• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Global Warming & Climate Change: The Phenomenon

rynner2 said:
Major sea level rise likely as Antarctic ice melts
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

This ice caps melt/sea level rises thing...

I'm no scientist but does the explanation of ice cubes in a glass of water not come into play here - albeit on a far larger scale?

The ice cubes melt but the level of water in the glass does not rise.

What exactly is the difference? Ice caps are extra water from on the land's surface seeping into the sea? So an iceberg melting is no big deal but if it is ice from on land we need to be afraid?
 
...if it is ice from on land we need to be afraid
Correct! Antartica and Greenland especially, and numerous other assorted glaciers. And although melting sea-ice doesn't contribute to sea-level rise, if it's gone there is less resistance to glaciers sliding into the sea, so the glaciers can melt faster.

But even if there were no ice to melt, warming would still cause some sea-level rise because of the thermal expansion of the water. (Water is most dense at 4 deg C, and expands as the water warms above that.)
 
So basically we will be able to get rid of places like Margate and Southend...?

Awesome! :D
 
McAvennie_ said:
So basically we will be able to get rid of places like Margate and Southend...?

Awesome! :D

Where I live, when the Fens flood I should end up with a nice seaside property, so it's not all bad news.... :D
 
J.G. Ballard has already done a drowned and tropicalised London, in 'The Drowned World' (1962), of course. However, that was science fiction.

The Thames Barrier isn't there just to impress the tourists and the Dutch version, based in and around Rotterdam, dwarfs even that.
http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=318

Quite a large part of the land in and around Rotterdam is several metres below sea-level.

As for Bangladesh:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2009/dec/02/bangladesh-climate-aid
That's an entire country, watching the sea-level rise, lapping further and further inland with every passing monsoon season.

This isn't something that might happen in some far flung future. It is already happening.
 
Starving polar bears turn to cannibalism
New pictures show that polar bears are beginning to cannibalise each other as global warming destroys its hunting grounds.
By Jonathan Liew
Published: 2:40PM GMT 08 Dec 2009

[three photos]
The images, taken in Hudson Bay, Canada, around 200 miles north of the town of Churchill, Manitoba, show a male polar bear carrying the bloodied head of a polar bear cub it has killed for food.

Polar bears usually subsist on seals, which they hunt from a platform of sea ice. But the melting of sea ice as a result of rising global temperatures has made it more difficult for polar bears to hunt seals at sea, confining the bears to land.

This has led to malnourishment and starvation as polar bears are unable to build sufficient fat reserves for winter.

Drowning is also more common as bears are forced to swim further out to sea to find food.

The images add to the evidence that polar bears are increasingly hunting each other for food in their desperation to survive.

Manitoba Conservation normally receive one to two reports of bear cannibalisation annually, but scientists say they are aware of eight cases so far this year.

Last month tourists on a guided tour of the area were reported to be distressed after witnessing a male bear eating a cub.

The release of the images comes as world leaders gather in Copenhagen for the United Nations Climate Change Conference.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildli ... alism.html
 
tonyblair11 said:
Hmm No mention of how bears will eat cubs sometimes to send the female back into heat.
That's may be be quite true. The question is, are these occasional occurrences, in line with a normal population, that isn't under stress in some way, or is it happening more often?

Also, is it happening because the ice is melting, or because the food chain is being disrupted because there are less fish, through over fishing and therefore, less fish and seals, for bears to eat?

Lot's of unanswereds there.
 
If climate change doesn’t grab you, meet its evil twin
Charles Clover

Whoever leaked that clutch of Climategate emails last month must be laughing his socks off. For he has unleashed upon the rest of us the phenomenon of the born-again climate sceptic, the kind of man (always a man, almost invariably wearing a tweed jacket) who now materialises beside me at parties and confides that he has been having second thoughts about climate change.

My first instinct is always to humour him. [...] My follow-up question is this: “Do you know that climate change is not the only reason to be uneasy about carbon emissions?”

On each occasion I am met by a look of puzzlement, followed by a perplexed nod, and I realise the person in question hasn’t a clue what I am talking about. He hasn’t heard of the acidification of the sea, a phenomenon quite separate from global warming but just as alarming. The reason, I suspect, is that it does not rate a line in the bestselling sceptical books on global warming by Christopher Booker or Nigel Lawson — which seem to be all that my tweedy friends have read on the subject.

Ocean acidification has been quite scandalously left out of the reckoning in the past few weeks. [...]

However, even if you happen to believe that everything we know about greenhouse gases is illusory — unlikely though that is — we would still need to agree at Copenhagen this week to cut our emissions of carbon dioxide because of what is happening to the sea, the source of roughly half our food and provider of other useful services that we tend to take for granted.

We know the ocean absorbs about 25% of the carbon dioxide we emit each year. This CO2 dissolves through wind and wave action to form carbonic acid. This is altering the chemistry of the seas in ways that are not disputed and are far simpler to understand than the effect the same pollutants are having on the atmosphere. I recommend the startling practical demonstration on YouTube of what acidity will do to the oceans given by Jane Lubchenco, administrator of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to a congressional select committee this month.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution in about 1750, sea water acidity has increased by 30%. The speed and degree of this change are faster than anything that had happened for 55m years. The changes being observed are beginning to disrupt the ability of any organism to make shells out of calcium carbonate. Organisms that do this include corals, crabs, lobsters, small creatures vital to the diet of fish and plankton of the kind that die and form chalk deposits such as the white cliffs of Dover.

Projections show that by 2060, given the current rate of fossil-fuel emissions, sea water acidity could have increased by 120%. Lubchenco showed Congress a scary picture of what a shell would look like if it had spent a month in water as acidic as this. The shell had begun to dissolve. :shock:

Such an effect could trigger a chain of reactions through entire ecosystems, from whales to fish and shellfish, with huge implications for economies and wildlife. It could even stop the sea absorbing as much carbon dioxide as it does now, accelerating global warming. It is pretty scary stuff.

Predictably, the science of ocean acidification, which is accepted by governments on both sides of the Atlantic, does not go uncontested by the global warming sceptics. They say you can’t acidify the ocean because it washes over alkaline rocks. This process of weathering rocks is indeed how the alkalinity of the ocean will recover, but leading scientists say it will take hundreds of thousands of years. At the unprecedented speed that acidification is happening, the marine organisms will be knocked out before the rocks can dilute the acid.

There is plenty we still need to know about the acidification of the ocean. However, it looks as if unpleasant things start to happen if we go beyond 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (bear in mind we reached 390ppm earlier this year). That is, coincidentally, the threshold for holding the Earth’s average temperature rise down to a relatively “safe” 2C.

So ocean acidification, which people are beginning to call climate change’s “evil twin”, may be an even more pressing reason to move to a low-carbon economy than climate change itself. And that makes it doubly irresponsible for those people who scorn the need to cut carbon emissions to ignore what is going on in the oceans.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 954527.ece
 
Wow! Politicians are already on the case!

'Acidifying oceans' threaten food supply, UK warns
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website, Copenhagen

Acidification of the oceans is a major threat to marine life and humanity's food supply, Hilary Benn is to warn as the UN climate summit resumes.

The UK environment secretary will say that acidification provides a "powerful incentive" to cut carbon emissions.

Ocean chemistry is changing because water absorbs extra CO2 from the air.

Some believe this could be as big an impact of rising CO2 levels as climatic change, though it is rarely discussed within the UN climate convention.

The UN summit in Copenhagen, which started a week ago, is scheduled to conclude on Friday, when more than 100 world leaders will attend in an effort to agree a new global treaty on climate change.

The science has come to prominence only within the last five or six years, and most of the details were not available when the convention was signed in 1992.

"We know that the increasing concentration of CO2 [in the air] is making the oceans more acidic," Mr Benn told BBC News.

"It affects marine life, it affects coral, and that in turn could affect the amount of fish in the sea - and a billion people in the world depend on fish for their principal source of protein.

"It doesn't get as much attention as the other problems; it is really important."

In September, the UN-backed study into The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (Teeb) concluded that the widely-endorsed target of trying to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of CO2 or their equivalent to around 450 parts per million (ppm) would prove lethal to much of the world's coral.

Mr Benn will be speaking during the summit's "oceans day" at a meeting organised by Stanford University and Scripps Institution of Oceanography, both based in California.

"Unlike global warming, which can manifest itself in nuanced, complex ways, the science of ocean acidification is unambiguous," said Andrew Dickson, a Scripps professor of marine chemistry.

"The chemical reactions that take place as increasing amounts of carbon dioxide are introduced to seawater have been established for nearly a century."

Concentrations in the atmosphere are now about 30% higher than in pre-industrial times; a proportion of this is absorbed by seawater, which results in rising concentrations of carbonic acid.

As a result, the pH of seawater has fallen by about 0.1, and a further change of 0.3-0.4 is expected by the end of the century.

This is likely to affect the capacity of organisms including molluscs, coral and plankton to form "hard parts" of calcium carbonate.

A 2007 study showed that rates of coral growth on the Great Barrier Reef had fallen by 14% since 1990.

Mr Benn will say that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) should investigate ocean acidification during its next major assessment of the Earth's climate, scheduled for release in 2013.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8411135.stm

(More info on page.)
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
tonyblair11 said:
Hmm No mention of how bears will eat cubs sometimes to send the female back into heat.
That's may be be quite true. The question is, are these occasional occurrences, in line with a normal population, that isn't under stress in some way, or is it happening more often?

Also, is it happening because the ice is melting, or because the food chain is being disrupted because there are less fish, through over fishing and therefore, less fish and seals, for bears to eat?

Lot's of unanswereds there.
Ohhhhhhhhh, delete coz I just can't be bothered
 
Where is this global warming? I would welcome tropical temperatures in the UK right now!
 
McAvennie_ said:
Where is this global warming? I would welcome tropical temperatures in the UK right now!
Remember as someone pointed out, elsewhere, "heat and temperature" are two completely different things.

Heat, however, is energy and therefore, although winters may get shorter, because it's slightly warmer, there's also more energy available, so expect more energetic (i.e. more severe), weather, too.

Bigger highs and corresponding lows. ;)
 
McAvennie_ said:
Where is this global warming? I would welcome tropical temperatures in the UK right now!

Its in Africa, they are having a terrible time with mossies, and they have proven its coz of a 2C rise in temp and all man made too.
 
I heard on the radio today that we might be having the coldest winter in 100 years...
 
Mythopoeika said:
I heard on the radio today that we might be having the coldest winter in 100 years...

Its damn cold over here. Councils are running out of sat & grit. Fortunately another boatload arrived in Cork yesterday.
 
Wilder Weather Exerts a Stronger Influence on Biodiversity Than Steadily Changing Conditions
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 182629.htm

Diaptomus nudus, a species of zooplankton found in freshwater lakes. (Credit: Danusia Dolecki)

ScienceDaily (Jan. 17, 2010) — An increase in the variability of local conditions could do more to harm biodiversity than slower shifts in climate, a new study has found.

Climate scientists predict more frequent storms, droughts, floods and heat waves as the Earth warms. Although extreme weather would seem to challenge ecosystems, the effect of fluctuating conditions on biodiversity actually could go either way. Species able to tolerate only a narrow range of temperatures, for example, may be eliminated, but instability in the environment can also prevent dominant species from squeezing out competitors.

"Imagine species that have different optimal temperatures for growth. In a fluctuating world, neither can get the upper hand and the two coexist," said Jonathan Shurin, an ecologist at the University of California, San Diego who led the project. Ecologists have observed similar positive effects on populations of organisms as different as herbacious plants, desert rodents, and microscopic animals called zooplankton.

Now a study of zooplankton found in dozens of freshwater lakes over decades of time has revealed both effects. Shurin and colleagues found fewer species in lakes with the most variable water chemistry. But lakes with the greatest temperature variations harbored a greater variety of zooplankton, they report in the journal Ecology Letters January 21.

Their study considered data from nine separate long-term ecological studies that included a total of 53 lakes in North America and Europe. In addition to sampling zooplankton, scientists had also taken physical measurements repeatedly each season for periods ranging from 3 to 44 years.

From these data, they calculated the variability of 10 physical properties, including pH and the levels of nutrients such as organic carbon, phosphorous and nitrogen. Temperatures and the amount of oxygen dissolved in the water at both the surface and bottom of each lake were also included. The authors also teased apart variation based on the pace of change with year-to-year changes considered separately from changes that occurred from season-to-season or on more rapid timescales.

Zooplankton populations respond quickly to changes because they reproduces so fast. "In a summer, you're sampling dozens of generations," Shurin said. "For mammals or annual plants, you would have to watch for hundreds or thousands of years to see the same population turnover."

At every time scale the pattern held: Ecologists found fewer species of zooplankton in lakes with fluctuating water chemistry and greater numbers of species in those with varying temperatures. The authors noted that the temperature variations they observed remained within normal ranges for these lakes. But some chemical measures, particularly pH and levels of phosphorous, strayed beyond normal limits due to pollution and acid rain.

Environmental variability through time could either promote or reduce biodiversity depending on the pace and range of fluctuations, the authors suggested.

"It may depend on the predictability of the environment. If you have a lot of violent changes through time, species may not be able to program their life cycles to be active when conditions are right. They need the ability to read the cues, to hatch out at the right time," Shurin said. "If the environment is very unpredictable, that may be bad for diversity, because many species just won't be able to match their lifecycles to that."

Shurin's 10 co-authors include scientists from environmental agencies in Canada, and universities and research institutes in Canada, Germany, Switzerland and the United States. The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada supported Shurin's work on this study.


Adapted from materials provided by University of California - San Diego. Original article written by Susan Brown.
 
Mild weather in Canada forces Vancouver to ship in tons of snow for Winter Olympics
By Barry Wigmore
Last updated at 1:55 PM on 23rd January 2010

Snow-bound Britain may be slipping and sliding through the worst winter for decades, but it’s a different story in once-Arctic Canada.

As spring flowers bloom early and birds start to nest around balmy Vancouver, officials there have chartered a fleet of helicopters to fly in thousands of tons of snow for the Winter Olympics.

Without the emergency snowlift, which is also shipping in tons of snow in convoys of giant lorries, Olympic chiefs feared they might have to abandon the Games that have already cost £1.5 billion and are due to start in three weeks.

Organisers admitted that they seriously underestimated the impact of climate change when they picked the venue at Cypress Mountain, Vancouver, for some of the most popular ski and snowboard events.

With the temperature hovering around 11°C it was too warm to make snow with snow-blower machines so the winter fun resort was closed to the public yesterday while new snow was flown in from mountains 500 miles further north.

It was being laid on a straw foundation to reduce the amount of snow needed to make a slalom course and a 22ft diameter pipe for snowboard freestyle events.
Cathy Priestner Allinger, Vancouver’s executive vice president for sport and games operations, said: 'Our team at Cypress Mountain is working around the clock to preserve and protect the snow, and we’re confident that these efforts will pay off.
'We have all the technology, equipment, people and expertise to deliver the Games.'

Other events are being held at the Whistler winter sports resort which is 100 miles further north and at a much higher elevation in the mountains.

Olympic historian David Wallechinsky, author of The Complete Book of the Winter Olympics, said the last time a lack of snow forced a host city into such drastic action was in 1964, for the Games in Innsbruck.

The Austrian government called in the army to truck in snow and carve blocks of ice from a mountain glacier to build a bobsleigh track.

Mr Wallechinsky said: 'The problems in Vancouver beg the question are we going to have to re-think where we put the Winter Olympics because of global warming?'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... z0dWdHnxa1
 
Vancouver has a moderate maritime climate. Which means it can have warm winters. Wouldn't this be an example of "local" warming?
 
Why hold the Winter Olympics in Vancouver if they didn't expect snow? Are they holding the 2014 Winter Olympics in Barbados?
 
Global warming makes trees grow at fastest rate for 200 years
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Tuesday, 2 February 2010

Forests in the northern hemisphere could be growing faster now than they were 200 years ago as a result of climate change, according to a study of trees in eastern America.

The trees appear to have accelerated growth rates due to longer growing seasons and higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Scientists have documented the changes to the growth of 55 plots of mixed hardwood forest over a period of 22 years, and have concluded that they are probably growing faster now than they have done at any time in the past 225 years – the age of the oldest trees in the study.

Geoffrey Parker, a forest ecologist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Centre in Edgewater, Maryland, said that the increase in the rate of growth was unexpected and might be matched to the higher temperatures and longer growing seasons documented in the region. The growth may also be influenced by the significant increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, he said.

"We made a list of reasons these forests could be growing faster and then ruled half of them out," Dr Parker said. The study, which is published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests that northern forests may become increasingly important in terms of moderating the influence of man-made carbon dioxide on the climate.

Dr Parker and his colleagues have carried out a detailed census of the trees on a regular basis since 1987, measuring every tree and sapling that has a diameter of more than 2cm (0.78in). They calculated that the forest is producing an additional two tonnes of wood per acre each year, which is equivalent to a tree with a diameter of two feet sprouting up in the space of a year.

The scientists identified a series of plots with trees at different stages of growth and found that both young and old trees were showing increased growth rates. More than 90 per cent of the tree groups had grown by between two and four times faster than the scientists had predicted from estimates of the long-term rates of growth.

The scientists said that if the trees had grown as quickly throughout their lives as they had shown in recent years they would be much larger than they are now. They based their conclusions on 250,000 measurements taken over more than 20 years.

During the same period, the scientists measured the concentration of carbon dioxide in the forest air and found that it had risen by 12 per cent. The average temperature had increased by three-tenths of a degree, and the growing season had lengthened by 7.8 days. The scientists believe that all three factors have played a role in helping the trees to grow faster.

Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide and extended growing seasons could be favourable for agriculture in some parts of the world, mainly in the northern hemisphere. The study in Maryland suggests that the extra growth in trees could help to act as a more efficient carbon "sink", which could offset the carbon dioxide being added to the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 86342.html
 
Quick! Start planting trees everywhere...
 
Mythopoeika said:
Quick! Start planting trees everywhere...
But the trees only 'offset' the CO2 rise, since the CO2 was measured as increasing by 12% in the forests anyway.

But yes, every little helps. (Which makes me even madder about the chainsaw massacre the gardeners carried out here in the autumn. :evil: )
 
rynner2 said:
Global warming makes trees grow at fastest rate for 200 years
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Tuesday, 2 February 2010

Forests in the northern hemisphere could be growing faster now than they were 200 years ago as a result of climate change, according to a study of trees in eastern America.

The trees appear to have accelerated growth rates due to longer growing seasons and higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Scientists have documented the changes to the growth of 55 plots of mixed hardwood forest over a period of 22 years, and have concluded that they are probably growing faster now than they have done at any time in the past 225 years – the age of the oldest trees in the study.

Geoffrey Parker, a forest ecologist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Centre in Edgewater, Maryland, said that the increase in the rate of growth was unexpected and might be matched to the higher temperatures and longer growing seasons documented in the region. The growth may also be influenced by the significant increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, he said.

"We made a list of reasons these forests could be growing faster and then ruled half of them out," Dr Parker said. The study, which is published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests that northern forests may become increasingly important in terms of moderating the influence of man-made carbon dioxide on the climate.

Dr Parker and his colleagues have carried out a detailed census of the trees on a regular basis since 1987, measuring every tree and sapling that has a diameter of more than 2cm (0.78in). They calculated that the forest is producing an additional two tonnes of wood per acre each year, which is equivalent to a tree with a diameter of two feet sprouting up in the space of a year.

The scientists identified a series of plots with trees at different stages of growth and found that both young and old trees were showing increased growth rates. More than 90 per cent of the tree groups had grown by between two and four times faster than the scientists had predicted from estimates of the long-term rates of growth.

The scientists said that if the trees had grown as quickly throughout their lives as they had shown in recent years they would be much larger than they are now. They based their conclusions on 250,000 measurements taken over more than 20 years.

During the same period, the scientists measured the concentration of carbon dioxide in the forest air and found that it had risen by 12 per cent. The average temperature had increased by three-tenths of a degree, and the growing season had lengthened by 7.8 days. The scientists believe that all three factors have played a role in helping the trees to grow faster.

Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide and extended growing seasons could be favourable for agriculture in some parts of the world, mainly in the northern hemisphere. The study in Maryland suggests that the extra growth in trees could help to act as a more efficient carbon "sink", which could offset the carbon dioxide being added to the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 86342.html
Explain why accelerated growth in plants and longer growing seasons are a bad thing.

Also, SERC is only about 10 miles outside of DC/Baltimore. UHI effect. 225 years ago that area was a swamp.
 
HappyBunny said:
rynner2 said:
Global warming makes trees grow at fastest rate for 200 years
Explain why accelerated growth in plants and longer growing seasons are a bad thing.
Nobody said it was a bad thing, per se.

It's put forward as evidence of global warming (which some people still dispute).

GW, if it continues, will however have bad consequences for human life (rising sea-levels, population displacements, yadda yadda see earlier parts of this thread...)
 
Flurry of research on impact of dust on climate change
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire ... 79504.html

DICK AHLSTROM

Sat, Feb 20, 2010

ORDINARY, EVERYDAY dust is emerging as an important environmental issue. It has the capacity to diminish climate change but may also have unexpected negative health and environmental impacts.

The stuff we view as a nuisance when it builds up on surfaces is under intensive study by scientists in fields including marine and atmospheric science, geology, microbiology and geochemistry. It is increasingly considered when developing computer-based climate models, Prof Joseph Prospero of the University of Miami said yesterday during a session at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in San Diego.

Dust is defined as airborne soil particles, and is not the stuff that arises from burning fuels or industrial pollution. It is whipped into the air by winds that can carry it from places such as the Sahel in north Africa and deposit it across Europe including Ireland.

We are familiar with this phenomenon, which we notice when our cars are covered in a fine red dust carried up from Africa on southerly winds.

“Dust can affect climate in a number of ways,” Prof Prospero said: it can reflect back solar radiation to reduce global warming on a regional basis; and can deliver unexpected benefits by carrying nutrients to replenish soil, a process taking place in the Amazon basin, parts of Hawaii and the Caribbean.

But after drifting over great distances, the same dust could have health implications, Prof Prospero added. Only the smallest, lightest particles can travel long distances and these can be taken into the lungs when breathing. “We do not know what health impacts these might have,” he said.

The particles can also transport hitchhiking microbes, chemicals and spores, according to Dr Geoffrey Plumlee of the US Geological Survey.

Valley fever, for example, is transported across parts of the US by wind when a fungal spore sticks to dust and then gets inhaled.

There are also ecosystem impacts caused by the transport of dust, said Prof Oliver Chadwick of the University of California, Santa Barbara. Dust can build up to smother “desert fringe” plants which help to hold the desert in check. This causes the desert to spread, in turn delivering more dust to the atmosphere. But it also has positive effects, he added, with the dust often carrying nutrients to replenish soils.

Climate change seems set to increase the transport of dust into the atmosphere, Prof Prospero said. Melting land glaciers are releasing large amounts of very fine dust, like talcum, and this could be lifted by the wind.
 
Climate change report sets out an apocalyptic vision of Britain
Ben Webster, Environment Editor

Mass migration northwards to new towns in Scotland, Wales and northeast England may be needed to cope with climate change and water shortages in the South East, according to an apocalyptic vision set out by the Government Office for Science.

Heathrow would be converted into a giant reservoir by 2035, there could be severe restrictions on flying and driving and farmers would be forced to sell their land to giant agricultural businesses. Greenhouse gas emissions would be controlled by carbon rationing for individuals, which would lead to “significant shifts in lifestyle as everyone tries to stay within budget”.

The Government would ease pressure on the South East by planning to “disperse citizens to three new towns in Dumfries and Galloway, Northumberland and Powys”.

etc...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 041857.ece

Remarkably, the article makes no mention of rising sea-levels...
 
Back
Top