Greening up 25 million homes

[FamilyWiggs]

Yes, it's really a very small proportion of the land mass that gets flooded even if all ice melts. Trouble is a ver large proportion of the people live on the low bit. Including me.

Biff - I'd be delighted to offer you some space on the mountain and as much workshop space as you need! The only requirement is to help keep the rabbits at bay and teach me some of your woodworking skills! :wink:

And also all the Penners, Joces, Moos, Jaqys, Yamins, etc, etc and all other refugees from the lower lying N'arch and East Angular areas this Board seems popular in...

 

[Flyfisher]

I also think FamilyWiggs pretty much nails the general mood on the street.

Me too, which is the other thing I find fascinating about the whole debate; the end of mankind is something you'd think might get a bit more attention and concern from the man on the Clapham omnibus. Perhaps it's too far in the future and people are too busy trying to pay their mortgage and energy bills to worry about the end of life as we know it as well. :wink:

The 1m perhaps should have been 100m.

Yes, I now think you're right on that.

Another thing I've recently read about is the rotational effect of the earth on sea-levels; the concept that rising sea-level slows the rotation of the planet (think spinning ice-skaters extending their arms) resulting in less centrifugal force 'raising' the oceans, resulting in lower sea-levels. In other words, a homeostatic mechanism of the sort that underpins Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis. Details at http://www.jstor.org/pss/4298049. But you've already rubbished Morner so perhaps this is inadmissable to the debate? :wink:

Listening to reports of the just-started Chilcot enquiry it seems to me to have some parallels with the AGW debate. The available data can be interpreted to support or refute the basic premise so you can take a position of faith (or a premeditated decision) for or against and cobble together enough of a 'dossier' to support that decision. The underlying 'facts' become less important than the level of uncertainty, doubt and the availablility of 'experts' ready to support both sides of the argument, thus enabling either position to be tolerably justified. Enough to keep you out of jail anyway. :wink:

Human nature might turn out to be a bigger problem than mother nature. Meanwhile, as FW wrote "lets hope the scientists can come up with a technical solution...", which seems to be the stance of governments around the world 'cos I don't see any great push toward removing atmospheric CO2 to get us back to 350ppm, only limiting the rate at which we add even more, albeit wrapped up in "reduced carbon intensity" spin to keep the masses happy that something is being done.

Biff - I'd be delighted to offer you some space on the mountain and as much workshop space as you need! The only requirement is to help keep the rabbits at bay and teach me some of your woodworking skills! :wink:

It's not just the rabbits you'll need to keep at bay, it'll be the millions of other displaced people looking for somewhere else to live.

 

[biffvernon]

Rabbits :evil: :twisted: :evil: Now that's a real problem to worry about.

Meanwhile, I see this nice picture on the BBC website this morning:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8387137.stm

Sea levels are likely to rise by about 1.4m (4ft 6in) globally by 2100 as polar ice melts, according to a major review of climate change in Antarctica.

I think I described the issues around the Thwaites and Pine Island Glaciers (PIG) a while ago.
That's Bangldesh and the Lincolnshire Marsh then.

And, whoops, look what's happened to the Australian Liberal Party http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8387653.stm

The paper that the BBC are reporting from the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) will be available from
http://www.scar.org/publications/occasionals/acce.html but not until this afternoon, I think.

As I understand it the 1.4m sea level rise in the quote from the BBC is the upper bound of the uncertainty range that the SCAR is reporting. On the other hand, scientists tend to be conservative in their forecasts. There is another layer of uncertainty about ice dynamics that could make the situation worse but not better. It's to do with retreat of the grounding line of the Thwaites and PIG owing to thermal erosion from warming sea water. This has the potential to allow glacier flow rates to accelerate, draining the WAIS more quickly than is described by SCAR.

 

[Gervase]

For example, melting of the arctic ice cap won't contribute to rising sea levels because it's floating (have you ever seen a full glass of iced drink overflow when the ice melts?). We can agree on that as a fact can't we?

Very ture, but completely irrelevant.
The worry is land-based ice. Antarctica doesn't float, and neither does Greenland, Siberia or any of the great glaciers in the northern and southern hemispheres. The Arctic is is relatively shallow and would indeed make little difference if it melted. If all the Antarctic ice melted (which, of course, it wont; not all of it), sea levels would rise by 61 metres. The ice covering Greenland (which may well melt) would add another seven metres to the level of the sea.
Also, as water gets warmer, it expands. Much of the predicted rise in sea levels over the next 50 years is based on thermal expansion rather than ice melt.

 

[Flyfisher]

Very ture, but completely irrelevant.

It's only irrelevant if you're happy with sloppy science.

 

[biffvernon]

Best just to read this:

http://www.scar.org/publications/occasionals/ACCE_25_Nov_2009.pdf

 

[Gervase]

Very ture, but completely irrelevant.

It's only irrelevant if you're happy with sloppy science.

So which part of what I posted is sloppy science?

 

[Flyfisher]

The bit about the arctic icecap not contributing to sea levels being irrelevant. Of course it's relevant; it's important to understand what can and can't be a contributory factor to changes in sea levels. Simply using all arctic ice to calculate a sea-level rise would be inaccurate.

Also, talk of Antarctic and Greenland ice contributing to 61m and 7m rises in sea levels might be technically corrrect but the last information I've read suggests that it would take around 1500 years for Greenland to fully deglaciate and Antarctic even longer, if at all. Given that the world seems incapable of taking effective action to stave off what might happen in the next 90 years, it seems rather fanciful to worry about the next 1500 years as well. Let's take things one step at a time.

 

[biffvernon]

The one perspective that this debate on Period Property UK brings, that is different from similar debates elsewhere, is our appreciation of timescales. We are contantly dealing with buildings that are centuries old, repairing them so that they last centuries into the future.

CO2 has a residence time in the atmosphere of centuries so what we do now will affect the medieval buildings, which may only be half way through their lifespan, way into the distant future.

 

[ilikecobwebs]

I had no idea my post had started WW3. I think what turned my tail up on this, apart from the global warming/cooling/status-quo scenario, was that it seemed like another war being declared on home-owners; a subtle bullying, if you like, to make us all feel guilty that we havent yet trashed our residences to fit all the latest fight-climate-change gear. I'm wondering where Shapps got the phrase "retro-fit" from. I had a terrifying vision of white vans turning up at people's homes, and workmen wielding clubs and axes to remove doors, windows, boilers, etc etc; to conform to the latest religious requirements. I notice that this guy is keen to dispose of HIPs, but keen to retain Energy Performance certificates. Many months ago there was a post or two about this subject; I cant remember the general views held at the time about them.
Irrespective of warming or cooling, new sources of power have to be found over the coming years. I believe they already exist, but equally I believe we are not being told all that there is to know about them. If all power fails, then you can have all the energy-efficient devices you like in your home and they will be useless. Climate change is an excuse to raise taxes, bully homeowners, and generally make life a misery. Yes the climate does change, in long natural cycles, but I do not believe that anything untoward has happened over the past hundred years to warrant the crazy attitudes that we are seeing today.
Rising sea levels might also be explained (in some cases) by sinking land. The tectonic plates of the Earth have been very active lately. Who can be certain what effects they have?
In all......I think the whole climate change debate is being used as a distraction from other more serious matters.

 

[Flyfisher]

Rising sea levels might also be explained (in some cases) by sinking land.

It's certainly a contributory factor; the UK is tilting, with the south-east sinking and Scotland rising - and it's nothing to do with AGW.

This article suggests the sinking figure is 1mm/year, with the London area being 2mm/year, but this report of recent research suggests a figure of 0.5mm/year.

 

[biffvernon]

The tectonic plates of the Earth have been very active lately. Who can be certain what effects they have?

Tectonic plates are no more active than they have been for the last four billion years. Isostatic sea level changes are, of course, happening all the time in different localities. The sea level changes we are referring to are global average changes resulting from global warming - nothing to do with tectonics.

There is a particular issue with some of the small island states which are sinking anyway because of the local tectonics and the global sea level rise is making things even worse. Darwin was the first to account for coral islands growing upwards on sinking extinct volcanoes. Coral growth has kept pace with the rate of isostatic sinking to produce a ring shaped coral atoll.

Sadly, corals seem to be among the early victims of rising water temperatures.

 

[Lime]

Actually coral growth is an early victim of sea pollution.
To see the soup of detritus, plastic and other flotsam collecting in many bays and harbours around the world is alarming.
In many instances, where there are nearby coral reefs,the sea bottom is covered in dead coral as well as the usual jetsam.

 

[Flyfisher]

I've read that the UK tilting is due to the last ice age and it is still readjusting from billions of tons of ice disappearing from the north of the country. Nothing to do with plate tectonics in the usual sense.

Anyway, here's something to get our teeth into today:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/6706761/Nigel-Lawson-on-climate-change-Saving-the-planet-will-be-the-real-disaster.html.

The comments are also interesting and, yet again, give lie to the notion that the debate is over. Even if you believe the science is done and dusted there is still the trifling issue of what we actually do about AGW.

I'm increasingly of the view that we need to figure out the best ways to adapt to a changing world rather than try to reverse things to pre-industrial conditions. I think this because, so far, the proposed 'cures' are increasingly looking worse than the disease - something touched on in the above article.

The other reason for working on adaption is because it's too late to reverse, or even significantly mitigate, AGW - a view expounded by Lovelock but supported by the fact that we're already above the so-called 350ppmv 'safe' CO2 level and there is nothing being done to reverse carbon emissions, only reduce them (or worse, only reduce their rate of increase, as per the recently-hailed Chinese 'carbon intensity reductions'). So, even if Copenhagen is a stunning success, we'll still be on track for rising CO2.

 

[judrop]

:? This may be a simplistic point of view, but the way I look at things is that change is, infact ,the norm, and what we, as a species, need to do is to learn to cope with that change, and not to be so arrogant as to think that the universe revolves around us and our doings , there will be other species after us as there have been before, WE are not all there is! ? :|

 

[biffvernon]

Yeah, let's party now and to hell with the grandchildren.

I actually prefer Flyfisher's analysis. (Yes, glacial rebound and plate tectonics are pretty much unrelated but they are both part of the broader subject of tectonics.)

But I do still see some major windows of opportunity on the mitigation front, which is what COP15 is all about. We will also have to do a lot of adaptation. Rehousing many millions of Bangladeshis will be an early priority.

 

[Flyfisher]

But what's the COP15 position on 350ppm?

350.org seems to advocate becoming carbon-neutral asap and relying on natural processes to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, but I've not found any info on the 'natural' rate of CO2 removal and how long it might take to return things to 350ppm even if we stopped all carbon emissions right now, which of course won't happen.

If the best that will come from Copenhagen is a reduction in the rate of carbon emissions, doesn't that consign 350.org to well-meaning history?

 

[biffvernon]

350.org is about telling folk that we need to get down to 350ppmv CO2. By any means. Obviously 'natural processes' wont do the job. There are various ideas about 'artificial trees', technologies that can sequester CO2. One great idea in 'Biochar'. Grow timber or other biomass that captures CO2 by photosynthesis and then burn it by pyrolisis, with insufficient oxygen for complete combustion. You get some heat, which is useful, but importantly you get charcoal which can be returned to the soil. It increases soil fertility while locking up the carbon for meaningfully long periods. Of course, to have a significant impact the technology would have to be rolled out on a vast scale.

Yes, COP15 will be talking about not rushing us all to hell in a handcart quite so quickly. 350.org is about not going to hell. Tricky for such wicked creatures as us.

 

[christianb]

Yeah, let's party now and to hell with the grandchildren.

That's too emotive a response. All positions in this debate could say a similar thing about future generations.

"I don't subscribe to everything the IPCC says and, as such, I really don't give a stuff about the kiddies".

Righto.

 

[judrop]

8) AWWW Biff, I have Grandchildren, I live without central heating and burn wood ,try to eat and buy organic, am very careful with my carbon footprint, etc etc, TRY not to pre judge people! I have no need, or desire, to try to justify my beliefs , and you should not either, we can all run about like blue arsed fiys till kingdom come , but it wont change the fact that one day we , as a species,will not exist! BUT, guess what, the planet will (probably) STILL be here ! She cares for herself, trust her.