Changing Attitudes: Climate Change

[WYorksWeather]

 Gowon I think I saw that article a while ago - yes it's quite a substantial impact. Yet another argument for planting lots of trees in our cities.

[lassie23]

reforestation is the  best step forward

[Midlands Ice Age]

On 03/03/2024 at 18:21, Nath said:

The most 'revealing' of all graphs on here!! How can we actually effect the worlds' climate!!

China  will never copy us  - absolutely no chance.

I guess it has to be amelioration and methods of flood reduction, whilst keeping going with the current path..

 

MIA

[Methuselah]

 Midlands Ice Age Well, if they don't, millions of their own citizens will die of either floods or malnutrition. 

[WYorksWeather]

 Midlands Ice Age To be fair though that's just a function of population and how states are organised. China is one very big country. They have a massive demographic issue and their economy is maturing, so they won't continue to exhibit developing country type rapid growth for much longer. Most studies have Chinese emissions peaking before 2030.

 

[Midlands Ice Age]

3 hours ago, Methuselah said:

Well, if they don't, millions of their own citizens will die of either floods or malnutrition. 

Exactly how will that help us?

 

2 hours ago, WYorksWeather said:

To be fair though that's just a function of population and how states are organised. China is one very big country. They have a massive demographic issue and their economy is maturing, so they won't continue to exhibit developing country type rapid growth for much longer. Most studies have Chinese emissions peaking before 2030.

As a result of our forthcoming discussions on the rises of the sea level, I  have been reading the IPCC Rel 6 document and they have a section on exactly what they think the sea level rises will mean for different areas of the world. They state that various methods of amelioration and 'concrete' will be required based upon the following review of the impacts of the sea rises between the best and worst of their RCP analyses.

The following is from their political summary, but it does represent the technical specifications. 

Quote - (Something does not seem to allow me to bring the graphs and tables on here directly but the  screenshots below gives the detail and can be zoomed),  

  

But it concludes with the following -

Figure SPM.4 (above) The effect of regional sea level rise on extreme sea level events at coastal locations. (a) Schematic illustration of extreme sea level events and their average recurrence in the recent past (1986–2005) and the future. As a consequence of mean sea level rise, local sea levels that historically occurred once per century […]

Figure SPM.4 | The effect of regional sea level rise on extreme sea level events at coastal locations. (a) Schematic illustration of extreme sea level events and their average recurrence in the recent past (1986–2005) and the future. As a consequence of mean sea level rise, local sea levels that historically occurred once per century (historical centennial events, HCEs) are projected to recur more frequently in the future. (b) The year in which HCEs are expected to recur once per year on average under RCP8.5 and RCP2.6, at the 439 individual coastal locations where the observational record is sufficient. The absence of a circle indicates an inability to perform an assessment due to a lack of data but does not indicate absence of exposure and risk. The darker the circle, the earlier this transition is expected. The likely range is ±10 years for locations where this transition is expected before 2100. White circles (33% of locations under RCP2.6 and 10% under RCP8.5) indicate that HCEs are not expected to recur once per year before 2100. (c) An indication at which locations this transition of HCEs to annual events is projected to occur more than 10 years later under RCP2.6 compared to RCP8.5. As the scenarios lead to small differences by 2050 in many locations results are not shown here for RCP4.5 but they are available in Chapter 4. {4.2.3, Figure 4.10, Figure 4.12}

End quote..

The Chinese coastline is relatively untouched by RCP 2.6 according to the above chart.

They then go on to describe in  more detail the various interventions they would expect to be put into place. -

(Irrespective of what scenario we end up in).

Quote

 

      One document 4 screenshots I'm afraid, but I've overlapped them..

Followed by the following more detailed review  of their investigations.

Figure SPM.5  (above)| Sea level rise risks and responses. The term response is used here instead of adaptation because some responses, such as retreat, may or may not be considered to be adaptation. (a) shows the combined risk of coastal flooding, erosion and salinization for illustrative geographies in 2100, due to changing mean and extreme sea levels under RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 and under two response scenarios. Risks under RCPs 4.5 and 6.0 were not assessed due to a lack of literature for the assessed geographies. The assessment does not account for changes in extreme sea level beyond those directly induced by mean sea level rise; risk levels could increase if other changes in extreme sea levels were considered (e.g., due to changes in cyclone intensity). Panel a) considers a socioeconomic scenario with relatively stable coastal population density over the century. {SM4.3.2} Risks to illustrative geographies have been assessed based on relative sea level changes projected for a set of specific examples: New York City, Shanghai and Rotterdam for resource-rich coastal cities covering a wide range of response experiences; South Tarawa, Fongafale and Male’ for urban atoll islands; Mekong and Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna for large tropical agricultural deltas; and Bykovskiy, Shishmaref, Kivalina, Tuktoyaktuk and Shingle Point for Arctic communities located in regions remote from rapid glacio-isostatic adjustment. {4.2, 4.3.4, SM4.2} The assessment distinguishes between two contrasting response scenarios. “No-to-moderate response” describes efforts as of today (i.e., no further significant action or new types of actions). “Maximum potential response” represents a combination of responses implemented to their full extent and thus significant additional efforts compared to today, assuming minimal financial, social and political barriers. The assessment has been conducted for each sea level rise and response scenario, as indicated by the burning embers in the figure; in-between risk levels are interpolated. {4.3.3} The assessment criteria include exposure and vulnerability (density of assets, level of degradation of terrestrial and marine buffer ecosystems), coastal hazards (flooding, shoreline erosion, salinization), in-situ responses (hard engineered coastal defenses, ecosystem restoration or creation of new natural buffers areas, and subsidence management) and planned relocation. Planned relocation refers to managed retreat or resettlement as described in Chapter 4, i.e., proactive and local-scale measures to reduce risk by relocating people, assets and infrastructure. Forced displacement is not considered in this assessment. Panel a) also highlights the relative contributions of in-situ responses and planned relocation to the total risk reduction. (b) schematically illustrates the risk reduction (vertical arrows) and risk delay (horizontal arrows) through mitigation and/or responses to sea level rise. (c) summarizes and assesses responses to sea level rise in terms of their effectiveness, costs, co-benefits, drawbacks, economic efficiency and associated governance challenges. {4.4.2} (d) presents generic steps of an adaptive decision-making approach, as well as key enabling conditions for responses to sea level rise. {4.4.4, 4.4.5} 

End quote

My comments follow -

They  however dismiss the option of a mass migration of towns and settlements which could be used by most populated coastal areas of the UK, via the building of new towns in safe areas and moving the people into them as a part of an ongoing strategy of improving people's lives in exactly the same way as we have built new towns over the last 50 years. A 1 Meter change in sea level by 2100 would be easily controlled in the UK, whilst we evaluate exactly which path we need to take for more drastic measures (If any?). 

I really do feel that we must take a note of what the Dutch are proposing to  do, and if we start in the next 5 years, will see  many of people's fears of CC subside.   (Unless that is an integral part of the strategy, of course!). It can be produced as a strategy to enable a 'more sociable modernised society' and thus would not be all counted as costs against sea level mitigation.  

I feel that a little less stressful thinking together with controlling  any over-reactions will go a long way towards successfully handling the crisis. ---  We cannot just assume that the Chinese will come on board, and it is clear to me that we cannot go on with just  using our  current strategies, which to me just seem to be to stop CO2 at all costs - It looks like failure to me.

MIA  

Edited March 5 by Midlands Ice Age

[Daniel*]

I plotted annual mean temperature at Heathrow 1973-2023, It’s quite a helpful climate visualisation what we see is step up periods typically following El Niño although this did not happen in late 80s, then periods of stability. In London the climate has warmed near 2C since early 1970s.

Edited March 6 by Daniel*

[Daniel*]

I recently put summer together too from 1948 the data speaks for itself really.

and winter updated to 2023/24… 

 

[Midlands Ice Age]

9 hours ago, Daniel* said:

plotted annual mean temperature at Heathrow 1973-2023, It’s quite a helpful climate visualisation what we see is step up periods typically following El Niño although this did not happen in late 80s, then periods of stability. In London the climate has warmed near 2C since early 1970s.

It is impressive, but 2 things need to be taken into account -

1) What has happened to the number of flights during this period.?

2) Can it be related/compared to a  genuine met station say a further  20 miles west of the suburbs?

 

MIA

 

[TonyH]

 lassie23 Better than depopulation?

 

[Downburst]

Great read. One point I'd like people to consider. The working classes and ever increasing proportion of middle classes are experiencing ever growing disparity in share of wealth. It is true that the rich get richer and the poor poorer, now more than ever. There are many reasons for this, but it's a fact. With respect to solutions to Climate change, for someone like me that owns and house, has lived half a century and is doing very well thank you, well buying into the so called solutions to climate change is a breeze.

To a lot of struggling people the notion on top of what they see as a struggling future, to add complexity in the form of electric cars (expense), increased carbon taxes and other uncertainties to their struggle causes resentment. I think the media ignores this aspect and Greta Thornburg might appeal to the chattering classes in suburban London, but not to so many people. 

So this drives some negative responses and in fairness if one was to understand the climate one would need a scientific background, the internet doesn't ask for peoples expertise on a subject when it takes in someone's opinion

[Methuselah]

 Daniel* If only the data were for, say, Leconfield. . . there'd be no need to get bogged down with flight paths, jet engines or UHIs at all, then? 

[WYorksWeather]

 Midlands Ice Age To be fair I do agree with you at least partially, we shouldn't assume that our own actions will result in net zero alone. I think the key aim is to pursue both. Some adaptation will be needed whether we land at 2C, 3C, 4C or whatever. But obviously if we never get to successful mitigation, the adaptation is then a constant cost.

I would note, however, that whilst moving cities can be done, there are a few social problems. To give a hypothetical example for somewhere near me, suppose certain towns and villages in the East Riding of Yorkshire became uninhabitable due to frequent inundation, and a government proposed to concrete over a load of farmer's fields further inland for new towns, I think there would be some protests! Of course not going to go much further on this as this is a weather forum not a politics forum, but you see what I'm saying, it has the potential to be quite problematic in that sense.

It is definitely an option that will need to be used I think if we do get a metre of sea level rise, as building hard defences won't be economical everywhere. For major urban centres, yes, but elsewhere the cost probably outweighs any potential benefit.

I don't disagree with the overall view though, that regardless of the end result of mitigation (be it RCP 2.6, 8.5, or anything in between), then adaptation will also be a crucial element of the mix, and most studies show we're not doing enough on that either!

[cheeky_monkey]

 Midlands Ice Age as of 2023 China alone accounts for 30% of global emissions..the UK accounts for 0.79%..our citizens are being beaten round the head with a big stick and being financially punished for something that is totally out of our control..soon enough more and more people will start to push back when they realize all their sacrifices and all the financial penalties have resulted in nothing as emissions keep on increasing at least until 2030 and probably way beyond as China and India etc. just do their own thing ..honestly IMO the Chinese dont give a sheet about climate change they are more concerned with global dominance by the end of the century. 

[WYorksWeather]

 cheeky_monkey All I can say in response to that is that I hope your prediction for future emissions is wrong. Both China and India's current emissions trajectories are compatible with 3-4C of warming by 2100. If that is where we end up, we'll in very deep trouble.

In terms of what we can do, you're right that our direct impact on CO2 emissions is very small. The key question is whether we can use our diplomatic soft power as a force-multiplier to punch above our weight, as it were. This does of course require us to make some effort as otherwise it looks like pot-kettle-black when we negotiate with other countries. Of course all diplomatic pressure boils down to either carrot or stick usually (big wads of cash or sanctions / tariffs).

I definitely agree with what you say about the need to carry public opinion along. It will also be the case that where we do look to reduce emissions, this needs to be done in a way that is fair to people financially (I won't say anything more than that, as I have no wish to turn this into a political debate in that sense, as it then touches on a whole load of issues that are really out of the scope of climate change).

A significant amount of adaptation is definitely unavoidable though now, in any scenario, and money should be put aside accordingly. You won't find any climate scientist who disagrees with that.

[Methuselah]

 cheeky_monkey Then we have a monumental opportunity to make loads of money by doing something beneficial, don't we? Though, with history being what it is, successive future governments will faff and fart until it ends up like mag-lev trains. . . 

[matty40s]

Some data...

 

[Methuselah]

Something more on how New Denial is replacing Old Denial:

 

[sundog]

Didn't realise until lately just how much denial is  still out there.

This was an article  in fb that got over 1000 laughing emojis. With one comment in the comment section getting over 400 likes.  Really makes me angry seeing this type of denial. 

Edited March 11 by sundog

[cheeky_monkey]

 sundog its because of previous articles about ice free arctic this just one example from 2012 from the guardian 

 

Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within four years | Climate crisis | The Guardian

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

As sea ice shrinks to record lows, Prof Peter Wadhams warns a 'global disaster' is now unfolding in northern latitudes

 

[Arctic Hare]

 sundog I strongly suspect at least some of those responses are bots, and these days probably with some kind of AI element added. Look what happens every time the Met Office tweets about a record high temperature, such as the Scottish 19.9 °C in January - there's nearly always a proportion of the results where the poster *at best* doesn't understand the science and quite often clearly hasn't read the tweet at all. A lot of what's said is stuff that's trivially disprovable (eg "You never post about cold records I wonder why!!!!!!!!") but of course many people on social media are incredibly gullible and just see what they want to see.

Don't get me wrong, I *do* think a lot of people are still too complacent and fondly imagine other people can do all the work of mitigation and anything that involves them changing their lifestyles even a tiny bit is unacceptable. I wonder whether all the flooding this winter is just starting to change that, though, since it's a very visible thing and an impact that hits a substantial number of people and (if you're directly affected) can be very expensive. The tipping point (to coin a phrase!) is that people are starting to realise that doing nothing and expecting India or the US or whoever to do all the work *won't* mean people in the UK not having to pay anything.

There's obviously a lot of politics around all this, so I'll be careful what I say - though tbh in a democracy, any kind of proposed change that requires public opinion to be onside is *inherently* political...

[sundog]

A propaganda piece for deniers. Climate the movie.  Lol

 

Edited March 23 by sundog

[WYorksWeather]

 sundog A rebuttal is already out, unsurprisingly.

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

SKEPTICALSCIENCE.COM

---

The Desmog Climate Disinformation Database documents, 'individuals and organisations that have helped to delay and distract the public and our elected leaders from taking needed action to reduce...

In short, it's a load of PRATTs (points refuted a thousand times).

 

[Methuselah]

The word PIFFLE comes to mind! 

[sundog]

 WYorksWeather  yes I've seen that. But there is alot of denial out there. These people can not be reasoned with. They have it in their heads that its all a scam. Many of the comments on this video on YouTube really think this film is telling the truth.   Dangerous stuff. There seems to be a fightback going on against climate science and I find that very worrying.  Of course it is difficult to gauge how much of the general population believe this denial nonsense and maybe I'm being a bit ott.