The Global Warming Megathread

This map is gibberish.

 

The land which is below sea level today is protected by sea defences. It has even been made land and not sea by humans.

 

The reason it is not under water is human activity.

 

This will be continued. The land will not vanish. We will build sea defenses. A 3 feet high sea level rise by 2100 is nothing to fear. It will not cost as much as any local council spends on traffic lights to avoid any problems from such a slight change.

Actually very little of our coastline is protected by hard sea defences. The land below sea level in the UK, is land, mainly due to drainage, not some massive barrier. Sea level rises could rapidly make existing earthworks impotent and too costly to be worth expanding. Government policy on this is actually quite explicit.

Current UK Policy

It is estimated that given current costs of building or

maintaining coastal defences, there will be some locations

where defences can no longer be sustained by government

funding due to changes along the coastline and rising sea

levels.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn363-sea-level-rise.pdf

Actually very little of our coastline is protected by hard sea defences. The land below sea level in the UK, is land, mainly due to drainage, not some massive barrier. Sea level rises could rapidly make existing earthworks impotent and too costly to be worth expanding. Government policy on this is actually quite explicit.

 

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn363-sea-level-rise.pdf

I agree that government policy is to run away screaming but the cost of a 3 feet high concrete wall is low so I have no idea why this is being done.

The land below sea level here is indeed due to the fens etc drying out and shrinking down in height. So? They still need some sort of maintainance to keep them as land. Pumping the water out etc.

How can it be so expensive to protect them compared to the cost of not using fossil fuels? Compared to the cost of single nuclear power station?

I agree that government policy is to run away screaming but the cost of a 3 feet high concrete wall is low so I have no idea why this is being done.

 

The land below sea level here is indeed due to the fens etc drying out and shrinking down in height. So? They still need some sort of maintainance to keep them as land. Pumping the water out etc.

 

How can it be so expensive to protect them compared to the cost of not using fossil fuels? Compared to the cost of single nuclear power station?

What is the cost of a 1 meter high sea wall, with foundations, as well as an equivalent to the Thames barrier on every river estuary along the coastline vulnerable to sea level rises?

What is the cost of a 1 meter high sea wall, with foundations, as well as an equivalent to the Thames barrier on every river estuary along the coastline vulnerable to sea level rises?

You don't need much of a foundation as the beach will be built up around the new wall.

You don't need any sort of Thames barrier.

You need very basic sea defenses of the sort we have been using sine ever, pre-Roman days.

We have 80 years to build a 1m high wall over very little of the whole coast line. Easy.

You don't need much of a foundation as the beach will be built up around the new wall.

 

You don't need any sort of Thames barrier.

 

You need very basic sea defenses of the sort we have been using sine ever, pre-Roman days.

 

We have 80 years to build a 1m high wall over very little of the whole coast line. Easy.

And the Thames estuary. And all the other ones. On mud. And then to move the floodplains upstream. Er like where London is.. and Hull.. and Bristol..

Er like where London is.. and Hull.. and Bristol..

Nowhere of consequence then...

Originally Posted by Tim Grindley View Post

No my point is you should be citing some science that says what you want it to.;

Here is some science that says the opposite of what you want it to

 

http://advances.sciencemag.org/conte.../e1600446.full

 

Numerical experiments using a fully coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model with freshwater hosing in the northern North Atlantic showed that climate becomes most unstable in intermediate glacial conditions associated with large changes in sea ice and the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.

Did you actually read the thing at all?

Model sensitivity experiments suggest that the prerequisite for the most frequent climate instability with bipolar seesaw pattern during the late Pleistocene era is associated with reduced atmospheric CO2 concentration via global cooling and sea ice formation in the North Atlantic, in addition to extended Northern Hemisphere ice sheets.

The terms you have ceased upon are when he is talking about times colder than now.

---------- Post added 12-05-2017 at 11:01 ----------

So, nobody was able to put forward anything that was;

1, Scary

2, Had a mechanism for it to happen that they could explain

3, Had smoe sort of science that supported it the way of a peer reviewed paper or anything close to it.

4, Still scary after it was looked and understood how much it would cost to deal with.

Global Warming does it exist, if our planets getting hotter why has it missed here. Is our planet getting wetter ??...It is in our country.

Whats your view on GLOBAL WARMING......can the hole be repaired.

Its not happening on our rooooad

Its not happening on our rooooad

Actually I think the general consensus amongst climatologists is that the cold spell we are currently experiencing is down to unprecedented levels of warmth in the arctic, with some areas having temperatures 35c above normal.

"Nearly 1/2 of the world’s population — more than 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day. More than 1.3 billion live in extreme poverty — less than $1.25 a day."

https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-global-poverty

If you live on that the effect of US grian being used as fuel increasing the price of basic food stuff by 30% to 70% has been very painful. The additional effect of EU biofuel uses a similar amount of food and thus will have increased the price even more as the rules of supply and demand dictate.

The largest user of grain in the UK uses a lot of imported grain, often from Russia.

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/media/press-releases/the-uk-s-largest-bio-refinery-is-officially-opened-in-hull0.html

The £350 million Vivergo bioethanol plant in Hull was officially opened today by the Rt. Hon Vince Cable MP, Sec...

So not only are we using this global warming thing as an excuse to increase the food price for our farmers we are directly doing the same for Rusian farmers.

That you and I pay £400 a year more for our food than we should to make sure that farmers can drive around in expensive cars is not that significant. A vote winner if you want it to be but not a killer, much. But for the world's poor it is surely killing at least 20 million people per year.

Even more effectively it is impoverishing them. Or at least maintaining their impoverishment, slowing the path out of despiration.

Even Greenpeace does not like these evil killers;

"As the European Commission prepares to review the evidence related the sustainability of biofuels, Greenpeace argues that biofuels that offer little or no reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuels should not count towards renewable energy targets or qualify for incentives."

http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/Publications/2011/Biodiesel-tested/

This is happening as a result of the farming lobby using the bad science of global warming to justify the disguised subsidy of farming.

Its not happening on our rooooad

Its called weather, it can be caused by climate change, but 'global warming' is measured globally.

Its called weather, it can be caused by climate change, but 'global warming' is measured globally.

I wer just having a laugh:hihi: