Climate change and consequences, split from electricity

[biffvernon]

I could cope without electricity. My grandchildren will not be able to cope with global warming..

I have a 4kW solar pv on my roof the windfarms in my neighbourhood mean that my part of the country is a net exporter of non-coal generated electricity. We could have much more renewable generating capacity if it wasn't for our crazy government.


EDIT BY ADMIN this post and those following have been split from the ongoing "electricity supply " thread.

[johnhemming2]

The important thing is that unless we stop burning fossil carbon PDQ no future for civilisation.

That is obviously not true. Even if all the ice in Greenland and Antarctic melted there would still be civilisation.

[kenneal - lagger]

The important thing is that unless we stop burning fossil carbon PDQ no future for civilisation.

That is obviously not true. Even if all the ice in Greenland and Antarctic melted there would still be civilisation.

But what sort of civilisation? Most of the world's deltas, where a great deal of the world's food is produced, and many of its capital cities and financial centres and, most importantly, ports would have been under water for quite a number of years. There would have been mass migrations and probably wars over inundations by people let alone the water that they were fleeing from. The current wave of migrants into the EU would be a trickle in comparison.

All this disruption could easily cause a complete breakdown in our very brittle civilisation as so much of our commerce and economy depend on finance, the city of London, and our ports. Much of the UK's gas and oil infrastructure would have been under water and many of our power stations too.

Click on this and then click on the 20 metre sea level rise and you will see what that would do to this country, Northern France, Belgium and the Netherlands. Then take a trip around some of the world's major cities.

There would be an almost complete cessation of international trade as there would be no ports to route it through. Nearly all nuclear power stations would be flooded with not a few coal fired stations in the same boat, or not!! Large parts of the City and all of Docklands would be under water and the financial loss for this would be catastrophic for our economy. The same would happen over the world. This would cause economic collapse and civilisation would certainly follow.

[biffvernon]

The important thing is that unless we stop burning fossil carbon PDQ no future for civilisation.

That is obviously not true. Even if all the ice in Greenland and Antarctic melted there would still be civilisation.

For sure we can cope with a bit of land loss to the sea, but, even if Hansen's worst case scenario prevails, it will take centuries for "all the ice in Greenland and Antarctic" to melt.

Humanity's existential crisis is more to do with temperature rise.

[kenneal - lagger]

Biff, we won't have to wait for the full sea level rise to start experiencing problems. Even a half metre rise in sea levels will start erosion in previously stable areas of coastline. Even the chalk cliffs of the south of England, something we regard as a symbol of the stability of Great Britain, our bulwark against the outside world, will start to erode faster until a new stable beach line is established. But that new stable beach line will never be established because sea level will continue to rise.

Extreme weather events will become more frequent and have a much greater effect. Storm surges will be that little bit higher every time. The Thames barrier will soon be overtopped by a "freak" weather event and we will be asked to fork out to raise it and the rest of the flood infrastructure to protect a City that, through its investment decisions and its support for this dinosaur government, is aiding and abetting the continuation of global warming. Should we make that decision to invest or should we say "sod it" because the city will be lost eventually anyway so let it go and spend the money elsewhere such as building more houses above the 20m AOD line?

Decisions like these will come thick and fast in the soon to come years and the cost will break the financial system.

[biffvernon]

Biff, we won't have to wait for the full sea level rise to start experiencing problems.

Stawman argument. I didn't say there wouldn't be problems (not least for my house). But they will be the sort of problems we can cope with rather than the civilisation destroying problem of continued global warming.

[johnhemming2]

The important thing is that unless we stop burning fossil carbon PDQ no future for civilisation.

That is obviously not true. Even if all the ice in Greenland and Antarctic melted there would still be civilisation.

For sure we can cope with a bit of land loss to the sea, but, even if Hansen's worst case scenario prevails, it will take centuries for "all the ice in Greenland and Antarctic" to melt.

Humanity's existential crisis is more to do with temperature rise.

and why is that?

[biffvernon]

and why is that?

You understand climate science, surely?

[kenneal - lagger]

Biff, we won't have to wait for the full sea level rise to start experiencing problems.

Stawman argument. I didn't say there wouldn't be problems (not least for my house). But they will be the sort of problems we can cope with rather than the civilisation destroying problem of continued global warming.

Sea level rise is a part of the problem. It's caused by climate change/global warming!! All these problems will add to the costs of climate change and these costs will destroy the economy which will have the happy but tragic effect of a great loss of human life and a reduction in the rate of carbon dioxide emission. The methane emissions might go up for a while as all those billions of bodies decompose!

[biffvernon]

It's a matter of which bad thing comes first. Rising temperatures will destroy economies before rising sea level.

We do, however, still have some ability to mitigate temperature. Sea level is a ship that has already sailed.

[vtsnowedin]

Look at what human beings need to survive. air to breath, food, water, shelter or clothing to modify the environment if its beyond comfortable temperatures and conditions.
Which of these will we run out of first? Depends on where on the planet you are sitting.
A very plausible future will have a drought induced crop failure stress a major population with both a lack of water and food at the same time and kill millions because the size of the problem overwhelms the worlds capability to send relief.

[johnhemming2]

and why is that?

You understand climate science, surely?

Yes and that is why I am asking.

[clv101]

The Met Office 'human dynamics of climate change' poster provides a good overview of climate impacts:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-gui ... n-dynamics

[johnhemming2]

None of that says there is no future for civilisation.

[fuzzy]

And all of the climate problems can be solved by breeding less, which the politicians will not accept, rather than the UK sitting in the dark and cold - which is what this thread is about.