G8 agrees to limit temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius abo

Catweazle · Post by **Catweazle** » 09 Jul 2009, 23:25

biffvernon wrote:

What happened to Ireland?

Bought by the Chinese, moved East.

oilslick · Post by **oilslick** » 09 Jul 2009, 23:38

I think someone should sent out a boat to look for Europe as well!

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 10 Jul 2009, 16:33

For a moment I thought it was some new sort of new dinosaur skeleton.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 10 Jul 2009, 22:23

snow hope wrote:For a moment I thought it was some new sort of new dinosaur skeleton.

I don't think you were far wrong.

Quintus · Post by **Quintus** » 11 Jul 2009, 13:17

biffvernon wrote:What happened to Ireland?

oilslick wrote:I think someone should sent out a boat to look for Europe as well!

No one else left? Hurray, we rule the waves again!

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 11 Jul 2009, 14:34

Hurray, we rule the

waves again!

Well, Welsh & Scottish sheep farmers will rule the waves.

ziggy12345 · Post by **ziggy12345** » 11 Jul 2009, 17:04

Oh Great!! Scotland is bigger than England!

Kieran · Post by **Kieran** » 11 Jul 2009, 17:41

Looks like it will be Yorkshire R.I.P. Lancashire gets the last laugh.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 11 Jul 2009, 22:03

Kieran wrote:Looks like it will be Yorkshire R.I.P. Lancashire gets the last laugh.

I don't think so - we will probably be housing everyone who used to live over t' big 'ill.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 11 Jul 2009, 22:20

Over at RealClimate

David Archer wrote:The countries of the G8 today approved a target of 2° C rise in global average temperature above the natural, preanthropogenic climate, that they resolve should be avoided. The Europeans have been pushing for 2 degrees as a target maximum temperature for several years, but this is something of a development for the Americans. We posted recently on two new papers about what it would take to limit global average warming, finding that it would require fairly strong change in trajectory. About 2° C as a target, we wrote,

… even a “moderate” warming of 2°C stands a strong chance of provoking drought and storm responses that could challenge civilized society, leading potentially to the conflict and suffering that go with failed states and mass migrations. Global warming of 2°C would leave the Earth warmer than it has been in millions of years, a disruption of climate conditions that have been stable for longer than the history of human agriculture. Given the drought that already afflicts Australia, the crumbling of the sea ice in the Arctic, and the increasing storm damage after only 0.8°C of warming so far, a target of 2°C seems almost cavalier.

Nevertheless, we view today’s development as a constructive step.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 12 Jul 2009, 02:53

A maximum rise of 70m? Bummer!! I will miss out on a beach front house by 30m and 1000 years.

In this article from the New Scientist http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ?full=true they are saying that the Pine Island ice sheet in the Western Antarctic will have to move by 70km per year to cause a sea level rise of 1500 by 2100. Elsewhere they say that the Pine island glacier actually sits on the sea bed. So it doesn't actually have to move at all to melt completely if it is attacked from below by warm water currents, as is happening at the moment.

Mexican research into the Yucatan corals shows that there have been 3m rises in as little as 50 to 100 years. With the current significantly higher rates of temperature increase that we are experiencing, why should this not be possible in the near future?

I'm even more worried about building nukes on our existing coastal sites now. It's shear lunacy!

PowerSwitch

G8 agrees to limit temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius abo

Re: G8 agrees to limit temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius

Re: G8 agrees to limit temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius