Climate Change Gardening Website

Last post 11-01-2013 11:02 AM by Pesty. 17 replies.

• 06/07/2012 04:16 PM
  loulou Location: glasgow Joined on: 22 Oct 2008 Posts: 25	Reply | Contact I've just been reading this blog about climate change gardening, some really interesting articles: http://www.myclimatechangegarden.com/blog/

• 06/07/2012 08:19 PM	In reply to
  kaydee Location: Perthshire Joined on: 15 Feb 2009 Posts: 257	Reply | Contact Yes, it is interesting - Thank you. The item on the lengthening growing season has huge implications. Best K

• 07/07/2012 08:32 PM	In reply to
  courierdude Location: cambs/suffolk border Joined on: 14 Feb 2012 Posts: 216	Reply | Contact i just read the blog on that site by some guy who sells exotics..good luck with that as we enter the little ice age! ) energy follows thought

• 24/12/2012 12:40 PM

  In reply to

  jerry3571 Location: cannondale28 Joined on: 21 Oct 2012 Posts: 11

  Reply | Contact  I think in the UK we got a lot of Tree Pathogens flying about and I'm starting to think that the extreme wet and dry spells may be weakening the native (some non native) trees and making them vulnerable to attack. I guess also these conditions would also effect insects which create good soil structure, such as worms. It all adds up to a tricky scenario. I think the UK's Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, is a Climate Change sceptic; just the man for the job. If you've got a fire then he's the man who will just walk away from it. It's the "can't do" attitude which he brings to the fore. I have always said with Global Warming; we will perish by a thousand cuts and this is the man who will hasten our downfall. It's the I'm all right Jack, stuff you attitude.       Some Muppet on the TV said "the Climate hasn't warmed in 10 years" but if they manage to read beyond the headlines then they'd know there's a temporary stalling and then it'll be back with another big push up in temperatures. This is something to do with the sun's cycle and also the smog generated by India and China which is shading the sun's rays over vast areas of Asia. China is taking steps to clean up the air as the population is demanding cleaner air. This cleaner air will only increase the suns rays getting to the earth's surface creating more warming. All looks like it's going to get worse. Seems a shame we can't get Scientists run the World's Resources as Politicians have no qualifications in intelligence which is how we'll get out of this fix.

• 27/12/2012 01:16 AM

  In reply to

  courierdude Location: cambs/suffolk border Joined on: 14 Feb 2012 Posts: 216

  Reply | Contact oh dear..so erm..you dont think the ash die off is anything to do with dutch grown whips that have been exported with a virus or bacterial infection? same with buxus imports too maybe...? and you think horse chestnuts dying has nothing to do with disease spread from non native exotic species that fair-not-so-well in this(wrong) climate..? but you think its glowball smarming of course? hmmmmm... clean air-yes. climate change-inevitable. man holding back the fate of the universe by robbing from the average people-not a chance. ..but good luck with that ...and all that.. energy follows thought

• 29/12/2012 09:56 AM

  In reply to

  jerry3571 Location: cannondale28 Joined on: 21 Oct 2012 Posts: 11

  Reply | Contact  http://mygarden.rhs.org.uk/forums/t/34083.aspx  I put a thread up about Ash Dieback. The Radio 4 programme is quite good too. I think any gardener would know that if you stress plants, trees and shrubs with excess conditions of dryness, wetness then this will increase the weakening any plants to attack from pest and disease. Some pathogens have been around for many decades but now seem to be becoming common place. Transportation of plants, trees etc is another big hole which has needed plugging for some time but with free movement of goods across the EU, this will only get worse until action is taken. This adds fuel to the fire.  You could also add about the chemicals which were used to keep these pathogens in check which are now on the banned list so methods of control have been compromised. The UK has now seen it's wettest year on record in England where in the first 3 months we had little or no rain (records go back to 1659).There is millions of £s going in to research on why the weather going from drought to flood. If the conditions were one or the other then some plants would thrive and others not but with having both situations is a disaster. If you think Climate Change is over rated then talk to someone who works outside or a Farmer; they will tell you different by experience. Jerry

• 29/12/2012 04:00 PM	In reply to
  courierdude Location: cambs/suffolk border Joined on: 14 Feb 2012 Posts: 216	Reply | Contact maybe an update of our ageing water distribution and drainage systems might alleviate some of this mess. not that a penny has been spent on it in the last 30 years. ask water companies how much they enjoy their profits each year. ive worked outside for 25 years snd yes i live on a farm so i'll ask myself thanks.. energy follows thought

• 30/12/2012 10:06 AM

  In reply to

  jerry3571 Location: cannondale28 Joined on: 21 Oct 2012 Posts: 11

  Reply | Contact  I think if it stopped raining then they could have a look. If this is the wettest year in England with the first third of the year being in drought conditions then somethings up. I go on the Growing on the Edge website where contributors are from around the world and seeing last year's cold snap in the US was amazing where in desert regions where there were 30-40 foot dead Palm trees where a prolonged cold wind turned the area from desert in to iced tundra. Palms of 40-50 years years old or more were totally frosted. In many other places there has been extreme of hot, cold, wet and dry. It would be less damaging if the climate was doing one thing but these extremes are catastrophic. If this is the beginning, then the next 50 years is going to be very intersting. I work outside so it hits me in the pocket. Haven't enjoyed the last 8 months really.    Jerry

• 08/01/2013 07:23 AM

  In reply to

  headfullofbees Location: Cheadle Hulme Joined on: 13 Feb 2006 Posts: 316

  Reply | Contact http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19995084 UK experiences 'weirdest' weather The UK has experienced its "weirdest" weather on record in the past few months, scientists say. The driest spring for over a century gave way to the wettest recorded April to June in a dramatic turnaround never documented before. The scientists said there was no evidence that the weather changes were a result of Man-made climate change ... ... Sarah Jackson from the Met Office confirmed that it did not discern any pattern that suggested Man-made climate change was at play in UK rainfall - although if temperatures rise as projected in future, that would lead to warmer air being able to carry more moisture to fall as rain. She said that this year's conditions were partly caused by a move to a negative phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation which would be likely to lead to more frequent cold, drier winters - like the 1960s - and also wetter summers for 10-20 years. "Longer term we will see a trend to drier summers but superimposed on that we will always see natural variability," she said. __________________________________________________________________________________ The desperation with which those who proselytise about Anthropogenic Global Warming attempt to attribute every variation in our weather to climate change, is a major weakness in their argument. It's obvious that they fear that if other causes can be blamed for some of our weather, the public may just question the source of all variation. They haven't spent a decade brainwashing the public for that to happen; it's not what they want at all.

• 08/01/2013 07:53 AM

  In reply to

  Pesty Location: At a desk Joined on: 24 Nov 2005 Posts: 324

  Reply | Contact As usual the met office gives a good balanced view of the real situation. But I don't see any contradiction with many of the climate change senarios - the final quote you give is one of the best summaries of one of these scenarios I have seen.   But I still wish to know who are 'they'? And you and I are part of the public it is  obvious that you are not 'brainwashed' (I hope) nor are many other members of the forum. 'Trying is the first step to failure' H.J.Simpson

• 08/01/2013 02:53 PM	In reply to
  headfullofbees Location: Cheadle Hulme Joined on: 13 Feb 2006 Posts: 316	Reply | Contact I thought it was clear: those who proselytise about Anthropogenic Global Warming

• 08/01/2013 03:26 PM

  In reply to

  Pesty Location: At a desk Joined on: 24 Nov 2005 Posts: 324

  Reply | Contact So in everyday English those who preach about man made global warming? I think the language could be a bit clearer. So I will rephrase they question who are “those who proselytise about Anthropogenic Global Warming?” Please be specific it will help your arguments. You do realise that the met office clearly follows the hypothesis that much of the current climate change is man-made – so may be a good example in an answer to the question I ask above.    'Trying is the first step to failure' H.J.Simpson

• 08/01/2013 05:49 PM

  In reply to

  headfullofbees Location: Cheadle Hulme Joined on: 13 Feb 2006 Posts: 316

  Reply | Contact The Met Office does indeed follow that agenda; not surprising, since it's a govt. owned (MoD) body. So when its employees refuse to be led by the nose by the likes of Harribin, who really is one of the worst, and despite his obviously repeated efforts to drive this onto an AGW agenda, tell it like it is, you can be absolutely certain that it's not anthropogenetic. The govt. has, for a number of reasons, plenty of axe to grind against the use of carbon-based fuels, ranging from the previous "militancy" of mineworkers, huge holes in revenues, because of the collapse in duty receipts, especially on cigarettes, but also on alcohol, a wish to bolster the nuclear energy industry, the creation of climate-change business, and a whole new branch of science, and those who feed off it, with huge numbers of scientists reliant on the belief in AGW for their jobs, and the message going out that the more hysterical their scare-mongering models, the better their chances of future research grants. TBC...

• 09/01/2013 08:18 AM

  In reply to

  Pesty Location: At a desk Joined on: 24 Nov 2005 Posts: 324

  Reply | Contact OK you need to get some things right if your arguments are to have any weight– Met office is part funded/owned by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills – but gets a good proportion of its money from commercial operations – this admittedly includes providing forecasts for the MOD around the work, but also the NHS. It was once part of the MOD but this was a long time ago. It is unwise to use belief when referring to science – Good (emphasis on the good here) science is a methodology that tests hypotheses and is evidence based, you cannot believe in a method - you can only follow it or not. Of course the evidence is not always clear and some ‘scientists’ end up believing rather than following the evidence. Belief is more closely linked to faith. So in this vein to follow up your arguments (which to me currently appear a little on the conspiracy theory side) – you need to provide/find evidence that current (by current I mean since the beginnings of the industrial revolution circa 300 years ago) trends in climate change are not man made (I not keen on using Anthropogenic as although the best word for learned works it may not be the best in general conversation).  This means finding evidence that the rise in carbon dioxide (and other climate change gasses) levels are not due to man or that these gases are not responsible for climate change.     Economic arguments and axes to grind – are you saying that the UK political parties (and governments around the world) are in collusion against coal and other fossil fuels? And you missed one of the biggest drops in duty receipts – the oil and gas running out in the North sea (or is it running out… is this just something we are being told so that we can subsidise nuclear). In a similar vein do you not find it strange that Fracking (a controversial method of extracting natural fossil fuel gas from shale) has been approved? The latest models from the met office are anything but scaremongering – they downgrade the expected temperature increases over the next decade or so. This is something that happens in science the hypotheses and predictions change as the evidence comes in.   'Trying is the first step to failure' H.J.Simpson

• 11/01/2013 07:39 AM

  In reply to

  headfullofbees Location: Cheadle Hulme Joined on: 13 Feb 2006 Posts: 316

  Reply | Contact No I don't have to prove anything. If people want to suggest that this cycle of climate change is anything other than natural, it is incumbent upon them to prove it, and no amount of agenda-driven models will do that. Here's another glaring hole in the argument for you: AGWers state that the anthropogenic-CO2 emissions will allow the atmosphere to carry more water vapour, which will both heat the planet and fall as rain. Well WHICH??? If the atmosphere holds the water vapour, it won't be falling as rain; if it releases the water vapour as rain, it won't be in the atmosphere any more, and will, in fact, have a cooling effect. MET Office is indeed no longer part of the MoD and has not been for 18 months, not the "long time ago" you suggest: Following the First World War, the Met Office became part of the Air Ministry in 1919, the weather observed from the top of Adastral House (where the Air Ministry was based) giving rise to the phrase "The weather on the Air Ministry roof". As a result of the need for accurate weather information for aviation, the Met Office located many of its observation and data collection points on RAF airfields, and this accounts for the large number of military airfields mentioned in weather reports even today. In 1936 the Met Office split with services to the Royal Navy being provided by its own forecasting services. It became an executive agency of the Ministry of Defence in April 1990, a quasi-governmental role, being required to act commercially. Following a machinery of government change, the Met Office became part of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on 18 July 2011.[1] A branch of the Met Office known as the Mobile Met Unit (MMU) accompany forward units in times of conflict advising the armed forces of the prevailing conditions for battle, particularly the RAF. Are you claiming that missing this "Machinery of Government" alteration has any bearing on the fundamental argument, or are you desperately nit-picking in order to find any irrelevant error? When you state that the Met Office "gets a good proportion of its money from commercial operations" the implication is that this is funding. THAT IS NOT THE CASE, THE MONEY COMES FROM SALES, as was the case during its attachment to the MoD. The point was that the Met Office is a govt body, and that hasn't changed. Further, how can anyone just accept the predictions we are being fed by AGWers, when their models cannot accurately explain the past? The Met Office's most "highly regarded model", called HadCM3 (from 1999) is still embroiled in this experiment to try to find the causes of the PREVIOUS 1200 years' climate!!! http://climateprediction.net/content/millennium-experiment-famous It begins, and I quote: "We'd like to understand the climate changes since 800 AD (i.e., for just over a millennium). In addition to the post-industrial era, this period includes so-called Medieval Warm Period (~900-1300 AD) and Little Ice Age (~1300-1900AD) (see e.g. Medieval Warm Period on wikipedia). The anomalously warm and cold periods are probably caused by the variation of volcanic & solar activities, land use changes and perhaps the change of oceanic circulation pattern, but the contribution of each component is not well understood. In addition to satisfy the scientific and historical curiosity, this experiment is driven by the urgent need to refine the climate predictions. The climate models have so far been evolved to simulate the recent climate. The last "millennium" can provide an extra constraint to refine the models further. However, both the driving force and the climate reconstructions over the pre-industrial era are based on the analysis of the natural archives of climate sensitive quantities, such as the growth of trees and seashells, and the changes of chemical, biological, and isotopic compositions in lake sediments and ice core samples. These "proxy" data are truly useful only when we fully explore the enormous range of the combined uncertainty. To claim certainty about the future without even being able to accurately explain all the driving forces of the past, is charlatanism writ large." They can't get their models to fit the past, yet they're so certain that they predict the future