarmism. Lots of mights and ifs. Plain fact is there are too many of us.

Elegran

Oh, you were serious all right. You were arguing against rhe mere possibility of climate change seriously affecting anyone, and casting serious doubts on the sanity of anyone who thought it remotely possible that the effects could ever be so extreme as to allow rice to grow in the UK.

It was only when you were challenged on that, and it was shown that people had suceeded in getting rice to grow here (not exactly in quantities likely to feed a hungry population, but growing healthy plants that seemed to be producing a crop) that you changed your tune and claimed it was - what? - a joke? - a chance to poke fun at someone else's serious conclusions?

As Deedaa says, if the climate DOES change that much, whether we can or can't plant rice instead of potatoes will be the least of our worries, but dismissing that as "unhinged" is a pointer to your attitude to more serious research.

Hang on, Elegran, if that was addressed to me, I'm not the baddie here. The line about paddy fields across the South West was GG13', not mine. Mine was just a light hearted response. Light hearted is still allowed, isn't it?

You seem to have failed to have noticed that the person who isn't taking climate change seriously is our resident farming expert, Katie59, who thinks that the excessive rainfall and flooding we've experienced over the past few years (all those supposed once in 50 or 100 year flooding events that are happening with depressing regularity) are just part of a normal climate cycle, and that the idea of rice cultivation in the UK is ' unhinged'.

I'm not the one with my head buried in the sand (which ostriches *don't do, before anyone points out the unscientific nature of the meme)

While on the possible effects on agriculture of climate change, it is worth remembering that potatoes rot in the ground when it is too waterlogged. That is what happened in Ireland in the 1840s, when a few very wet years caused repeated failures of the potato crops. They failed across on the mainland too. That decade is known to historians as "the hungry forties" and contributed to the growth of the cities, when farmers had to sell their farms for almost nothing to pay their debts and destitute farm-workers moved away from the countryside to look for work.

That was only a few bad years of weather. We need to be prepared for surviving decades or centuries of a climate that doesn't suit our customary crops. It may not happen - but if it is going to, we need to have made the plans well in advance and found out just what will grow here under the worst scenario, and how best to cultivate it. Relying on importing food from other areas, where they could be having problems growing enough for themselves, may not be an option!

The Met Office that is🙄

Wwm2. My husband has read extensively on the subject of global warming and it’s quicker to ask him. Not credible source of information.

ronib

Is the Met Office serious is the real question? Not only have they published a paper as cited by MaizieD on climate change and flooding but there’s another one on global warming and drought. Take your pick. The Met Office should stick to forecasting weather over the next week or so which it does with varying degrees of accuracy.

Both are true - you need to do a bit more reading.

Is the Met Office serious is the real question? Not only have they published a paper as cited by MaizieD on climate change and flooding but there’s another one on global warming and drought. Take your pick. The Met Office should stick to forecasting weather over the next week or so which it does with varying degrees of accuracy.

Oh, you were serious all right. You were arguing against rhe mere possibility of climate change seriously affecting anyone, and casting serious doubts on the sanity of anyone who thought it remotely possible that the effects could ever be so extreme as to allow rice to grow in the UK.

It was only when you were challenged on that, and it was shown that people had suceeded in getting rice to grow here (not exactly in quantities likely to feed a hungry population, but growing healthy plants that seemed to be producing a crop) that you changed your tune and claimed it was - what? - a joke? - a chance to poke fun at someone else's serious conclusions?

As Deedaa says, if the climate DOES change that much, whether we can or can't plant rice instead of potatoes will be the least of our worries, but dismissing that as "unhinged" is a pointer to your attitude to more serious research.

OMG. You didn't think I was serious, did you?😂

Others on gransnet did, judging by other comments.