Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Friday, 3 November 2017

Forward to the Past!

There's a wonderful piece in the sad old Grauniad with some lovely maps on how the world would look with a rise in sea levels. For those of a historical turn of mind, their feature map of the Wash may look familiar... yes, it's exactly the same as the Anglian coastline back in Roman and Saxon times. 

To be frank, I can see only upsides. With the Norfolk broads once again decently under water and connected to the sea, all those ugly floating caravans known as broads cruisers would be dashed to matchwood by decent storms. Hull would cease to be. Old Anglian cities - Dunwich, Soham and Ely - would again be prosperous ports. 

Looks good to me.


Dave_G said...

The recent rise in cAGW reporting (on the BBC in particular) fit with the agenda published in the Grauniad - no surprises there.

It increasingly exposes the BBC for the propaganda outlet it is - along with their one-sided reporting on Brexit, Trump, Russia et al.

All pretence to balance and accuracy of reporting has been thrown out yet despite these appalling deceptions NO ONE seems to be able to call them out or bring them to account.

What happened to justice in our country? Do we HAVE to turn to pitchforks to get our leadership to obey the laws that WE are so readily held to account for should we transgress?

The shift in balance of power is showing logarithmic tendencies towards TPTB and people must be approaching breaking point. I know I am.

Anonymous said...

Much as I enjoyed holidays on English and Welsh canals, The fugly hire craft and clueless holidaymakers associated with the Broads put me off so I gave it a miss.
It was however rather novel to watch a sailing boat passing by inland.
If I recall correctly the North Sea is not actually level due to currents. If these prevailing currents were to slow down, the sea level on the East coast would rise. Or am I talking nonsense?

Anonymous said...

The first graph in the grauniad article shows reasonably accurate data for the 20th c up to now, but then around "just in the future", the temperature shoots up dramatically and then carries on rising inexorably to varying degrees depending on which scare tactic is being tested.

It doesn't say anything about the fact that the temperature hasn't risen for nearly twenty years... In other words, it is just possible that the 7000 years of warming that the planet has been experiencing since the last ice age began to recede, might just have turned a corner and be reverting back to a new ice age.

It all depends on the sun really, mankind is nowt more than an irritation, a bit like eczema.


Anonymous said...

Have to agree with right-writes: the sun is the main driver of climate. Common sense really. He is also correct on the warming flat-lining - despite a significant increase in CO2. Ebb and flow, and there's nothing we can do about it.

Think yourself lucky you're living in an interglacial period.


rapscallion said...

Anonymous at 12:06

No, not talking nonsense. Tides have an effect, but their speed is utterly irrelevant. All tides of whatever tidal range around the UK generally rise and fall in 13 hours ish. The real reason the East Coast is falling into the sea is due to isostatic bounce. This because the North and West of the country is rising (because all the ice has gone), thus the south and east is sinking. And sea levels are NOT rising, though Al Beeb and the Grauniad would like you to think so - they are lying to you; so no change there then.

Charles said...

Look on the bright side if sea levels rise it would wash out Parliament....

Edward Spalton said...

Stuart Agnew MEP ( UKIP) farms in this area and uses a series of maps from different years, all promising rising sea levels.
He concluded his presentation by saying that none of the catastrophic predictions had come to pass. In any case, he said,
pointing to the map " My farm is above them all. So why should I bother?" It went down very well!

Anonymous said...

"It doesn't say anything about the fact that the temperature hasn't risen for nearly twenty years."

I think you are mistaken about this. Look at this graph by NASA for instance.

However, the rise is only about one degree so far. Nothing very dramatic will happen in my lifetime, so I'm not worrying. Milder winters will reduce my heating bill a little.

In the geological past, when exceptionally violent volcanic activity has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, temperatures have risen by several degrees. This is what one would expect from the basic physics.

Replacing fossil fuels (and biofuels) with nuclear power will solve the problem.

Don Cox

formertory said...

Gorbal Worming: an overview.

decnine said...

I would regret the loss of Cambridge.

Raedwald said...

decnine - Cambridge would be fine. The River Granta would be tidal, Cambridge would go back to being a port and the Quayside would be the, erm, quayside.

Of course MDL marinas would want to build a new facility as close to the old town as possible to allow 10 and 12m yachts from Europe and across the Atlantic to visit but the Granta, unless regularly dredged, may not be deep enough for the largest superyachts. For which the town may be thankful.

Ed P said...

Narfak folk are already adapted for a watery environment. But they must not get wet after midnight...

Anonymous said...

I see the map has a 100m contour, and I wonder where all the water would come from. Melting Antarctica might on its own contribute 70m, and Greenland 7m, but the rest of world ice on land doesn't amount to much. Melting sea ice does nothing, as floating ice can melt without raising sea level a jot. As to melting Antarctica, the temperatures average MINUS 40-odd C, so that's unlikely (the sea ice shelves can melt if they want to). Greenland's ice (like a lot of Antarctica's) is at high altitude, and therefore above what might be called the 'snow line' anyway, so I just can't see enough of it melting easily with a few degrees of warming - even if there is any.

Gordon the Fence Post Tortoise said...

We're in a rising tide of mendacious bullshit morelike.

There's a conference coming up - they've been building the Bonn global climate village for the attendees for a couple of months and the climate slurry pumps have been switched on - expect more putrid slop coming down the chute over the next few weeks. I note no obvious solar panels or windmills on site as yet but masses of self regarding PR and stuff

Quite astonishing the the Guardian managed a climate article without blaming Trump.

john savage said...

There is also evidence that tectonic plate activity has a role especially where El Nino is concerned.

Budgie said...

Don Cox, No we have not had a 1degC rise in the global temperature trend over the last 20 years. Perhaps you have mistakenly included the latest large ENSO which, over the last 3 years, has caused an anomaly of about 0.5degC? That has died away becoming the traditional La Nina counter oscillation. Together with other factors that makes it likely we will now experience a severe winter in the Northern hemisphere.

As originally proposed (and so obviously lapped up by our politicians) the CAGW theory was that we would create global warming catastrophe by releasing CO2 stored in natural fuels like gas, oil and coal, by us burning them. Even the consensus scientist are now hastily rowing back on that one. Their current claims are that AGW exists but CAGW doesn't. Unfortunately our politicians haven't caught up yet. So we continue to be penalised by "carbon" (CO2) taxes and other green scams.

Anonymous said...

A single cold winter is weather, not climate. Climate is the running ten or 15 year average.

Obviously a run of cold winters will affect this, but I see nothing on that NASA graph (or any other graphs) to suggest a levelling off of global warming.

We are talking about small changes of a few degrees. Certainly the big influences are the Sun (it would be very cold here without it) and water vapour in the atmosphere. But CO2 and Methane concentrations will cause changes of a few degrees -- how could they not ?

So when CO2 (and Methane) go up, temperatures go up, enough to melt ice sheets. It takes a long time to melt an ice sheet, but it has happened before (see the North of Britain) and it is happening now.

My opinion is that wind turbines and solar panels are ugly and bad for the environment, and the storage needed to make them usable is worse. But nuclear power is reliable and safe and gives off no CO2. We have enough nuclear fuel in store in Britain to last for a couple of centuries, so why we are importing wood from the US beats me.

James Higham said...

Quite good, except I expect it to cool, not warm.

Cascadian said...

Given recent global temperature trends (no change in the last two decades) there is no reason to panic about a projected 3degC rise which could literally take centuries to occur.

Beyond that the study this is based on clearly states "Results do not account for present or future shoreline defenses, such as levees" so existing flood prevention work would mitigate this nonsensical projection to a very large degree.

It is to be hoped that the USA will bring sense to this gathering as it did to the Paris Accord. Once again the UN is guilty of wasting precious resources, in fact all articles emanating from UN should be regarded as fake news.

Ravenscar. said...

to fu**w*t @ 4 November 2017 at 16:09


"So when CO2 (and Methane) go up, temperatures go up,"

The relationship is the other ways around you thicko, CO2, CH4 atmospheric concentrations rise as a function of increased Temperature.

Budgie said...

Anon at 16:09 said: "A single cold winter is weather, not climate." Indeed, who said otherwise? So is an ENSO.

Anon 16:09 said: "Climate is the running ten or 15 year average." Frankly that's rather short, but because of our short lifespan it is used. Normally I would expect the cut-off to be a century or longer.

Anon 16:09 said: "We are talking about small changes of a few degrees. No, that's much exaggerated, we're talking of nothing like "a few degrees".

Quoted from the NASA website: "According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880." (

That's less than 1degC in 137 years. You clearly don't know what you're waffling about.

Anonymous said...

The predicted change is at most a few degrees, over the next couple of centuries. That's what I am talking about.

And I think the problem can be simply solved by replacing fossil fuels with nuclear. Wind and solar are in my opinion a waste of money, at least in Northern Europe. But I suppose they have to be tried so that everyone can see how useless they are.

Don Cox

Dave_G said...

@Don Cox

have you checked to see how the coast of the UK has changed in the last 'few hundred years' and what people did to cope with those changes?

Modern society is far, far more capable of adapting to change however it may be caused. Anything rising temperatures or CO2 might bring about is EASILY countered and far, far cheaper than trying to mitigate the effects 'now'.

The whole issue of cAGW is about the scaremongering - nothing that has been warned of has happened..... nothing. The majority of the scares are baseless, the suggested rise in temperatures vastly exaggerated.

Add to the scaremongering the blatant abuse of data (hiding the decline, refusing to reveal datasets and/or computations used to make predictions etc) all add up to suspicion - and rightly so.

We have dubious evidence supported by dubious models giving dubious forecasts of a dubious future - and we're not supposed to question this?

We are supposed to take-for-granted that the monies 'extorted' from us will benefit us in the long term? We are supposed to accept the increasing poverty over-priced energy brings about? We are supposed to accept the enforcement of policies against us to perpetuate a financial scam that benefits those who promote the scaremongering in the first place?

And what's worse is that they've co-opted useful idiots to do their campaigning for them.

You can therefore understand the ire and disgust that the vast majority of THINKING people have for this over-promoted, baseless scam.

Ravenscar. said...


@6 November 2017 at 13:23

I commend your excellent post.

Doug Shoulders said...

The twofold raison d’etre for the existence of climatology:- We know bestism and extortion.

Billymarlene said...

The ice melting is due to one simple fact; we are not using it before it melts.

I ordered a gin and tonic in a pub yesterday - ‘ice and a slice?’ - not a chance.

Budgie said...

CAGW may be a djinn but certainly isn't a tonic (except for the subsidised crony-capitalists).

G. Tingey said...

That was then
Lot more people around now ....