World 'nowhere near on track' to avoid warming beyond 1.5C target

AK_User wrote:

Ideally, atmospheric CO2 levels should be somewhere between 1,200 and 1,500 ppm for the overwhelming majority of plants to thrive. At our current level of 407 ppm plants are on a starvation diet.

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

And I am of the definate opinion that you know that there simply is no real trouble from a slightly warmer world.

If you had anything to say, any sort of actual problem, you would have taken the opportunity to spread the word.[/color]

Well one thing I am qualified to make a statement on is on what I know. I am not as sure of what I know about what the future as you seem to be.

I do know that you are an idiot however

As for spreading the word I think that anyone who has found themselves here has already made up their mind.

Most members seem to be life hating anti-enviroment trolls.

I'm here because I'm board not to make friends.

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

And I am of the definate opinion that you know that there simply is no real trouble from a slightly warmer world.

If you had anything to say, any sort of actual problem, you would have taken the opportunity to spread the word.[/color]

Well one thing I am qualified to make a statement on is on what I know. I am not as sure of what I know about what the future as you seem to be.

I do know that you are an idiot however

As for spreading the word I think that anyone who has found themselves here has already made up their mind.

Most members seem to be life hating anti-enviroment trolls.

I'm here because I'm board not to make friends.

Not actually able to point out any actual bad thing then.

spot wrote:
Sea level rises for a start.

Jeffvw wrote:

spot wrote:
Sea level rises for a start.

Sea level rise is not accelerating. If it were a problem, wouldn't we see at least some acceleration at this point since we've already warmed 1.0 C? Is another 0.5 C going to make any difference? Here's New York's tidal gauge data as an example:

That is an amazingly linear trend. It is the same worldwide.

spot wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

spot wrote:
Sea level rises for a start.

Sea level rise is not accelerating. If it were a problem, wouldn't we see at least some acceleration at this point since we've already warmed 1.0 C? Is another 0.5 C going to make any difference? Here's New York's tidal gauge data as an example:

That is an amazingly linear trend. It is the same worldwide.

I don't understand you aren't denying that sea levels are increasing, they will continue to increase as the world warms. The physics is well understood. I don't know what your argument is?

Jeffvw wrote:

spot wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

spot wrote:
Sea level rises for a start.

Sea level rise is not accelerating. If it were a problem, wouldn't we see at least some acceleration at this point since we've already warmed 1.0 C? Is another 0.5 C going to make any difference? Here's New York's tidal gauge data as an example:

That is an amazingly linear trend. It is the same worldwide.

I don't understand you aren't denying that sea levels are increasing, they will continue to increase as the world warms. The physics is well understood. I don't know what your argument is?

Sea level has been steadily rising for the past 150 years.

The argument is that there will be acceleration in the rate of rise of sea level. There is no acceleration. Global average of sea level rise is under 2 mm/year. NY is slightly higher since the land is sinking. In parts of Alaska sea level is steadily dropping because the land is rebounding.

This matters because people are predicting up to 2 meters of sea level rise by the year 2100 due to global warming. That is 81 years from now. Take 2 mm/year times 81 years and you get 162 mm or 0.162 meters. That is a little more than 6 inches. That is less than sea level rose in the 20th century. If there is any chance of sea level rise being a problem, it should be showing up as a major acceleration. It is not. Therefore it is not a problem.

Jeffvw wrote:

spot wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

spot wrote:
Sea level rises for a start.

Sea level rise is not accelerating. If it were a problem, wouldn't we see at least some acceleration at this point since we've already warmed 1.0 C? Is another 0.5 C going to make any difference? Here's New York's tidal gauge data as an example:

That is an amazingly linear trend. It is the same worldwide.

I don't understand you aren't denying that sea levels are increasing, they will continue to increase as the world warms. The physics is well understood. I don't know what your argument is?

Sea level has been steadily rising for the past 150 years.

The argument is that there will be acceleration in the rate of rise of sea level. There is no acceleration. Global average of sea level rise is under 2 mm/year. NY is slightly higher since the land is sinking. In parts of Alaska sea level is steadily dropping because the land is rebounding.

This matters because people are predicting up to 2 meters of sea level rise by the year 2100 due to global warming. That is 81 years from now. Take 2 mm/year times 81 years and you get 162 mm or 0.162 meters. That is a little more than 6 inches. That is less than sea level rose in the 20th century. If there is any chance of sea level rise being a problem, it should be showing up as a major acceleration. It is not. Therefore it is not a problem.

spot wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

spot wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

spot wrote:
Sea level rises for a start.

Sea level rise is not accelerating. If it were a problem, wouldn't we see at least some acceleration at this point since we've already warmed 1.0 C? Is another 0.5 C going to make any difference? Here's New York's tidal gauge data as an example:

That is an amazingly linear trend. It is the same worldwide.

I don't understand you aren't denying that sea levels are increasing, they will continue to increase as the world warms. The physics is well understood. I don't know what your argument is?

Sea level has been steadily rising for the past 150 years.

The argument is that there will be acceleration in the rate of rise of sea level. There is no acceleration. Global average of sea level rise is under 2 mm/year. NY is slightly higher since the land is sinking. In parts of Alaska sea level is steadily dropping because the land is rebounding.

This matters because people are predicting up to 2 meters of sea level rise by the year 2100 due to global warming. That is 81 years from now. Take 2 mm/year times 81 years and you get 162 mm or 0.162 meters. That is a little more than 6 inches. That is less than sea level rose in the 20th century. If there is any chance of sea level rise being a problem, it should be showing up as a major acceleration. It is not. Therefore it is not a problem.

Are you suggesting that global sea levels are rising due to all the land sinking everywhere? That seems a very daft proposition to me.

spot wrote:I don't know about the 2 meter by 2100 claim, any sea level rise will have negative consequences perhaps you would like to explain to the residents of Florida how sea level rise is benign.

spot wrote: Observations show that the global average sea level has risen by about 20 cm (8 inches) since the late 19th century. Sea level is rising faster in recent decades; measurements from tide gauges (blue) and satellites (red) indicate that the best estimate for the average sea level rise over the last two decades is centred on 3.2 mm per year (0.12 inches per year). The shaded area represents the sea level uncertainty, which has decreased as the number of gauge sites used in the global averages and the number of data points have increased. Source: Shum and Kuo (2011)

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

And I am of the definate opinion that you know that there simply is no real trouble from a slightly warmer world.

If you had anything to say, any sort of actual problem, you would have taken the opportunity to spread the word.[/color]

Well one thing I am qualified to make a statement on is on what I know. I am not as sure of what I know about what the future as you seem to be.

I do know that you are an idiot however

As for spreading the word I think that anyone who has found themselves here has already made up their mind.

Most members seem to be life hating anti-enviroment trolls.

I'm here because I'm board not to make friends.

Not actually able to point out any actual bad thing then.

Sea level rises for a start.

spot wrote:
...deleted Mantra 15...21...7...
You claim to have proved NASA wrong and you need me to go through the basics on this subject with you?

Jeffvw wrote:

spot wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

spot wrote:
Sea level rises for a start.

Sea level rise is not accelerating. If it were a problem, wouldn't we see at least some acceleration at this point since we've already warmed 1.0 C? Is another 0.5 C going to make any difference? Here's New York's tidal gauge data as an example:

That is an amazingly linear trend. It is the same worldwide.

I don't understand you aren't denying that sea levels are increasing, they will continue to increase as the world warms. The physics is well understood. I don't know what your argument is?

Sea level has been steadily rising for the past 150 years.

The argument is that there will be acceleration in the rate of rise of sea level. There is no acceleration. Global average of sea level rise is under 2 mm/year. NY is slightly higher since the land is sinking. In parts of Alaska sea level is steadily dropping because the land is rebounding.

Jeffvw wrote:
This matters because people are predicting up to 2 meters of sea level rise by the year 2100 due to global warming. That is 81 years from now. Take 2 mm/year times 81 years and you get 162 mm or 0.162 meters. That is a little more than 6 inches. That is less than sea level rose in the 20th century. If there is any chance of sea level rise being a problem, it should be showing up as a major acceleration. It is not. Therefore it is not a problem.

James___ wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

spot wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

spot wrote:
Sea level rises for a start.

Sea level rise is not accelerating. If it were a problem, wouldn't we see at least some acceleration at this point since we've already warmed 1.0 C? Is another 0.5 C going to make any difference? Here's New York's tidal gauge data as an example:

That is an amazingly linear trend. It is the same worldwide.

I don't understand you aren't denying that sea levels are increasing, they will continue to increase as the world warms. The physics is well understood. I don't know what your argument is?

Sea level has been steadily rising for the past 150 years.

The argument is that there will be acceleration in the rate of rise of sea level. There is no acceleration. Global average of sea level rise is under 2 mm/year. NY is slightly higher since the land is sinking. In parts of Alaska sea level is steadily dropping because the land is rebounding.

This matters because people are predicting up to 2 meters of sea level rise by the year 2100 due to global warming. That is 81 years from now. Take 2 mm/year times 81 years and you get 162 mm or 0.162 meters. That is a little more than 6 inches. That is less than sea level rose in the 20th century. If there is any chance of sea level rise being a problem, it should be showing up as a major acceleration. It is not. Therefore it is not a problem.

..There are places where changes in our ocean have been a problem. Florida has noticed more flooding and many parts of it are barely above sea level.

...deleted Holy Link...

Jeffvw wrote:

spot wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

spot wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

spot wrote:
Sea level rises for a start.

Sea level rise is not accelerating. If it were a problem, wouldn't we see at least some acceleration at this point since we've already warmed 1.0 C? Is another 0.5 C going to make any difference? Here's New York's tidal gauge data as an example:

That is an amazingly linear trend. It is the same worldwide.

I don't understand you aren't denying that sea levels are increasing, they will continue to increase as the world warms. The physics is well understood. I don't know what your argument is?

Sea level has been steadily rising for the past 150 years.

The argument is that there will be acceleration in the rate of rise of sea level. There is no acceleration. Global average of sea level rise is under 2 mm/year. NY is slightly higher since the land is sinking. In parts of Alaska sea level is steadily dropping because the land is rebounding.

This matters because people are predicting up to 2 meters of sea level rise by the year 2100 due to global warming. That is 81 years from now. Take 2 mm/year times 81 years and you get 162 mm or 0.162 meters. That is a little more than 6 inches. That is less than sea level rose in the 20th century. If there is any chance of sea level rise being a problem, it should be showing up as a major acceleration. It is not. Therefore it is not a problem.

Are you suggesting that global sea levels are rising due to all the land sinking everywhere? That seems a very daft proposition to me.

No. I'm suggesting that land is sinking in areas where sea level is rising faster than the global average and that land is rising where sea level is rising slower than the global average (or where sea level is dropping). Here's an example in Juneau, Alaska:

spot wrote:I don't know about the 2 meter by 2100 claim, any sea level rise will have negative consequences perhaps you would like to explain to the residents of Florida how sea level rise is benign.

It is not benign, but it is happening anyway with or without CO2 emissions. We are in an inter-glacial period and sea level will continue to rise slowly until the climate inevitably cools again.

spot wrote: Observations show that the global average sea level has risen by about 20 cm (8 inches) since the late 19th century. Sea level is rising faster in recent decades; measurements from tide gauges (blue) and satellites (red) indicate that the best estimate for the average sea level rise over the last two decades is centred on 3.2 mm per year (0.12 inches per year). The shaded area represents the sea level uncertainty, which has decreased as the number of gauge sites used in the global averages and the number of data points have increased. Source: Shum and Kuo (2011)

This quote is from a paper when scientists were splicing satellite data to tidal gauge data (a serious no-no). It showed an inflection (or acceleration) in 1993 when the satellite data came on line. Tidal gauges showed <2.0 mm/year and the satellites showed 3.2 mm/year. Subsequent analysis showed that tidal gauges continued to trudge along at <2.0mm/year after 1993. More recent (and better reviewed) papers acknowledge this fact. There is no acceleration. Satellite data should not be combined with tidal gauge data. It is a calibration problem.

There is no acceleration in sea level data.

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

And I am of the definate opinion that you know that there simply is no real trouble from a slightly warmer world.

If you had anything to say, any sort of actual problem, you would have taken the opportunity to spread the word.[/color]

Well one thing I am qualified to make a statement on is on what I know. I am not as sure of what I know about what the future as you seem to be.

I do know that you are an idiot however

As for spreading the word I think that anyone who has found themselves here has already made up their mind.

Most members seem to be life hating anti-enviroment trolls.

I'm here because I'm board not to make friends.

Not actually able to point out any actual bad thing then.

Sea level rises for a start.

You keep asking people these daft questions for years now and keep dismissing the answers and then make daft statements that you seem to think are facts which are not facts.

You claim to have proved NASA wrong and you need me to go through the basics on this subject with you?

I have played your game thanks for bumping my thread.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Slow and painful like pulling teeth.

Sea level rise, OK, now cite a single local council anywhere in the world that has traffic lights and we can start to discuss the impact of the expected sea level rise as shouted about by the IPCC, I will use their number for now.

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Slow and painful like pulling teeth.

Sea level rise, OK, now cite a single local council anywhere in the world that has traffic lights and we can start to discuss the impact of the expected sea level rise as shouted about by the IPCC, I will use their number for now.

Take London and the Thames Barrier

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Barrier

Total construction cost was around £534 million (£1.6 billion at 2016 prices) with an additional £100 million for river defences


an exact figure of what a set of traffic light would cost is hard to get, I found

https://www.thebillfold.com/2012/04/traffic-lights-more-expensive-than-i-thought/

The cost, including installation, of one traffic light in Maricopa County, Arizona is $225,000. or £170,474.62

the number of traffic lights in London is also an indeterminate figure

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-10-19/traffic-lights-up-across-the-city-how-many-in-your-area/ we will use the larger figure: 6,252

so £170,474.62 * 6,252 = 1,065,807,324 or short of a billion pounds against the £1.6 billion for the Thames Barrier alone. That is a major city with a high density of traffic lights, not a typical council. If we pretend that the royal society is right and you muppets are wrong upgrading it for the expected rising sea will incur additional costs.

Are you still going to ask that daft question all the time?

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Slow and painful like pulling teeth.

Sea level rise, OK, now cite a single local council anywhere in the world that has traffic lights and we can start to discuss the impact of the expected sea level rise as shouted about by the IPCC, I will use their number for now.

Take London and the Thames Barrier

Tim the plumber wrote:

Great research. Well done. Really I'm not taking the piss I am impressed with your research.

Now the counter points;

1, The Thames barrier has been built using less money than your numbers suggest will be spent in London over the next 80 years so that would be a fail if the cost was the same as the barrier's inmitial construction.

2, The cost number asked for is the additional cost due to the increa\se in sea level rise. That would be very low compared to building any sort of barrier. So the additional cost is massively less than the cost of traffic lights.

Note the building of the Thames barrier did not cause massive ecconomic problems for the UK of even just Lonmdon. Nor does the cost of traffic lights.

Nice try. Good research. Clearly shows just how little trouble it will all be.[/color]

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Great research. Well done. Really I'm not taking the piss I am impressed with your research.

Now the counter points;

1, The Thames barrier has been built using less money than your numbers suggest will be spent in London over the next 80 years so that would be a fail if the cost was the same as the barrier's inmitial construction.

2, The cost number asked for is the additional cost due to the increa\se in sea level rise. That would be very low compared to building any sort of barrier. So the additional cost is massively less than the cost of traffic lights.

Note the building of the Thames barrier did not cause massive ecconomic problems for the UK of even just Lonmdon. Nor does the cost of traffic lights.

Nice try. Good research. Clearly shows just how little trouble it will all be.[/color]

Thanks, that's the nicest thing anyone said to me all day.

They are just back of the envelope figures. To be accurate you would have to start making FOI requests. But my point is what if you muppets are wrong and the Royal Society is right. London is a very rich part of the world sea levels will affect other areas as well. Sea levels are not the only cost associated with rising temperatures it is very easy to read wikipedia and other sources and find out very approximately what those costs are if people are actually interested, hint they will not be negligible.

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Slow and painful like pulling teeth.

Sea level rise, OK, now cite a single local council anywhere in the world that has traffic lights and we can start to discuss the impact of the expected sea level rise as shouted about by the IPCC, I will use their number for now.

Take London and the Thames Barrier

The Thames river Barrier wasn't built because of global sea level rise. The outlet of the Thames is very flat and also fills with silt. The area around the Thames delta has ALWAYS been prone to flooding (that often reached up into parts of London!).

Before the Thames Barrier, they used a dike system along the river's edge. During some storms, this dike system would fail, so the UK decided to build the Thames Barrier instead.

Since it's completion, it has largely been successful and limiting the flooding in this area from storm surges.

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Great research. Well done. Really I'm not taking the piss I am impressed with your research.

Now the counter points;

1, The Thames barrier has been built using less money than your numbers suggest will be spent in London over the next 80 years so that would be a fail if the cost was the same as the barrier's inmitial construction.

2, The cost number asked for is the additional cost due to the increa\se in sea level rise. That would be very low compared to building any sort of barrier. So the additional cost is massively less than the cost of traffic lights.

Note the building of the Thames barrier did not cause massive ecconomic problems for the UK of even just Lonmdon. Nor does the cost of traffic lights.

Nice try. Good research. Clearly shows just how little trouble it will all be.[/color]

Thanks, that's the nicest thing anyone said to me all day.

They are just back of the envelope figures. To be accurate you would have to start making FOI requests. But my point is what if you muppets are wrong and the Royal Society is right. London is a very rich part of the world sea levels will affect other areas as well. Sea levels are not the only cost associated with rising temperatures it is very easy to read wikipedia and other sources and find out very approximately what those costs are if people are actually interested, hint they will not be negligible.

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Slow and painful like pulling teeth.

Sea level rise, OK, now cite a single local council anywhere in the world that has traffic lights and we can start to discuss the impact of the expected sea level rise as shouted about by the IPCC, I will use their number for now.

Take London and the Thames Barrier

The Thames river Barrier wasn't built because of global sea level rise. The outlet of the Thames is very flat and also fills with silt. The area around the Thames delta has ALWAYS been prone to flooding (that often reached up into parts of London!).

Before the Thames Barrier, they used a dike system along the river's edge. During some storms, this dike system would fail, so the UK decided to build the Thames Barrier instead.

Since it's completion, it has largely been successful and limiting the flooding in this area from storm surges.

Tim the plumber wrote:


You did not expect that result.

It will be the same for all the world. Try another local council with traffic lights.[/color]

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Slow and painful like pulling teeth.

Sea level rise, OK, now cite a single local council anywhere in the world that has traffic lights and we can start to discuss the impact of the expected sea level rise as shouted about by the IPCC, I will use their number for now.

Take London and the Thames Barrier

The Thames river Barrier wasn't built because of global sea level rise. The outlet of the Thames is very flat and also fills with silt. The area around the Thames delta has ALWAYS been prone to flooding (that often reached up into parts of London!).

Before the Thames Barrier, they used a dike system along the river's edge. During some storms, this dike system would fail, so the UK decided to build the Thames Barrier instead.

Since it's completion, it has largely been successful and limiting the flooding in this area from storm surges.

...You are good at twisting thngs ITN. Maybe you should join the Republican Party?

James___ wrote:
You'd make a good American if you joined the right party. The Republicans are fighting the War On Coal so you could join their War Party. They need young brave warriors like yourself. I am sure they'd welcome you.

James___ wrote:
...It is interesting the way you say when there are storms in England the Thames Delta will be prone to flooding so they built barriers to keep the flood waters in and to help prevent silt from being flushed.

James___ wrote:
...If you consider the Netherlands your argument loses it's merit. It's the same scenario you described for London.

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:


You did not expect that result.

It will be the same for all the world. Try another local council with traffic lights.[/color]

If you want to know why don't you do the research?

I chose London because I could find relevant information. A major metropolitan city with a high density of traffic lights and spending on current flood defenses still are more then traffic lights. This is contrary to what you were implying. I get the impression that you have no idea how much is spent on either traffic lights or flood defense. and you just guessed that it would be more and you think you look clever challenging people on that.

What about the projected costs to protect Bangladesh? how many traffic lights there?

Also my obtuse friend you challenged me on what bad things will happen in the future I said "If we assume the Royal Society is right" if sea levels rise eventually even the Thames Barrier will fail. History is not going to stop in 2070 Will the world economy be able to support increasing investment in flood defenses? You do know that there will be other effects from climate change?

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:


You did not expect that result.

It will be the same for all the world. Try another local council with traffic lights.[/color]

If you want to know why don't you do the research?

I chose London because I could find relevant information. A major metropolitan city with a high density of traffic lights and spending on current flood defenses still are more then traffic lights. This is contrary to what you were implying. I get the impression that you have no idea how much is spent on either traffic lights or flood defense. and you just guessed that it would be more and you think you look clever challenging people on that.

What about the projected costs to protect Bangladesh? how many traffic lights there?

Also my obtuse friend you challenged me on what bad things will happen in the future I said "If we assume the Royal Society is right" if sea levels rise eventually even the Thames Barrier will fail. History is not going to stop in 2070 Will the world economy be able to support increasing investment in flood defenses? You do know that there will be other effects from climate change?

Tim the plumber wrote:
Your own nubers show that London spends more on traffic lights than the barrier.

Tim the plumber wrote:
There must be at least 1000 trafffic lights in London, we British like them a lot, and your cost for a traffic light is for a simple one. Ours are very very often very very complex. It is also just the additional cost that is the factor we must consider.

Tim the plumber wrote:
In 2070 the Thames Barrrier will be 86 years old. I expect we will have to replace it by then. Sea defences are like that. You have to keep working on them.

I have done enough research to satisfy myself that there is no problem.

Tim the plumber wrote:
You are claiming that there is a problem.

Tim the plumber wrote:
You want to talk about Bangladesh, OK. Understand that each dumps 2cm of silt on the place each year and that is if you are 10km away from the river. You will have to work to find somewhere 10km away from the rivers of Bangladesh. But go for it we can look at a particular local council there and see what comes out. Cite the place we will consider.

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Your own nubers show that London spends more on traffic lights than the barrier.

No that's not what my own nubers show if you remember It was 1.6 billion on the barrier 1.1 billion on traffic lights. Why lie?

Tim the plumber wrote:
There must be at least 1000 trafffic lights in London, we British like them a lot, and your cost for a traffic light is for a simple one. Ours are very very often very very complex. It is also just the additional cost that is the factor we must consider.

If you scroll up you will find I used a website it gave a figure of 6,252 not 1,000. If you aren't even going bother to read what is written when people reply to you what is the point of this discussion?

You say British traffic lights must more complicated then American ones without evidence. I think the principle of traffic lights are the same. we can agree to disagree. until you start getting of your ass and do the research to support your assertions.

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-10-19/traffic-lights-up-across-the-city-how-many-in-your-area/

Tim the plumber wrote:
In 2070 the Thames Barrrier will be 86 years old. I expect we will have to replace it by then. Sea defences are like that. You have to keep working on them.

I have done enough research to satisfy myself that there is no problem.

Good for you fortunately you are not responsible for protecting London .

The barrier was originally designed to protect London against a very high flood level (with an estimated return period of one hundred years) up to the year 2030, after which the protection would decrease, while remaining within acceptable limits.[15] At the time of its construction, the barrier was expected to be used 2–3 times per year. It is now being used 6–7 times per year.[16]

This defence level included long-term changes in sea and land levels as understood at that time (c. 1970). Despite global warming and a consequently greater predicted rate of sea level rise, recent analysis extended the working life of the barrier until around 2060–2070. From 1982 until 19 March 2007, the barrier was raised one hundred times to prevent flooding. It is also raised monthly for testing,[17] with a full test closure over high tide once a year.[14]

Released in 2005, a study by four academics contained a proposal to supersede the Thames Barrier with a more ambitious 16 km (10 mi) long barrier across the Thames Estuary from Sheerness in Kent to Southend in Essex.[18]

In November 2011, a new Thames Barrier, further downstream at Lower Hope between East Tilbury in Essex and Cliffe in Kent, was proposed as part of the Thames Hub integrated infrastructure vision. The barrier would incorporate hydropower turbines to generate renewable energy and include road and rail tunnels, providing connections from Essex to a major new hub airport on the Isle of Grain.[19]

In January 2013, in a letter to The Times, a former member of the Thames Barrier Project Management Team, Dr Richard Bloore, stated that the flood barrier was not designed with increased storminess and sea level rises in mind, and called for a new barrier to be looked into immediately.[20][21] The Environment Agency responded that it does not plan to replace the Thames Barrier before 2070,[22] as the barrier was designed with an allowance for sea level rise of 8 mm per year until 2030, which has not been realised in the intervening years.[23] The barrier is around halfway through its designed lifespan. The standard of protection it provides will gradually decline over time after 2030, from a 1 in 1000 year event. The Environment Agency are examining the Thames Barrier for its potential design life under climate change, with early indications being that subject to appropriate modification, the Thames Barrier will be capable of providing continued protection to London against rising sea levels until at least 2070


It seems that it is being used for more events now then it was first constructed if it weren't there it would be a catastrophe. if it failed it would be a catastrophe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1953

Tim the plumber wrote:
You are claiming that there is a problem.

I am not claiming people who are responsible for protecting London are claiming that.

Tim the plumber wrote:
You want to talk about Bangladesh, OK. Understand that each dumps 2cm of silt on the place each year and that is if you are 10km away from the river. You will have to work to find somewhere 10km away from the rivers of Bangladesh. But go for it we can look at a particular local council there and see what comes out. Cite the place we will consider.

My obtuse friend I do not want to go further off track London is rich and Bangladesh is not so just because London can afford something does not mean everywhere in the world can afford it.

Cite your sources and we can go down that rabbit hole. but considering your habit of constantly lying about numbers and the fact you are as thick as a brick I don't think it will be a productive area of discussion.

spot wrote:
Tim

I don't know why you are obsessed with traffic lights. You challenged me to find one council that spends more on flood defenses then traffic lights. My figures show that London despite being a major metropolis with a high density of traffic lights still spends more on flood defenses then traffic lights.

As for a tantrum calling you a lair and an idiot is simply being descriptive.

time waster

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:
Tim

I don't know why you are obsessed with traffic lights. You challenged me to find one council that spends more on flood defenses then traffic lights. My figures show that London despite being a major metropolis with a high density of traffic lights still spends more on flood defenses then traffic lights.

As for a tantrum calling you a lair and an idiot is simply being descriptive.

time waster

I am not obsessed with traffic lights.

I did not challenge you to show a local council that spends more of sea defences than traffic lights.

You have not been reading what I have said at all.

The point is that the cost of dealing with the additional cost due to any single aspect of a slightly warmer world will, for all places of any human significance, be minute. Less than that local council spends on traffic lights which, whilst surprisingly expensive, are a tiny inconsequential amount compared to the overall local council's budget.

Just not a thing to get at all excited about.

James___ wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:
Tim

I don't know why you are obsessed with traffic lights. You challenged me to find one council that spends more on flood defenses then traffic lights. My figures show that London despite being a major metropolis with a high density of traffic lights still spends more on flood defenses then traffic lights.

As for a tantrum calling you a lair and an idiot is simply being descriptive.

time waster

I am not obsessed with traffic lights.

I did not challenge you to show a local council that spends more of sea defences than traffic lights.

You have not been reading what I have said at all.

The point is that the cost of dealing with the additional cost due to any single aspect of a slightly warmer world will, for all places of any human significance, be minute. Less than that local council spends on traffic lights which, whilst surprisingly expensive, are a tiny inconsequential amount compared to the overall local council's budget.

Just not a thing to get at all excited about.

What about other infrastructure? It would be very expensive to modify all port facilities. That by itself might be far more expensive. You seem to have no idea how much infrastructure costs. Then there's historical buildings and landmarks. And all the while you keep saying traffic lights when a short stretch of road can cost over $10 million. https://novascotia.ca/tran/highways/faq.asp

Tim the plumber wrote:
If you can show any local council that will require more budget than its' traffic light budget (as long as it has one) to cope with any single aspect of global warming say what and where it is.

Port facilities generally need updating all the time as well as the ocean batters them and shipping technology and practice changes over time. It would be the additional cost that is the number needed.

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
If you can show any local council that will require more budget than its' traffic light budget (as long as it has one) to cope with any single aspect of global warming say what and where it is.

Port facilities generally need updating all the time as well as the ocean batters them and shipping technology and practice changes over time. It would be the additional cost that is the number needed.

Actually the point is that the world is not on track for keeping the would within 1.5 degrees

You don't think any foreseeable effects of climate change will be a problem. If the seas boiled you would still be trying to convince people that everything is fine with made up numbers.

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
If you can show any local council that will require more budget than its' traffic light budget (as long as it has one) to cope with any single aspect of global warming say what and where it is.

Port facilities generally need updating all the time as well as the ocean batters them and shipping technology and practice changes over time. It would be the additional cost that is the number needed.

Actually the point is that the world is not on track for keeping the would within 1.5 degrees

You don't think any foreseeable effects of climate change will be a problem. If the seas boiled you would still be trying to convince people that everything is fine with made up numbers.

Extreme argument fallacy. 1.5 degC warming is not going to cause any ocean to boil.

Argument from randU fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
If you can show any local council that will require more budget than its' traffic light budget (as long as it has one) to cope with any single aspect of global warming say what and where it is.

Port facilities generally need updating all the time as well as the ocean batters them and shipping technology and practice changes over time. It would be the additional cost that is the number needed.

Actually the point is that the world is not on track for keeping the would within 1.5 degrees

You don't think any foreseeable effects of climate change will be a problem. If the seas boiled you would still be trying to convince people that everything is fine with made up numbers.

Extreme argument fallacy. 1.5 degC warming is not going to cause any ocean to boil.

Argument from randU fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

...deleted insult and extreme argument fallacies...

RandU is not a word, write in English then people might know what the hell you are talking about.

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
If you can show any local council that will require more budget than its' traffic light budget (as long as it has one) to cope with any single aspect of global warming say what and where it is.

Port facilities generally need updating all the time as well as the ocean batters them and shipping technology and practice changes over time. It would be the additional cost that is the number needed.

Actually the point is that the world is not on track for keeping the would within 1.5 degrees

You don't think any foreseeable effects of climate change will be a problem. If the seas boiled you would still be trying to convince people that everything is fine with made up numbers.

Extreme argument fallacy. 1.5 degC warming is not going to cause any ocean to boil.

Argument from randU fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

...deleted insult and extreme argument fallacies...

RandU is not a word, write in English then people might know what the hell you are talking about.

randU is a mathematical term. It is a type of random number. An argument from randU is an argument that is using made up numbers or manufactured 'data'.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
If you can show any local council that will require more budget than its' traffic light budget (as long as it has one) to cope with any single aspect of global warming say what and where it is.

Port facilities generally need updating all the time as well as the ocean batters them and shipping technology and practice changes over time. It would be the additional cost that is the number needed.

Actually the point is that the world is not on track for keeping the would within 1.5 degrees

You don't think any foreseeable effects of climate change will be a problem. If the seas boiled you would still be trying to convince people that everything is fine with made up numbers.

Extreme argument fallacy. 1.5 degC warming is not going to cause any ocean to boil.

Argument from randU fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

...deleted insult and extreme argument fallacies...

RandU is not a word, write in English then people might know what the hell you are talking about.

randU is a mathematical term. It is a type of random number. An argument from randU is an argument that is using made up numbers or manufactured 'data'.

"RandU" Might be an arcane mathematical term but "Argument from RandU." is your invention


Anyway I did not use random numbers all the numbers I used are sourced, I accused Tim the plumber of using random numbers but I said that in English. Top tip If you read what is written it makes a discussion easier.

So you are just trying to derail the discussion, as per usual.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
If you can show any local council that will require more budget than its' traffic light budget (as long as it has one) to cope with any single aspect of global warming say what and where it is.

Port facilities generally need updating all the time as well as the ocean batters them and shipping technology and practice changes over time. It would be the additional cost that is the number needed.

Actually the point is that the world is not on track for keeping the would within 1.5 degrees

You don't think any foreseeable effects of climate change will be a problem. If the seas boiled you would still be trying to convince people that everything is fine with made up numbers.

Extreme argument fallacy. 1.5 degC warming is not going to cause any ocean to boil.

Argument from randU fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

...deleted insult and extreme argument fallacies...

RandU is not a word, write in English then people might know what the hell you are talking about.

randU is a mathematical term. It is a type of random number. An argument from randU is an argument that is using made up numbers or manufactured 'data'.

"RandU" Might be an arcane mathematical term but "Argument from RandU." is your invention

spot wrote:
Anyway I did not use random numbers

spot wrote:
all the numbers I used are sourced,

James___ wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
If you can show any local council that will require more budget than its' traffic light budget (as long as it has one) to cope with any single aspect of global warming say what and where it is.

Port facilities generally need updating all the time as well as the ocean batters them and shipping technology and practice changes over time. It would be the additional cost that is the number needed.

Actually the point is that the world is not on track for keeping the would within 1.5 degrees

You don't think any foreseeable effects of climate change will be a problem. If the seas boiled you would still be trying to convince people that everything is fine with made up numbers.

Extreme argument fallacy. 1.5 degC warming is not going to cause any ocean to boil.

Argument from randU fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

...deleted insult and extreme argument fallacies...

RandU is not a word, write in English then people might know what the hell you are talking about.

randU is a mathematical term. It is a type of random number. An argument from randU is an argument that is using made up numbers or manufactured 'data'.

"RandU" Might be an arcane mathematical term but "Argument from RandU." is your invention


Anyway I did not use random numbers all the numbers I used are sourced, I accused Tim the plumber of using random numbers but I said that in English. Top tip If you read what is written it makes a discussion easier.

So you are just trying to derail the discussion, as per usual.

...spot,
...deleted random unrelated ramblings..
..with itn and gas guzzler that's the only thing that needs to be discussed. They can't discuss actual science.