Wednesday, 30 December 2015

Climate v. Weather – Tim Veater

Climate v. Weather – Tim Veater.

Most people will recognise the distinction between climate and weather. The
former is “the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a
long period.” The latter is “the state of the atmosphere at a particular place
and time as regards heat, cloudiness, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc”

In this regard the former is likely to be more consistent than the latter and
tends to be roughly categorised on the basis of global location in relation to
land and sea mass, along lines first suggested by German climatologist Rudolf
Geiger in 1884. Five categories of climate – Tropical/megathermal,
Dry (arid and semiarid),
Temperate/mesothermal, Continental/microthermal
Polar and Alpine – remain pretty much accepted by meteorologists.

Those who assiduously follow Paul Simons’ weather column in the Times, will know
that extreme weather is not a new phenomenon and that gales, lightening strikes,
heavy rain, floods, high and low temperatures and other extreme weather
conditions have been a feature of this island since records began. Indeed over
centuries significant changes in climate have also occurred, with mini-ice ages
thrown into the mix.

We are told that the average world temperature is rising as a function of total
CO2. This is hotly debated by some although it is surely beyond dispute that the
impact of the human race on the global environment, has never been greater in
the whole of the earth’s long history. In the scheme of things, how this
compares with natural processes such as forest fires or eruptions of volcanoes
is a moot point, and small consolation on the Somerset Levels or elsewhere.

Despite the dispute over the extent and nature of the human contribution to
climate change and extreme weather conditions as currently being experienced
around the world, there is little doubt that given these conditions, human
activity can and does play a part in either exacerbating or mitigating their
consequences. In the attached article by George Monbiot, he makes the case for
upland trees to reduce water run-off down stream. Few would argue with his
reasoning. Another aspect much discussed but little implemented, is the effect
of development, particularly in flood plains. Only a few miles from me another
application by a national retail chain has been submitted for just such, with
every chance of approval by a short-sighted and weakened planning process.
Government actually encourages it.

The failure to maintain dykes, drains, hedges and ditches has also been referred
to. There is no doubt that every surfaced road, every commercial and housing
development, results in more and immediate run-off. If the development is in the
flood plain there is a two-fold effect of not only rendering it vulnerable to
flooding but also removing one of natures ways of soaking up excess water.

However there has also been another subtle and hardly recognised cause, that has
largely gone unchallenged and uncontrolled by government, namely the economic,
social and technological changes that have been introduced to British farming
and land management. This has resulted in disastrous consequences for wild-life
and ecology generally. Such has been the power of the farming lobby and the
influence of the Common Agricultural Policy, traditional farming and its
principles of land husbandry has been decimated. It has become the province, a
sub-division even, of the oil industry and other multi-nationals, directly and

There is fuel for the vast fleet of machinery and processes. There is oil
derived fertilizers and pesticides on which modern agriculture now depends. The
very seeds are becoming private property. We know the story. No part of the
country is unaffected. Hedges removed, nature sprayed to death, soil quality
ignored and down graded, small independent farmers going out of business in
droves, epidemic disease in farm animals. Yet government has refused to address
the the underlying, fundamental issues in the face of corporate pressures.

So getting back to flooding, I am surrounded by ploughed fields where every time
it rains, soil-laden water rushes down lanes and across fields into streams. I
have been here for over thirty years so I can compare and state with certainty
the run-off has never been so bad, the floods so deep. This is not a local
isolated incident. It is replicated right across the country indeed the
“developed” world!

I can also state that in all that time, I do not know of one tree planted by a
farmer or agricultural company. If any trees do attempt to grow in hedges, they
are by and large, chopped down mercilessly by mechanical “trimmers”. Trees I
suppose, are seen as competitors for sunshine and water, and as a result large
swathes of the country have been turned into sterilized prairies.

Prince Charles has been derided for years on his views on nature and
agriculture. (He is apparently writing a book on the subject as we speak) I am
not so sure there are so many laughing at him now. A flooded house is a sure way
of concentrating the mind of the occupier, and hopefully of the government. What
is needed is not warm words but action, action along the lines of a fundamental
rethink of our approach to nature. It could do worse than start by requiring all
owners of land over a certain acreage, to plant a given proportion of broad-leaf
trees, every year, into the foreseeable future. END.
There are also those that point to active experimental interference with natural weather systems by seeding clouds with CO2, aluminium particles and other physical methods including radio waves, laser beams and such - the so called 'HAARP' standing for 'High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program' - as a possible explanation for extreme weather.
To the uninitiated or uninformed, this may appear more like science fiction than fact, but sadly this is not the case. The science and experimentation is all too real. The only outstanding question is what precisely is being done, it being shrouded in secrecy, and whether it has had practical weather implications?
In fact, the research and literature dates back to the second world war, which had been a major driver of it, the purpose being to use natural systems to provide military advantage. A similar objective propels the experimentation today. We are all aware how important weather was to the D-Day Landings and many other confrontations in history. 
The theoretical prize therefore is the ability to control weather in battlefield conditions or even to be able to use it as a weapon itself but these are not the only objectives of the research that takes in control of the ionosphere, cable-free transfer of energy and even the mental control of populations! 
Certainly experiments were carried out off the coast of New Zealand in the 1940's to test the possibility of using under-water explosions to effect tsunami-type consequences on the enemy, and the science of precipitation by seeding clouds from about the same period. The latter is now reasonably well understood and is practiced far more commonly that is widely appreciated. Needless to say the potential power of thermonuclear devices makes tsunami creation more achievable. Some even think this has happened already!
'In 1994 the American Air Force revealed its 'Spacecast 2020' master plan which includes weather control. Scientists have experimented with weather control since the 1940's, but Spacecast 2020 noted that "using environmental modification techniques to destroy, damage or injure another state are prohibited." Having said that, the Air Force claimed that advances in technology "compels a reexamination of this sensitive and potentially risky topic."' (See below)
It should be noted that literally billions of American tax-payer dollars have gone into this activity, effectively out of sight and beyond the control of even the elected Congress. 
Many claim that there has been an active programme of seeding the atmosphere with various substances from aircraft for many years to modify the weather. This is in fact beyond dispute. Companies even advertise their facilities for doing so as here: 
The BIG questions are: 
  • who is behind and in control of this, and for what purpose? 
  • where is it being done and with what?
  • whether this is having the practical consequences that we see in abnormal weather patterns and events such as the warm December and excessive rainfall here in Britain - flood, drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, El Niño etc. elsewhere - is caused or influenced by these activities or not?
These questions are not theoretical but intensely practical, globally and locally, as those who have suffered in the Lake District and York (to name but two affected areas) will attest. The public has a fundamental right to know what is going on. Unfortunately government says it doesn't.
As with many other areas of public policy, there appears to be a disjoint between the elite few and the majority, as typified by the Chairman of the Environment Agency sunning himself in the Caribbean, as others struggled to cope.
Another anomaly that should be noted, particularly with the recent much trumpeted 'success' of the Paris Climate Conference is that, whilst all attention is directed towards a reduction in global CO2 production (to deny the phenomenon has almost become a modern heresy) comparatively little is mention is made about these purposeful human interferences, that most certainly DO have weather consequences. 
The cynical amongst us might suspect that is the very intention!






Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.