Breaking news

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Eh? You can grow grapes outdoors in several parts of the UK. But perhaps not the best choice of crop with transport being so quick/easy now. Which wasn't the case in Roman times.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

So Carlisle is permanently flooded then?

Or did you actually have a sensible point to make?

[The Natural Philosopher]

You think I am psychic? Are you on Brazil?

Unlike you, I dont stalk people online to discover where they live.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I thought you knew basic statistics. I stand corrected.

[charles]

There are several commercial vineyards in the UK, though most seem to be south of the Thames.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Or East Anglia

[whisky-dave]

or Scotland, but I'm afraid they might deep fry the grapes.

[Martin Brown]

Edith Sitwells estate at Renishaw Hall used to be the most northerly until a few years ago:

Ryedale near York is still claiming to be the most northerly commercial vineyard:

There are now several other vineyards further north at Helmsley and environs and I think the most northerly is presently somewhere near Carnforth. Although that may also have changed...

The other crucial point is that these are wineries making commercial products that will stand comparison with quality wines.

Not some gut rot for homesick Centurions to drown their sorrows in.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well exactly, that's what beer was invented for..

[Jonno]

Dave Plowman (News) scribbled

Very unlikely.

[bert]

Mostly those used in solar panels and cfl light bulbs.

[Dave Liquorice]

No, if you notice I did put "100 year" in quotes and an asterix to link to a footnote that I forgot to write that would have said that I do know that the "100 year flood" doesn't mean that you'll only get one in any 100 year period.

Saw somewhere today that it meant 1 in 100 chance per year to get such an event but with 365 days in a year doen't that imply 3 to 4 such events/year?

[bert]

In article , Jonno writes

It did that when I moved to Cheshire Nov 68 or was it 69?

[bert]

In article , Jonno writes

The question of normal weather referred to raining every day for a month not to 14 inches of rain in two days.

[Dave Liquorice]

Not so much Carlisle as the Eden catchment

normal

It's been pretty wet up here, the "normal places that flood" where flooded about two weeks ago. More rain since making the ground saturated and behave like a sponge full of water not a dry one.

Less than 48 hours, nearer 36, it's that short duration that is the problem. 14" of rain over seven days wouldn't get the rivers out of their normal range. Might be getting a bit full but not flooding apart from perhaps Keswick Campsite and Rickerby Park that flood if you flush the loo too often...

[Dave Liquorice]

normal

I beg to differ as someone who goes to Carlisle fairly often and lives only 30 miles away.

[Bob]

There have been well-documented divergences between UAH and RSS in recent years. Unlike most graphs that so-called skeptics show, that graph is actually showing the trend over a longer period and hardly bolsters the skeptic claims of no warming. The usual tactic is to cherry pick 1998 as a starting point which, as we all (should) know, is a highly dubious practice. (This is effectively what TNP is doing verbally when he says that there has been no warming for 18 years or whatever it is.) Furthermore, that graph only goes up to 2010.

If one is inclined to focus on short intervals, UAH was showing cooler temperatures up to about 2010 and was the 'preferred' data set for skeptics. Since then UAH has started overtaking RSS. Therefore if you are inclined to cherry pick data you are probably better off with RSS to show a flatter trend over the whole period.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next year or so as El Ninos tend to get emphasised in satellite records (hence the very high peak in 1998).

Anyway, anyone who complains about adjustments to, and processing of, surface temperature data hasn't got a leg to stand on if in the next breath they are going to present satellite records as some sort of gold standard. The amount of correction, manipulation and processing is orders of magnitude greater than for surface temperatures. And at the end of the day, the output is the troposphere temperature which, as you might be aware, isn't where most of us live.

[Bob]

How does that work then?

That's the problem with trying to discuss anything with people like you. You know you are always going to reach a point where they pull out the giant conspiracy card.

Are you really so blind to your own approach? I'm only responding in kind.

OK, so where is the science that it will be mostly positive? As I said, I am aware of some economic arguments from the likes of Tol, and as I said, even he says, based on his own (disputed) analysis, that "The initial impacts of climate change may well be positive. In the long run, the negative impacts dominate the positive ones."

[The Natural Philosopher]

And nothing but p[roof by assertion to back it up.,

You may think science is a matter of faith, belief and opinion, but reality will turn and bite your balls every time

[harry]

Are you so brain dead you can't Google for yourself?