Turn on thread page Beta

How would climate change affect the UK? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    As distinct from other nations?

    Discuss
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Who knows. So far all claims by the environmental lobby relating to doom and gloom have failed to materialise and I'm far from convinced that the science is settled.

    The climate has been changing since the dawn of time.

    We do know that changes will be hard to measure and the timescale in which they happen will allow us the adapt.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Who knows. So far all claims by the environmental lobby relating to doom and gloom have failed to materialise and I'm far from convinced that the science is settled.

    The climate has been changing since the dawn of time.

    We do know that changes will be hard to measure and the timescale in which they happen will allow us the adapt.
    Which claims have failed to materialise exactly? You need to be specific.

    There is an overwhelming (97%+) scientific consensus that man made climate change is happening. But science is never 100% "settled", because you don't want to close yourself off to any future evidence that may or may not appear.
    On the other side you have a few journalists and oil company shills who claim it's not a problem. Which side do you think is more trustworthy and reliable?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    Which claims have <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate" target="_blank">failed to materialise</a> exactly? You need to be specific.<br>
    <br>
    There is an <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange" target="_blank">overwhelming (97%+) scientific consensus</a> that man made climate change is happening. But science is never 100% "settled", because you don't want to close yourself off to any future evidence that may or may not appear. <br>
    On the other side you have a few journalists and oil company shills who claim it's not a problem. Which side do you think is more trustworthy and reliable?
    <br>

    Ice gaps completely gone.

    Continued increase in global temperatures<br>

    And an often misquoted 97% statistic.

    >http://m.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424...53136?mobile=y
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    How will global warming affect the UK? Well, rising sea levels would strain our flood defences, and we're already seeing extreme weather conditions occur at a greater rate now. A report recently published has also found that the low temperatures during winter will be more extreme.

    It may not affect the UK as much as other developing nations due to our infrastructure, but if we look how the United States or even Britain deals with heat waves at the moment, there are still a few people who die every year and many more who suffer dehydration. However advanced our infrastructure will be, it will still be detrimental to our health and our economy.

    The measures we can take to contain global warming, by contrast, will likely be beneficial for the economy: the renewable energy industry was one of the only growing industries after the 2007-08 banking crisis, and renewable energy is becoming cheaper and cheaper. There's no moral, scientific or economic reason not to take action to stop the effects of global warming on the UK and the world.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Predictions from the University of East Anglia suggest it would make it like the South of France, with hot dry summers and mild wet winters.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    How will global warming affect the UK? Well, rising sea levels would strain our flood defences, and we're already seeing extreme weather conditions occur at a greater rate now. A report recently published has also found that the low temperatures during winter will be more extreme.

    It may not affect the UK as much as other developing nations due to our infrastructure, but if we look how the United States or even Britain deals with heat waves at the moment, there are still a few people who die every year and many more who suffer dehydration. However advanced our infrastructure will be, it will still be detrimental to our health and our economy.

    The measures we can take to contain global warming, by contrast, will likely be beneficial for the economy: the renewable energy industry was one of the only growing industries after the 2007-08 banking crisis, and renewable energy is becoming cheaper and cheaper. There's no moral, scientific or economic reason not to take action to stop the effects of global warming on the UK and the world.

    Classic alarmism.

    Mention that a small number of people currently die due to heatwaves, claim that this will get worse.

    Conveniently forget to mention that 10x the amount currently die due to cold winters, and that this is forecast be significantly alleviated.

    Its a shame people feel the need to lie, obfuscate and exaggerate to get the point across, because it makes people think the whole thing is just some big scam.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    How will global warming affect the UK? Well, rising sea levels would strain our flood defences, and we're already seeing extreme weather conditions occur at a greater rate now. A report recently published has also found that the low temperatures during winter will be more extreme.

    It may not affect the UK as much as other developing nations due to our infrastructure, but if we look how the United States or even Britain deals with heat waves at the moment, there are still a few people who die every year and many more who suffer dehydration. However advanced our infrastructure will be, it will still be detrimental to our health and our economy.

    The measures we can take to contain global warming, by contrast, will likely be beneficial for the economy: the renewable energy industry was one of the only growing industries after the 2007-08 banking crisis, and renewable energy is becoming cheaper and cheaper. There's no moral, scientific or economic reason not to take action to stop the effects of global warming on the UK and the world.
    A good post.

    I'd however agree to disagree on the renewables industry. There's a correlation between the growth of the renewables sector and the growth in government and taxpayers subsidies.

    Any industry will grow if it has enough public money pushed into it.

    The real test is if it can stand on its own two feet.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    Classic alarmism.

    Mention that a small number of people currently die due to heatwaves, claim that this will get worse.

    Conveniently forget to mention that 10x the amount currently die due to cold winters, and that this is forecast be significantly alleviated.
    The damage to homes, infrastructure and indeed deaths in many parts of the world will outweigh any deaths due to cold winters - millions of pounds will have to be spent on rebuilding infrastructure, instead of actually using it to improve healthcare and so on. The loss of biodiversity in the world due to global warming will also hit us hard - it's essential for ecosystems to function and even for finding new medicines.

    In any case, as a recent report has stated, in line with the expectation that extreme weather conditions will become more pevalent, our winters may get cooler over the next century due to global warming, although, as you state, in the long-term (later than a century from now), global warming will eventually counterbalance the effects on the Arctic leading to warmer winters. In sum, though, when you consider the hurricanes, tsunamis and floods which will become more prevalent, the death toll due to global warming's negative effects will far outweigh the death toll from its apparent positive effects.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:

    From work produced by noaa and nasa, afaik.


    Co2 and temperature records for the last 800,000 years.
    Just an fyi, we've passed 400ppm Co2, which is off the top of that graph and that ice core composition is pretty much difinitive.



    I've notice no one has mentioned food security yet, might want to talk about that as it's probably the most significant threat. Most people will starve to death more than anything else.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    Predictions from the University of East Anglia suggest it would make it like the South of France, with hot dry summers and mild wet winters.
    An institution whose climate science department has more in common with the Vatican or Yakuza than any credible academic establishment.

    They feed the IPCC with nonsense based on nonsense. Stats that would fail A-level maths.

    Not saying I couldn't be convinced. But not by these crooks and not with the rubbish they have served up.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    An institution whose climate science department has more in common with the Vatican or Yakuza than any credible academic establishment.

    They feed the IPCC with nonsense based on nonsense. Stats that would fail A-level maths.

    Not saying I couldn't be convinced. But not by these crooks and not with the rubbish they have served up.
    1. Are you referring to "climategate" by any chance? If you are, you should know that the scientists involved were cleared of wrongdoing and the whole "scandal" was actually nothing of the sort.

    2. The UEA is one institution in one country. If they didn't exist the evidence and consensus for climate change would be unaffected. Lots of other universities, lots of other scientists and in lots of other countries.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Hopefully hotter summers and more snow in the winters especially in the Scottish Highlands so skiing in Scotland can improve.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Larger spiders :eek:
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    According to the Daily Mail: rise in Ebola, more immigration, EU taking over...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mackay)
    According to the Daily Mail: rise in Ebola, more immigration, EU taking over...
    And cancer.

    Don't forget cancer.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Long Version:

    http://www.adamsmith.org/wp-content/...ssessment7.pdf

    Summary for policymakers
    "A number of EU Member States are committed to increasing the generation of electricity from renewable resources as part of their bid to cut back on emissions of carbon dioxide. In the UK, this means a focus primarily on wind, both on- and off-shore. Arguments continue to go back and forth on the desirability and effectiveness of this policy, but the governments in both Westminster and Holyrood remain firmly committed at present.
    Wind is, by its nature, intermittent and so the extent to which this affects the output of the fleet of wind turbines in a typical year is crucial in determining how much conventional generating capacity is needed by way of backup and thus what the overall system costs are. This study provides a rigorous quantitative assessment of wind variability and intermittency based on nine years of hourly measurements of wind speed on 22 sites across the country. The analysis is based on a model UK wind fleet of 10 GW nominal capacity.
    The model reveals that power output has the following pattern over a year:
    Power exceeds 90 % of available power for only 17 hours
    Power exceeds 80 % of available power for 163 hours
    Power is below 20 % of available power for 3,448 hours (20 weeks)
    Power is below 10 % of available power for 1,519 hours (9 weeks)
    Although it is claimed that the wind is always blowing somewhere in the UK, the model reveals this ‘guaranteed’ output is only sufficient to generate something under 2 % of nominal output. The most common power output of this 10 GW model wind fleet is approximately 800 MW. The probability that the wind fleet will produce full output is vanishingly small.
    Long gaps in significant wind production occur in all seasons. Each winter of the study shows prolonged spells of low wind generation which will have to be covered by either significant energy storage (equivalent to building at least 15 plants of the size of Dinorwig) or maintaining fossil plant as reserve.
    The preceding deficiencies suggest the model wind fleet would require an equal sized fossil fuel generation fleet operating alongside it, especially during winter months.
    The study was extended with another 21 sites located in Ireland and across the northern plain of Europe. Performance of the wind fleet in Ireland is slightly better than in the UK, but the northern European fleet (Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and Germany) is much poorer. Integrating all these with Ireland and European interconnectors will do little to reduce the intermittency levels described above.
    The short-term (30 – 90 minutes) variability of wind generation is also studied and reveals swings in output far higher than would be expected from conventional generation. Swings of 10 % of output are normal. This observation contradicts the claim that a widespread wind fleet installation will smooth variability.
    Electricity grid management entails balancing generation against demand even within timescales as short as 10 S. The UK has an island grid, with few interconnectors to other European grids and none of these interconnectors are AC links capable of providing grid stabilization and inertia. It was for this reason that the CEGB designed and built (capital cost over £1 B) the Dinorwig pumped storage power station. But the model wind fleet reveals wind energy production is unlike that of all conventional fossil fuelled or pumped storage plants; it does not follow grid demand on diurnal or even seasonal time patterns. Wind generation will therefore make heavy claims on the UK’s response and reserve market. This study has shown that at certain times half of Dinorwig’s units would be needed to mitigate the variability of a 10 GW wind fleet. The entire UK pumped storage capability cannot compensate for the wind power fleet’s intermittency."

    Short Version:

    They are expensive Green Totem poles that generate nothing certain but subsidies for their owners and need equivalent and hugely expensive (and also subsidised) short term conventional reserve generation capacity.

    Your "policy" is ****.

    Surprise surprise the Wind Industry is claiming this is scaremongering. But have they said any of the analysis is wrong? Errr no.........
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Is there even conclusive evidence that climate change is not natural but rather man made from CO2 emissions. I find it very very very hard to believe that carbon dioxide that makes up less than 0.0397% of the earths atmosphere is changing our planet drastically.

    Don't get me wrong I'm all in favour for Renewable/Green technology but it's just the fact that we're always told to cut back on Carbon dioxide emissions and yet it only makes up 0.0397% of the atmosphere and without CO2 life would cease to exist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chillaxer)
    As distinct from other nations?

    Discuss
    I am surprised that academics above all seem to overlook the fact that climate change is an unproven theory.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blinka)
    I am surprised that academics above all seem to overlook the fact that climate change is an unproven theory.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Got to keep that funding stream flowing.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.