Global Warming - Why Bother?

[neonlyte]

The front page of today's Guardian newspaper (a UK left of center daily) cites the publication of the UK government's assessment of the impact of Global Warming.

In a nut shell the main findings for the UK are these, based upon a medium-low growth scenario with continued weak governments - this is not the worst case scenario:
1. 3.3 Million people will be at high risk from flooding
2. 3.2 Million properties (homes and businesses are at high risk from flooding
3. The annual damage cost is estimated at 30,000 Million Dollars
4. It is too late to reverse Global Warming, the floods will happen, the magnitude of damage is dependent upon the flood defensive measures the government chooses to adopt.

Remember this is a government report, whatever faults governments have, they rarely mislead with bad news on this scale.

Two questions:
A. The effects are not expected to be at their worst for 75 years, so are WE bothered?
B. Is 'news' on this scale credible any more? Have we heard so many stories of environmental catastrophie that we no longer listen.

I am interested in responses, the story I am currently mapping has an environmental dimension.

NL

 

[GodBlessTexas]

Interesting thoughts, but personally, I happen to believe that part in the Bible where God says he'll never again destroy the Earth with a flood. So global warming (if there really is such a thing) may worsen global flooding, but I don't think it'll be our end.

If/when the end does come, I think the culprit will be something besides water.

That may not be where you wanted this to go, but since you had 0 replies, I thought I'd throw in my two cents.

 

[oggbashan]

What you haven't quoted is how many people and properties are currently at risk of flooding without any change caused by global warming or any other factor.

Locally I have been working hard to get the local authority to update their information on known flood areas - places that flooded in 2002, and those that flooded in 1953.

Did you know that if a UK developer wants to build on a flood plain, he can if the Environment Agency says the risk is one in 50 years? The local authority and local people may KNOW that the land flooded in 2002 and 1953 and even last week but what they know isn't relevant. Only what the Environment Agency says will count in Planning Law.

Of course a one in 50 year flood might happen tomorrow or next year or tomorrow AND next year. That is probability for you.

The insurance companies take a different view. If they have had more than normal claims for flooding from a small part of your town they will increase the cost of flood insurance for the whole town even if most of it is on top of a hill.

Og

 

[neonlyte]

Og
Pretty much aware of all that, but thanks anyway, it shows the 'head in the sand' attitude thrives in Blighty.

GBT
With no disrespect, I'm not convinced God was quite aware of our attraction for CO2 emmissions. However, I do agree that water may well be the least of our problems, it is a mere inconvenience in the scheme of things.

NL

 

[raphy]

A. The effects are not expected to be at their worst for 75 years, so are WE bothered?

I assume because unless something's changed that I haven't been made aware of, humans still don't give birth to fish.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I'm pretty certain that the climate is always changing. Maybe not catastrophically, but more than we usually think. The earth is a dynamic system, and some cycles takes tens and hundreds or thousands of years to play themselves out. It just isn't the case that before man came on the scene the climate was constant anywhere.

Venice is already sinking, maybe doomed. Where I live, we now have "storms of the century" every year. That is, storms of such severity that they only used to be expected once every 100 years now occur annually. Some may call this a deviation from the norm, but it also just may be a kind of climactic evolution. Whether it's due to global warming or just in the natural cycle of things, I don't think anyone really knows.

---dr.M.

 

[The_old_man]

"Global Warming" in the northern hemisphere has been going on for over 12000 years. A great ice sheet covered the northern areas to depths of miles.

Then the earth wobble shifted and the ice began to melt, it is still melting.

It just may be that Texas and Oklahoma will again become oceans to replenish the oil fields in the Permian Basin, thereby alleviating the oil shortage.

A one tenth of one percent change in solar output, either way, will cause more climate change than burning ALL the oil and coal.

 

[neonlyte]

Well, I know it has not been up long but the net response appears to be that we are not bothered.

TOM
Burning all the coal and oil (certainly the oil - the coal will last longer) will cause my havoc than any possible effect of global warning - think about, our current phase of society is totally oil dependent.

Dr.M
Like your 'tag' - "No such thing as government money"

Raphy
Checked for gills lately?

I think answer B. is correct, we just don't listen to this type of 'news' any more. Unless it is happening at the end of our street, we just don't care.

NL

 

[snooper]

... The insurance companies take a different view. If they have had more than normal claims for flooding from a small part of your town they will increase the cost of flood insurance for the whole town even if most of it is on top of a hill. ...

It's worse than that. I live in the south Wales valleys, which some of you mat know have a cross-section somewhat like a V. We live on the hill side some 200 feet above the bottom of the valley. We have to pay extra for flood risk because some fool built a row of houses next to the river which, for reasons I don't quite understand, runs all along the bottom of the valley and never comes up the hill to us. All of our post code (ZIP code) area have the same flood loading.

 

[Mysteryjj]

Re: Re: Global Warming - Why Bother?

I assume because unless something's changed that I haven't been made aware of, humans still don't give birth to fish.

It's Ok for you Raphy, but I'm not a good swimmer.

 

[neonlyte]

OK

Lets up the stakes on this.

A US President elected by less than 50% of the electorate, what's that - roughly 15% of the US population -I guessing here so don't get hung up on it decides the treaty, agreed by most countres in the world, to curb the output of CO2 emmissions is not worth the paper it is written on.

The US annually releases roughly 25% of all the worlds CO2 emmissions.

Now we can hide behind all sorts of excuses like the world is an evolving dynamic system, we are emerging from a northern hemisphere ice age etc, etc.

Truth is we don't know what is the truth.

Until we do know the facts, shouldn't we consider that the indications that the world is warming poses a threat, one that it is prudent to do something about.

Equating (crudely) the UK report figures to a US scenario would put 20 million people, homes and businesses at risk. Interested?

Ok how about the growth of China. Now the cat is out of the box, so to speak, Chinese citizens will demand the same services, cars, consumerisum that they see in images of the west. Our traditional methods of meeting these demands will fuel the growth in CO2 emmissions, China is larger in population than the USA, European Union and Japan combined.
Over the 75 year timetable of the UK study, China will become a westernised country with all of the 'benefits' we enjoy. If CO2 is causing global warming, and the scientific concensus is of that opinion, it's going to happen. Nothing we can do will stop it.

Time we took to the hills? Nah, I'll sit this one out.

NL