London 'under water by 2100' as Antarctica crumbles into the sea

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So?

There's a difference between saying that "there is a reason to believe that this will happen" and "there's a chance this might happen".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wasn't very old at the time, although I do remember it quite clearly. I sometimes have trouble placing dates on my memories, even though (other than that) I have a very good memory. 

Anyways, I have in front of me now, a map based on a report by the old Department of the Enviroment called "The Potential effects of climate change in the United Kingdom". It basically shows areas that the Department thought likely to be flooded and turned into (back into in some cases) wetland and so on as a result of climate change. It shows areas at risk in black; those parts of London along the Thames are (suprise, suprise) in black.
It was published in 1991.

[Beet]

So?

There's a difference between saying that "there is a reason to believe that this will happen" and "there's a chance this might happen".

Uh, and both statements apply here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wasn't very old at the time, although I do remember it quite clearly. I sometimes have trouble placing dates on my memories, even though (other than that) I have a very good memory. 

Anyways, I have in front of me now, a map based on a report by the old Department of the Enviroment called "The Potential effects of climate change in the United Kingdom". It basically shows areas that the Department thought likely to be flooded and turned into (back into in some cases) wetland and so on as a result of climate change. It shows areas at risk in black; those parts of London along the Thames are (suprise, suprise) in black.
It was published in 1991.
[/quote]

That report seems to serve the purpose of laying out potential effects of climate change, rather than laying out predictions, so I don't see why they would have predictions of part of London being underwater by a specific date. I'm sure there's much more evidence now for actualization of climate change than there was in 1991, which is all the more reason to act.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Uh, and both statements apply here.

Do they? Only if you want them both to apply. Personally I tend to treat just about any report issued on climate change as not worth reading, as it's usually possible to guess what it'll say anyway.
I should note that I don't doubt that climate change is happening, or that human activity has made an impact on the climate (but I don't have much time for claims that *all* climate change is caused by human activity, or that *no* climate change is caused by human activity. Both strike me, and have always struck me, as being very arrogant). But I'm not really worried either; I wouldn't mind seeing the Fens come back for one thing. Coastlines are forever changing as are sea levels.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes; it was a Government report. Government reports on this sort of issue should not predict things and should make much use of the word "if".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't say that they did. I've no idea what the report said; I just have the map. I don't agree with the map in many places (I think that it shows too much change on the whole, but it is, IIRC, based on a rise in the sea level of 5 metres) but that doesn't stop it being interesting. And maybe a rise in sea level will result in the need for the use of the upstream London docks again (well, I'd like that to happen anyway...).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really. It was quite obvious what was going on, even then. The whole "OMG Global Warming we're all going to Diiiieeeeeee..." nonsense is something different o/c. A product of late '90's hysteria and trendy environmentalism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Suggestions? (that's a genuine question, btw. I am interested).

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do they? Only if you want them both to apply. Personally I tend to treat just about any report issued on climate change as not worth reading, as it's usually possible to guess what it'll say anyway.
I should note that I don't doubt that climate change is happening, or that human activity has made an impact on the climate (but I don't have much time for claims that *all* climate change is caused by human activity, or that *no* climate change is caused by human activity. Both strike me, and have always struck me, as being very arrogant). But I'm not really worried either; I wouldn't mind seeing the Fens come back for one thing. Coastlines are forever changing as are sea levels.
[/quote]

I don't think anyone is trying to say that *all* climate change is caused by human activity. That would be insane. The point is that a growing body of already very extensive evidence shows that humans are contributing signifcantly to climate change, and these new papers suggest that the last time temperatures were 3-5C higher than they are today, the sea level was such that it would be enough to submerge cities like London. It is study, that is all. It posits some reasons why X might occur... it by no means says that X will definitely occur. But the evidence is there. In any case it is the most extreme of studies. Countless other studies with far more conservative assumptions have estimated trillions of dollars of economic losses due to rising temperatures due to energy costs, disease, lost coastline, desertification, etc..

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a straw man, though, since nobody says that. And environmentalism was hardly trendy in the late '90s... gas guzzling SUV's were.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well obviously I think that we need to take steps to move toward energy sources that put less CO2 into the atmosphere, not the draconian measures that detractors would like to portray any effort as being, but far more than we are doing now. For example, the Kyoto treaty as it stands now is unworkable because it does not include developing countries, but rather than simply scrapping the idea of international effort to reduce CO2 emissions altogether Bush should have pushed for an alternative treaty that also commits countries like China and India to limit their emissions. This is still the path that I think we need to pursue now. The world simply cannot support 2 billion more people trying to industrialize into the western standard of living. The system is already being damaged and the consequences will be very negative if no foresight is taken.

[MODU]

All I know is I have a winter coat and a bottle of sun screen lotion available.  So, whomever is right on the issue, I'll be prepared. 

Honestly though, the gloom-and-doomers rarely take into account that the Earth itself is pretty stubborn.  If it can cool off a planet by violent volcanic action, then "man" is nothing to her.

[J. J.]

I saw George Will pull out a quote from the 1975 NYT article referring to the possibility of glaciers rolling across the the northern US in the middle of the 21st Century.

And of course, George Will is an unbiased observer. We all know that George Will has no agenda. Let us all let George Will decide what to do for George Will only cares about scientific truth. He's far better than those opinion columnists

And as for the article you cite, I found it easily (WashPost Dec 23, 2004, A23), and it never cites "glaciers rolling across the the northern US in the middle of the 21st Century," which just shows an intellectual dishonesty on your part. I love the fact how not only did you try to portray George Will with equivalence of a professional scientific journal, you also dishonestly embellished and changed his quote to fit your own ends.

I don't claim George Will is unbiased; I do claim he is accurate in this case.

Here is a link that includes some of the media reports from the mid 1970's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#Concern_in_the_Middle_of_the_Twentieth_Century
 I'm not really sure what you quote from 2004 has to do with it.

Oh, and, BTW, they had the data to show that the temperatures were trending downward, for about 35 years:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bd/DSCN4904-nas-a.6_crop.jpg

It wasn't even, but if you looked at it in 1975 (even into the early 1980's), it was suppose to be cooling.  Plenty of anecdotal evidence to show it too; I can even provide some.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm looking at the current increase in sea level.  The highest estimate is that sea level might be rising at an average of 3 mm per year, with the increase in temperature; other estimates put this 1-2 mm per year.

Let's assume that the high figure is correct and let's assume that the average will increase from 2005.

At 3 mm per year, sea level will increase 285 mm, or 28.5 cm, or roughly 11.4 inches.

Now, let's assume things really heat yup and this rate triples.  Now, I have not seen any evidence of a dramatic increase like this, but let's say it happens.  The increase is 34.2 inches, less than 3 feet. 

Now that's bad news if you've build a city 10 feet below current sea level, or if you're on an island that is one foot above sea level, but that does include most of the population of the planet.  There are some other alternatives for those people, e.g. building artificial barriers or moving inland by a few yards (in most cases), if it happens.

We know that from about 1350-1800, roughly, the temperature in the northern hemisphere (and there is some evidence that this was the case in South America as well) was substantially cooler; we also know that the cause of this was not human activities.  This might have been a cyclical effect, the equivalent of Jan-March (in the Northern Hemisphere, when it tends to be cooler).  We also know that since this time, it has tended to become warmer.  Some of this warming is likely to be due to human activities.  We do not know how much of this is due to human activities.  We may be entering the climatological equivalent of July-August. 

We don't have enough data, nor enough long term correlation to reach another conclusion.  This is a bit like taking the temperature data from February through August of 2005 and noting that if the temperature increases at the same rate, we'll be having 100 degree weather in December of 2005.

We, at this point, don't have enough data to make long term predictions about temperature.  As best, we have models, that may or may not be predictive.

As per the graphic, this long term period has been one where temperatures have increased.  You can see the "dramatic" result.    This estimates make two assumptions:  1.  That temperature will increase at an increased rate.  2.  That this increase will trigger a dramatically increase in sea level.  Neither assumption may be correct.

[J. J.]

There is another possibility that the "politically correct" have not considered.  Methane is a "greenhouse gas," and it's produced by the biomass.  One thing that is increasing with the warming is, guess what, the increase of human population.  By living, not necessarily by being technological, we are contributing to the increase of greenhouse gasses; this means the guy in the rice patty in SE Asia doing everything by muscle power.  When this guy has children, he's increasing the problem.

Any of you want to tackle that problem?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't think anyone is trying to say that *all* climate change is caused by human activity.

It's certainly something that rather a lot of people have a habit of inferring though. It happens to irritate me a lot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Glad you agree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Define "significant"
I don't think that it's at all significant as a proportion of all climate change, but from the point of view of humans it probably does seem to be very significant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then the newspapers are either wrong or don't know London (http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/images/londongifs/lnrelief.GIF)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, but other things cause bigger problems. Besides some areas will benefit. That's the way things work, after all.
That wasn't supposed to sound flippant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, but an awful lot of people are happy to imply it. And a certain newspaper over here gets so very close to actually saying that at times...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Both were trendy. The '90's were a hypocritical decade.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agree

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very true (and that's a fact that the media over here was very careful to avoid reporting).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I agree with that as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very true. But there's a big problem there...

[JohnFKennedy]

Failing that, construct a huge f-off wall around all of Britain (except for East Anglia ).

Bad policy; I am going to university in East Anglia!

[MODU]

Here's another interesting threory:

"Greenhouse theory smashed by biggest stone"

A new theory to explain global warming was revealed at a meeting at the University of Leicester (UK) and is being considered for publication in the journal "Science First Hand". The controversial theory has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

According to Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the apparent rise in average global temperature recorded by scientists over the last hundred years or so could be due to atmospheric changes that are not connected to human emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of natural gas and oil. Shaidurov explained how changes in the amount of ice crystals at high altitude could damage the layer of thin, high altitude clouds found in the mesosphere that reduce the amount of warming solar radiation reaching the earth's surface.

Shaidurov has used a detailed analysis of the mean temperature change by year for the last 140 years and explains that there was a slight decrease in temperature until the early twentieth century. This flies in the face of current global warming theories that blame a rise in temperature on rising carbon dioxide emissions since the start of the industrial revolution. Shaidurov, however, suggests that the rise, which began between 1906 and 1909, could have had a very different cause, which he believes was the massive Tunguska Event, which rocked a remote part of Siberia, northwest of Lake Baikal on the 30th June 1908.

The Tunguska Event, sometimes known as the Tungus Meteorite is thought to have resulted from an asteroid or comet entering the earth's atmosphere and exploding. The event released as much energy as fifteen one-megaton atomic bombs. As well as blasting an enormous amount of dust into the atmosphere, felling 60 million trees over an area of more than 2000 square kilometres. Shaidurov suggests that this explosion would have caused "considerable stirring of the high layers of atmosphere and change its structure." Such meteoric disruption was the trigger for the subsequent rise in global temperatures.

(Cont...)

[??????????]

Mr Tesla would disagree with you about what happened at Tunguska.

[MODU]

And, let me use this as a great time to once again remind folks to take action on a personal level, and go out and plant some trees!

An interesting website was metioned on the radio this morning:  "Free Trees and Plants.com"

Looking through their selection, everything (and I mean everything) seems to cost just $6.95 (which is processing and shipping).  The site receives trees and plants from nurseries which have not sold, and gives them away to whomever orders them from the site.  Seems pretty interesting.  I saw a nice Dogwood listed which I might consider. 

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

There is another possibility that the "politically correct" have not considered.  Methane is a "greenhouse gas," and it's produced by the biomass.  One thing that is increasing with the warming is, guess what, the increase of human population.  By living, not necessarily by being technological, we are contributing to the increase of greenhouse gasses; this means the guy in the rice patty in SE Asia doing everything by muscle power.  When this guy has children, he's increasing the problem.

Any of you want to tackle that problem?

sure. Use west europe and africa as nuclear testing grounds and provoke an indian-chinese-pakistani nuclear war.

[J. J.]

There is another possibility that the "politically correct" have not considered.  Methane is a "greenhouse gas," and it's produced by the biomass.  One thing that is increasing with the warming is, guess what, the increase of human population.  By living, not necessarily by being technological, we are contributing to the increase of greenhouse gasses; this means the guy in the rice patty in SE Asia doing everything by muscle power.  When this guy has children, he's increasing the problem.

Any of you want to tackle that problem?

sure. Use west europe and africa as nuclear testing grounds and provoke an indian-chinese-pakistani nuclear war.

That is, unfortunately, what it might take to "solve" the "problem."  I'd much rather see sea level rise a few feet.

While there are problems with the Shaidurov Theory, water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas.

[Nym90]

Obviously no one knows for sure what is going to happen, or what the cause is.

However, better safe than sorry seems a prudent strategy with regards to global warming. There are many benefits to society from reduced greenhouse gas emissions besides simply global warming. A phased in approach in which emissions are gradually cut through technological advances which improve efficiency would seem to be the best policy.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I won't live until 2100...so I am going to leave my Excursion idling in the driveway to speed things up....

[Nym90]

I won't live until 2100...so I am going to leave my Excursion idling in the driveway to speed things up....

I'm surprised that you can afford to still drive that behemoth.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I won't live until 2100...so I am going to leave my Excursion idling in the driveway to speed things up....

I'm surprised that you can afford to still drive that behemoth.

That "behemoth" gets 20MPG while having room to seat 8...though my wife and I only have 4 kids so it is currently only seating 6.  And it can pull our boat and still get 14MPG.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I personally like the idea of the ice caps melting and new york having a climate like the carolinas/florida

[Nym90]

I won't live until 2100...so I am going to leave my Excursion idling in the driveway to speed things up....

I'm surprised that you can afford to still drive that behemoth.

That "behemoth" gets 20MPG while having room to seat 8...though my wife and I only have 4 kids so it is currently only seating 6.  And it can pull our boat and still get 14MPG.

Wow. I didn't realize those things could get 20 MPG. That's actually not too bad for their size. I'm assuming that's under optimum conditions, but still not too shabby.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Wow. I didn't realize those things could get 20 MPG. That's actually not too bad for their size. I'm assuming that's under optimum conditions, but still not too shabby.

It's a turbo diesel.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Diesal. Good at least its on something more efficient than just normal gas.

[Nym90]

Wow. I didn't realize those things could get 20 MPG. That's actually not too bad for their size. I'm assuming that's under optimum conditions, but still not too shabby.

It's a turbo diesel.

Ah, excellent choice. I wish more auto manufacturers would make those.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I wish this country would use nuclear power instead of coal burning power plants

[J. J.]

Obviously no one knows for sure what is going to happen, or what the cause is.

However, better safe than sorry seems a prudent strategy with regards to global warming. There are many benefits to society from reduced greenhouse gas emissions besides simply global warming. A phased in approach in which emissions are gradually cut through technological advances which improve efficiency would seem to be the best policy.

I'm far from certain it is "prudent" to wreck the total economy of the West is order to slow sea level increase.  Keep in mind, it's been generally increasing for several thousand years.