Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
V4 Vendetta
21 Dec 09 14:06
Date Joined: 23 Nov 03
| Topic/replies: 11,712 | Blogger: V4 Vendetta's blog
Isn't it cheaper to relocate all the people in the low-lying areas than to cripple the world economy? If we stopped restricting the flow of labour they'd move anyway and we'd get cheaper plumbing.
Pause Switch to Standard View Climate change - cheaper solution?
Show More
Report DonWarro December 21, 2009 3:12 PM GMT
makes sense. seeing as if sea levels are going to rise, then they will do it regardless of whether we return to industrialisation levels of a hundred years ago or not. none of it will make any difference whatsoever, apart from crushing the worldwide economy, like you say. tbh though i think the economy is fked anyway though - they're just trying to push us over the edge with all this imo. a nice bit of covert and indirect population control.
Report Ivor December 21, 2009 3:13 PM GMT
Seems I have to agree with Mr.G again. For cheapness - relocate Mr.Brown to the Outer Hebrides.
I cannot buy into all this recycling , lose less bags, drive less, long-life bulb stuff at all.
We CANNOT beat the climate - we must work with it. Housing and bridges and roads that cope with floods and gales etc. and yes, relocate to higher levels etc.
Report DonWarro December 21, 2009 3:17 PM GMT
yes - parliament should also be moved to low lying coastal lands, to give us some hope in the event of flooding ;)
Report V4 Vendetta December 21, 2009 3:21 PM GMT
Parliament is already a bit dodgy. "The Strand" is the old English for "the shore" (modern German "Strand" means "beach") and the shore it may be again...
Report subversion December 21, 2009 3:22 PM GMT

1.40... basil had the right idea :)
Report wur December 21, 2009 4:11 PM GMT
One thing's for sure. Climate change will cut population growth.
Report keliwah December 21, 2009 5:21 PM GMT
Moving London doesn't sound very cheap to me.
Report V4 Vendetta December 21, 2009 5:23 PM GMT
We have a century to do it (minimum). I don't think it will cost £100bn a year if we start now.
Report V4 Vendetta December 28, 2009 6:13 PM GMT
Any others to throw into the hat before we close the auction and abandon all the statist treaties?
Report wur December 28, 2009 7:28 PM GMT
Goring, sea level rise is just one of many problems that will occur as a result of global warming, but it will probably be a century or more before there are millions of coastal refugees.

The more immediate problem is reduced rainfall in some areas and increased rainfall in others, leading to droughts (and famines) and floods. Hundreds of millions of subsistence farmers are going to find themselves living in regions where agriculture is no longer viable due to changes in rainfall patterns and increased rates of evaporation due to higher temperatures. We don't know which people will be affected and even if we did, we wouldn't know where to relocate them to.

Rainfall everywhere will become more 'tropical' in character, which means that it will fall in heavier bursts for a shorter time. A higher proportion of this extra water will simply run off into rivers without irrigating the land. It will take soil with it and higher rates of evaporation will result in even less available water. Paradoxical, but true.
Report noddys ryde December 28, 2009 8:20 PM GMT
what are the African dictators going to spend the £1.5 billion of our money on if not to lead their people to higher ground?
Report subversion December 28, 2009 8:22 PM GMT
The more immediate problem is reduced rainfall in some areas and increased rainfall in others, leading to droughts (and famines) and floods

how can you be so sure that the reduced rainfall won't happen in areas that currently get too much rain, and the increased rainfall won't happen in areas that currently get too much?

why the certainty that every change is going to be a disaster?
Report subversion December 28, 2009 8:23 PM GMT
and the increased rainfall won't happen in areas that currently get too little?
Report Trevh December 28, 2009 8:45 PM GMT
Any talk of increased rainfall, flooding, storms, droughts etc is nothing more than guesswork. It has no basis and should be taken with a very large pinch of salt.

There's an interesting article on WUWT today, discussing the near record breaking low temperatures of the last few months in the USA, which has also been see across Europe this month...

If the climate models cant reliably predict the next three months, what basis do they have to claim their ability to forecast 100 years out? It is well known in the weather modeling community that beyond about three days, the models tend to break down due to chaos.

We have all heard lots of predictions of warmer winters, less snow, animal populations moving north, drought, dying ski resorts, etc. But did anyone in the climate modeling community forecast the cold, snowy start to winter which has occurred. If not, it would appear that their models are not mature enough to base policy decisions on.
Report Trevh December 28, 2009 8:49 PM GMT
Nice tme to mention this quote from the Independent too, from March 2000...

Independent said:

Snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

Oh dear. Last year was a 1 in 20 year winter, what will this winter be? Scotland has a foot of snow at the moment. Heavy southern England December snowfall has now melted, but the forecast is looking pretty severe for central England again. Question - how many 1 in 20 year winters in a row does it take to make a climate? Or will it always be just weather?
Report bongo December 28, 2009 9:48 PM GMT
Can't help thinking you're right Mr G -
This theory that the world's sea levels are rising because of us is highly dubious; the ppm CO2 are higher than pre-industrially, but not by as much as we'd expect, so something unexplained is taking CO2 out. I've seen that 40+ cubic km of ocean is created and destroyed every year by plate techtonics. Countries like UAE, Japan and Hong Kong have spent decades shovelling land into the sea to reclaim land from the sea. We don't fully understand solar cycles and variation in the earth's magnetic fields. If sea-levels are rising, you can't help thinking that we're at the mercy of forces beyond fossil fuel usage.
So adapt to it, don't fight it - build more reservoirs,improve flood defences and use human ingenuity ( build a pipeline to take sea water into a new lake in the sahara perhaps? )
Even if the climate was going the other way and getting cooler, it would still be a good idea to reduce fossil fuel consumption because we as a nation need to save money and the stuff will run out eventually.
It would still be a good idea to reforest the north of england and wales, because it's cheaper and more productive than subsidised sheep farming.
But it would be wrong to listen to some scientists who seem to think the existence of economically active humans is the root of the problem.
Report Iwantyourmoney December 28, 2009 10:55 PM GMT
snow in scotland = climate change

You may be shocked but as Scotland has not had much snow in the last handful or years and now they have got it?

'climate change'

:D :D :D :D :D
Report delz December 29, 2009 12:47 AM GMT
It's all so obvious. As soon as the**talk of "global warming" didn't match with was everyone was experiencing, it's been altered into the far more imprecise "climate change" (as if there was a time when climate didn't change). Now, as temperatures hit new records on a regular basis, as one winter gets colder than the other, it's the "extremes" that are alarming as feck. Makes you wonder what their next evasive words will sound like to hide the decline.
Report Kriskin December 29, 2009 1:04 AM GMT
Global warming or whatever u want to call it is a load of Bullox. It's one cold winter were currently having. Who the fook is making up all these lies and WHY??
Report The beauty of Buzzer December 29, 2009 2:20 AM GMT
When I first read about global warming the writer explained that the first effect felt in the Uk would be to do with the effect of the gulf stream which warms our climate. The gulf stream would either cool down or stop coming our way i forget the details, and the effect would be we would start to have much colder weather while other geographical areas would be starting to heat up.
Report The beauty of Buzzer December 29, 2009 2:22 AM GMT
If you can remember back to the bitter winters of the late 1970s and early 80s you might also recall that there was much discussion in scientific circles at the time about whether or not the freezing winter conditions were a portent of a new ice age.

Over the past couple of decades such warnings have been drowned out by the great global warming debate and by consideration of how society might cope in future with a sweltering planet rather than an icebound one. Seemingly, the fact that we are still within an interglacial period, during which the ice has largely retreated to its polar fastnesses, has been forgotten - and replaced with the commonly-held view that one good thing you can say about global warming is that it will at least stave off the return of the glaciers.

Is this really true, or could the rapidly accelerating warming that we are experiencing actually hasten the onset of a new ice age? A growing body of evidence suggests that, at least for the UK and western Europe, there is a serious risk of this happening - and soon.

The problem lies with the ocean current known as the Gulf Stream, which bathes the UK and north-west Europe in warm water carried northwards from the Caribbean. It is the Gulf Stream, and associated currents, that allow strawberries to thrive along the Norwegian coast, while at comparable latitudes in Greenland glaciers wind their way right down to sea level. The same currents permit palms to flourish in Cornwall and the Hebrides, whereas across the ocean in Labrador, even temperate vegetation struggles to survive. Without the Gulf Stream, temperatures in the UK and north-west Europe would be five degrees centigrade or so cooler, with bitter winters at least as fierce as those of the so-called Little Ice Age in the 17th to 19th centuries.

The Gulf Stream is part of a more complex system of currents known by a number of different names, of which the rather cumbersome North Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (Namoc) is probably the most apt. This incorporates not only the Gulf Stream but also the cold return currents that convey water southwards again. As it approaches the Arctic, the Gulf Stream loses heat and part of it heads back to warmer climes along the coast of Greenland and eastern Canada in the form of the cold, iceberg-laden current responsible for the loss of the Titanic. Much, however, overturns - cooling and sinking beneath the Nordic seas between Norway and Greenland, before heading south again deep below the surface.

In the past, the slowing of the Gulf Stream has been intimately linked with dramatic regional cooling. Just 10,000 years ago, during a climatic cold snap known as the Younger Dryas, the current was severely weakened, causing northern European temperatures to fall by as much as 10 degrees. Ten thousand years before that, at the height of the last ice age, when most of the UK was reduced to a frozen wasteland, the Gulf Stream had just two-thirds of the strength it has now.

What's worrying is that for some years now, global climate models have been predicting a future weakening of the Gulf Stream as a consequence of global warming. Such models visualise the disruption of the Namoc, including the Gulf Stream, as a result of large-scale melting of Arctic ice and the consequent pouring of huge volumes of fresh water into the North Atlantic, in a century or two. New data suggest, however, that we may not have to wait centuries, and in fact the whole process may be happening already.

So that the warm, saline surface waters of the Gulf Stream can continue to push northwards, there must be a comparable, deep return current of cold, dense water from the Nordic seas. Disturbingly, this return current seems to have been slowing since the middle of the last century. Bogi Hansen at the Faroese fisheries laboratory, and colleagues in Scotland and Norway, have been monitoring the deep outflow of cold water from the Nordic seas as it passes over the submarine Greenland-Scotland ridge that straddles the North Atlantic at this point. Their results show that the outflow has fallen by 20% since 1950, which suggests a comparable reduced inflow from the Gulf Stream.

Although there is as yet no direct substantiation of this, and his colleagues point to reports of the cooling and freshening of the Norwegian Sea and to temperatures that are already falling in parts of the region as possible evidence of contemporary Gulf Stream weakening.

It also seems that it is not only the intensity of the outflow of cold water that is changing. Bob Dickson of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Science at Lowestoft, and colleagues, have reported a sustained and widespread freshening of returning deep waters south of the Greenland-Scotland ridge, which appears to have been going on for the past three or four decades.

Already the freshening is extending along the North American eastern seaboard towards the equator, in the so-called Deep Western Boundary current.

One of the scariest aspects of the current dramatic changes occurring in the system of North Atlantic currents is that the deep, southward-flowing limb of the Namoc can be thought of as representing the headwaters of the worldwide system of ocean currents known as the Global Thermohaline Circulation. The possibility exists, therefore, that a disruption of the Atlantic currents might have implications far beyond a colder UK and north-west Europe, perhaps bringing dramatic climatic changes to the entire planet.

Yet again, this highlights the fact that global warming, for which we have only ourselves to thank, is nothing more nor less than a great planetary experiment, many of the outcomes of which we cannot predict. Wallace Broecker, an ocean circulation researcher at New York's Lamont-Doherty Earth observatory, described the situation perfectly when he pointed out that "climate is an angry beast and we are poking at it with sticks". Let's hope that when it truly turns on us, its teeth don't match its outrage.

· Bill McGuire is Benfield Professor of Geophysical Hazards and director of the Benfield Hazard Research Centre at University College London. He will appear on BBC2 Horizon's The Big Chill tonight
Report BobSievier December 29, 2009 8:56 AM GMT
If we lose the gulf stream we are finished , might as well live in Siberia.
Report Trevh December 29, 2009 2:19 PM GMT
Kriskin 29 Dec 02:04

Global warming or whatever u want to call it is a load of Bullox. It's one cold winter were currently having. Who the fook is making up all these lies and WHY??

"There are many ironies in the appointment of carbon as the epitome of original sin. Modern religious man, having made the foolish, empty gesture of turning his back on the atom that is his primal progenitor and the essence of his being, has admitted a Trojan horse that is being used to attack basic human liberties gained by centuries of struggle.

Carbon-based, carbon-dioxide-exhaling politicians invent carbon taxes, carbon trading and carbon rationing; quite meaningless paper transactions that only serve to manacle the masses and (naturally) enrich those individuals with an eye to the main chance. People submit to repression and restraints of liberty that would have seemed inconceivable twenty years ago, purely because they come wrapped up in a cloak of religious conviction. They are subjected to absurd rituals without the right to dissent. They are denied access to the knowledge that could unshackle them."
Report Trevh December 29, 2009 2:42 PM GMT
The beauty of Buzzer 29 Dec 03:20

When I first read about global warming the writer explained that the first effect felt in the Uk would be to do with the effect of the gulf stream which warms our climate. The gulf stream would either cool down or stop coming our way i forget the details

The out dated Guardian article you have quoted is proven nonsense and merely a scare mongering tactic employed by warmists.

Prof Carl Wunsch is one of the world's leading experts on this subject, the wider label for which is 'THC' (thermohaline circulation).

" What would the climate in England be like "without the Gulf Stream." Sadly, this phrase has been seen far too often, usually in newspapers concerned with the unlikely possibility of a new iceage in Britain triggered by the loss of the Gulf Stream.

European readers should be reassured that the Gulf Stream's existence is a consequence of the large-scale wind system over the North Atlantic Ocean, and of the nature of fluid motion on a rotating planet. The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth's rotation, or both.

Real questions exist about conceivable changes in the ocean circulation and its climate consequences. However, such discussions are not helped by hyperbole and alarmism. The occurrence of a climate state without the Gulf Stream anytime soon - within tens of millions of years - has a probability of little more than zero."

Professor Carl Wunsch
Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology"

Just for good measure, here's a report from CO2 science...

Lund, D.C., Lynch-Stieglitz, J. and Curry, W.B. 2006. Gulf Stream density structure and transport during the past millennium. Nature 444: 601-604.

Many people fear -- or at least claim they do -- that global warming will lead to enhanced precipitation and melting of ice in high northern latitudes, which will lead to augmented freshwater runoff to the North Atlantic Ocean, which will lead to a precipitous decline in North Atlantic Deep Water formation, which will produce a swift reduction in the global ocean's thermohaline circulation, which could shut down the Gulf Stream and bring cold times to Europe.

What was done
In a study that comes to bear upon this climate-alarmist scenario, Lund et al. used the ä18O of foraminifera obtained from sediment cores retrieved near the Dry Tortugas and Great Bahama Bank to reconstruct density profiles of the Florida Current (the portion of the Gulf Stream that flows through the Straits of Florida) over the past millennium.

What was learned
In the words of the three researchers, "the cross-current density gradient and vertical current shear of the Gulf Stream were systematically lower during the Little Ice Age (AD ~1200 to 1850)," and they estimate that the "Little Ice Age volume transport was ten percent weaker than today's," stating additionally that "the intervals 0-100 yr BP [years before present] and 1,000-1,100 yr BP are characterized by higher transport."

What it means
In contrast to climate-alarmist contentions that the Gulf Stream could weaken in response to global warming, real-world data indicate that during portions of both the Medieval and Current Warm Periods the strength of the Gulf Stream was actually enhanced relative to what it was during the cooler Little Ice Age, which finding runs exactly counter to what Al Gore and many of his followers have long suggested should be the case.
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.


Instance ID: 13539