Global cooling

[GURGLETROUSERS]

A quick extra on sea defences.

About a quarter of Holland is reclaimed land from below sea level. The construction of dykes, and drainage, was carried out bit by bit, over many years. They built the system to withstand a once in a thousand year extreme storm surge. (The days before computers, and global warming rising sea level predictions.)

After the extreme worst ever 1953 event, when the dykes were overcome, and the lands flooded (over 2,000 human deaths, and thousands of livestock), they picked themselves up, and declared, never again!

The dykes were rebuilt and strengthened to withstand a once in 10,000 year storm surge, which, fortunately, will now save them from the predicted sea level rise, shoulkd it occur. (They can always add to the dykes, should such be necessary.)

Maintaining this system of over 1,800 miles of dykes, and over 6,000 miles of river dykes, embankments, along with all the pumping stations, entails an annual expenditure of around £500 million. (In our money terms.)

(To continue.)

[GURGLETROUSERS]

(Continued.)

Our country has now requested the Dutch engineers help, who have arrived, and are advising how to turn it all around after the willful neglect of the couple of decades, when DELIBERATE flloding (now verified as true) was indulged in by the Environmental Agency, in accordance with E.U. directives on preserving wildlife (bird) habitats, in preferance to farming and communities. Their immediate action has been to restart robust pumping operations.

Perhaps the Dutch experience and expertise in 'fighting the seas incursion' should be a model for the rest of the world, if rising sea levels really are seen as such a threat.

Steady yearly expenditure and upkeep would be a small price to pay, though, unlike the Dutch, having to start from scratch is going to cost a great deal more. Perhaps work should begin now, before it's too late!

[GURGLETROUSERS]

Mac. I note your 'barb' in another thread, about supporters of coal. I assume I'm included.

Our industrial economy relies on adequate and reliable power supply. We are now close to having no spare capacity, and studies show that we will likely be facing power cuts within a year or so, IF the government go ahead with their 'green' agenda of closing necessary coal fired power stations, with an over optimistic reliance on wind power to fill the shortfall.

Belatedly, they now accept that their expectations are not entirely realistic, and that a new swathe of nuclear stations must be built. They cannot be ready for a few years yet, but, meanwhile, they are going ahead with coal power shutdowns, to meet the toughest EU targets, which the EU have now backed down on! Germany has seen the reality, and is opening new coal power stations out of necessity, as are India and China.

My position is clear. The coal fired power stations should NOT be closed UNTIL a reliably adequate other source is in place. (Nuclear it is likely going to be.)

Criticism is easy, but perhaps you would advise what you would do in the circumstances we find ourselves in?

[mrgybe]

The perfect solution. Renewable energy and food preparation in one!! (and only $1.6 billion taxpayer dollars on the line).

The $2.2 Billion Bird-Scorching Solar Project - At California's Ivanpah Plant, Mirrors Produce Heat and Electricity—And Kill Wildlife
BrightSource system appears to be scorching birds that fly through the intense heat surrounding the towers, which can reach 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The company, which is based in Oakland, Calif., reported finding dozens of dead birds at the Ivanpah plant over the past several months, while workers were testing the plant before it started operating in December. Some of the dead birds appeared to have singed or burned feathers, according to federal biologists and documents filed with the state Energy Commission.

[pueno]

[mac]

Well, another Gish gallop.

[GURGLETROUSERS]

Mac. I don't dispute that nuclear power generation is heavily subsidised, or that coal is environmentally unfriendly, and costs a lot because of that. That was not my point. Our whole modern technologically advanced way of life is subsidised, in one way or another.

My point is that, at present, we cannot (over here) have a necessary continuous and reliable supply of electricity without either one or the other. (Gas is a seperate issue currently being thrashed out.) Green sources are not yet able to meet this basic requirement.

The government now accepts this obvious point, as do the Germans, and the French. (Germany won't use nuclear so must use coal, and France has heavily relied upon nuclear (successfully) for years.)

As for carbon tax, it is already heavily applied over here, with eye watering costs (especially on fuel) and obvious drawbacks to economic competitiveness. (Against countries which don't apply sanctions.)

For the present century, at least, I don't see any viable wholesale alternative for our heavily industrialised society but to rely on nuclear power, with whatever costs necessary, or return to pre industrial days!

Exaggeration poerhaps, but the point is obvious.

[mac]

Let's be clear about how much the liability issue costs. For Fukushima, the estimated cost of total clean-up is $250-500 billion--nobody yet knows. The Japanese government has borrowed $80 billion--so far--to fund the clean-up.

It is very funny how those on the right who worship market forces get very silent about subsidies to right wing industries that support their politicians.

[GURGLETROUSERS]

Statement yesterday from Mat Collins, professor in climate systems at Exeter University, an expert in computer modelling, (jointly funded by the Met office), and senior adviser for the Un IPCC.

His statement, as reported in the Mail on Sunday, (which is in contradiction to Met Office scientist Julia Slingo, who claimed 'ALL EVIDENCE is that global warming has a role to play in the storms.')

'There is no evidence that global warming can cause the Jet Stream to get stuck in the way that it has this Winter.' He made it clear that he believes (he is a convinced warmer) global warming could lead to higher rainfal totals, because a warmer atmosphere can hold more water, but this has NOTHING to do with the Jet Stream conveyor belt.

He stated that when the IPCC was completing its Fith Assessment report on climate change last year, they discussed whether warming could affect the Jet Stream, but there was little evidence that it could, so it was not mentioned in the report.

A change to hear a 'pro warmer' not 'gilding the lilly' as too many lesser lights do. Makes a change from the ridicule usually heaped on those of us who want proof, not dogma!

[mac]

GT--too early to tell. Weather gets wild--but one of the predictions of modeling has been an increase in extreme events and droughts. Time will tell.