Skip to content or view screen version

Climate Change-Threat to London

GL | 15.07.2004 08:49 | Ecology | World


Gov Chief Scientist David King says CO2 levels the highest for 55 million years.



Guardian Unlimited: Melting ice: the threat to London's future
Jul 14 2004, 07:55 PM

To see this story with its related links on the Guardian Unlimited site, go to  http://www.guardian.co.ukMelting ice: the threat to London's future Paul Brown, environment correspondentWednesday July 14 2004The Guardian

There is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than for 55m years, enough to melt all the ice on the planet and submerge cities like London, New York and New Orleans, Sir David King, the government's chief scientific adviser has warned. Speaking on his return from Moscow, where he has been acting as the prime minister's "unofficial envoy" to persuade the Russians to ratify the Kyoto protocol to fight climate change, Sir David said the most recent science bore out the worst predictions. An ice core 3km deep from the Antarctic had a record of the climate for 800,000 years and showed the direct relationship between the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and warm and cold periods for the planet. Critical in climate records is the quantity of ice at the poles and in glaciers. Records show that at the peak of the ice age 12,000 years ago, the sea was 150 metres below where it is now. "You might think it is not wise, since we are currently melting ice so fast, to have built our big cities on the edge of the sea where it is now obvious they cannot remain. "On current trends, cities like London, New York and New Orleans will be among the first to go. "Ice melting is a relatively slow process but is speeding up. When the Greenland ice cap goes, the sea level will rise six to seven metres, when Antarctica melts it will be another 110 metres," he said. Records of the 3km deep Antarctic ice core showed that during ice ages the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was around 200 parts per million (ppm), and during warm periods reached around 270 ppm, before sinking back down again for another ice age. That pattern had been repeated many times in that period but had now been broken because of the intervention of man. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere had reached 360 ppm in the 1990s and now was up to 379 ppm and increasing at the rate of 3 ppm a year - reaching a level not seen for 55m years when there was no ice on the planet because the atmosphere was too warm. "I am sure that climate change is the biggest problem that civilisation has had to face in 5,000 years," he concluded. Sir David, who is also to visit China and Japan, was speaking at the launch of a scientific expedition to Cape Farewell in the Arctic, which aims to raise awareness of climate change in students. It will also study the oceans' currents with the help of Southampton University, particularly the fate of the gulf stream which warms northern Europe but is slowing down because of excess fresh water in the north Atlantic caused by ice melt. Dr King described how the ice caps like those on Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania, had been continuous for hundreds of thousands of years and survived through successive warm periods but were now expected to disappear in 30 to 40 years. He said that the realisation of the scale of the crisis was what prompted him to say in January that climate change was a bigger threat than global terrorism. "We are moving from a warm period into the first hot period that man has ever experienced since he walked on the planet." He said the heatwave of last summer in which 25,000 Europeans died had killed more people than terrorism, yet had not been given anything like the same level of attention. The prime minister had charged him with talking to governments ahead of the G8 summit to convince them of the urgency of action on climate change, of research and development of renewables. He warned of the slow response of the climate system and said we were already doomed to 30 or 40 years of climate heating because of the carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere, hence the need to multiply effective flood defences such as the Thames barrier. Sir David said because there was no ice on the planet 55m years ago, it was impossible to tell how much carbon dioxide there was in the atmosphere but it was probably only slightly more than "we are currently heading towards". Sir David was backed up last night by Margaret Beckett, the environment secretary, speaking at the Green Alliance about the value of the EU's campaign to fight climate change. "Climate change is the predominant global environmental issue where European leadership is vital," she said. "But, of course, we need to persuade others to come with us, and we need to inject new momentum into international discussions on climate change. "Above all, we also need to demonstrate that countries do not have to choose between their environmental and economic aspirations, to forfeit one or the other, but that these aspirations can not only be compatible but mutually reinforcing." She said that the government had set ambitious targets for 2010 and beyond for virtually every big environmental issue. But there needed to be a greater emphasis on assessing progress and identifying action needed to deliver existing commitments. There also needed to be more consistent implementation of EU rules across the union, she said.

GL

Comments

Hide the following 10 comments

Climate Change - what's the cause ?

15.07.2004 09:58

Climate change is of course happening. The question seems to be what is causing it. I attended a conference in 2001 in New Zealand and listended as speaker after speaker ridiculed the idea that mankind was responsible for climate change, these were respected scientists from a number of countries and they clearly were convinced of their views. I have since heard other academics provide compelling arguments as to mankind's involvement.

What is clear is that the Earth has gone through a number of warming and cooling cycles through its history. In geological terms the Earth is currently some 75% of its way through a post ice age warming period and this could well be the cause of the current change we are experiencing. The matter of Carbon and CO gas in the atmosphere has been repeated in the past (as ice samples from Antarctica show) so it is difficult to use them as 'proof' of mankind's industrial effect.

Having reviewed this subject for the last ten years (and written some articles about it) I have moved to the view that change IS NOT driven by us but that our work should be on helping those people who will be affected by the result of Climate Change. For example Fiji which being less than a metre above sea level will be overwashd in the next fifteen years at present estimates.

Journo


Eminent collabarateurs

15.07.2004 11:29

And who was paying these 'Experts'?

Your opinion seems alon way from that expressed by most of the scientists writing in New scientist, a respected journal.

Blindly followiung the professional classes though is stupidity in itself. That's why we are where we are today. ( In the shit ).

Your badge of credibility, for instance, is of being a 'journo'. I don't think that requires any more comment...

I too have attended climate change conferences and am quite aware of the lobbying, the spin, and the influence of the corporates and writing bullshit. The US delegation at the last one I went to was hailing Bush as an eco warrior!!!

Go eat a flan.

sceptical of the sceptics


So what are your articles Journo?

15.07.2004 15:31

Hello Journo,

I'd love to read those articles you've written, perhaps you could post up references for these areticles?

I await in anticipation...

Neil


SIGH

15.07.2004 15:38

Sceptic,

I am sorry you didn't take the time to fully read my piece. The point I was making related to hearing and researching all sides of the issue, finding out the facts from independent experts rather than simply agreeing with those who reinforce ones own views as you have done.

Climate Change is an issue which divides the scientific community. I would have hoped you would have treated me with enough respect to assume I would have ignored the views of the corporate supported speakers. You claim to have attended Climate Change conferences, well if these are real conferences rather than the Greenpeace style, "Here's a view let's all agree with it" types then you will know there are many respected individuals who strongly oppose the view that man is responsible. On the balance of the argument I am at the moment falling into that camp, I may well change my mind in the future, but then I am influenced by intellectual argument, are you ?

This is not a clear issue. Do some research find out the facts, don't be driven by your prejudices.


As a final responsive to your piece, yes I do think of 'journalist' as a badge of pride. I am proud to be part of a profession which every day exposes corruption, brings politicians to book and roots our malpractice. Yes we have our poor journalists and those who follow the company line but many of us do not. What have you done today to change the world ?

Journo
mail e-mail: In response


Dear Journo and others...

16.07.2004 11:09

I dont much care for the debate over what is the cause, the truth is it is occuing.

The question is what are we or our governemnts doing about mitigation?
What can be done to adapt?
How can out future societies deal with the emerging problems?

Id really like to hear from Journo what he or she thinks on this one - any ideas?

Pragmatist (i like to think...)


"Climate Change is an issue which divides the scientific community"

16.07.2004 11:29

No it's not. Some scientists in the payroll of the fossil fuel industry doubt climate change is anthropogenic (human-made). The idea of a 'divided scientific community' is the exact fossil fuel indusry line, and mirrors the line taken by the tobacco industry for years over smoking/cancer. George Monbiot poses four questions for 'climate sceptics':

1. Does the atmosphere contain carbon dioxide?
2. Does atmospheric carbon dioxide influence global temperatures?
3. Will that influence be enhanced by the addition of more carbon dioxide?
4. Have human activities led to a net emission of carbon dioxide?

It would be interesting to discover at which point they answer no – at which point, in other words, they choose to part company with basic physics. -  http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/04/27/the-fossil-fools

Industrial society is destroying its life support, unless you believe those compromised by oil industry cash . . .

Tom


Not that simple

16.07.2004 15:39

Tom,

Much as I admire your conviction you are dealing with perhaps 25% of the issue. It is far too simplistic to say that all those who disagree with your view are in the pay of oil companies (and untrue).

Climate Change is a classic example of people trying to make theories fit facts, a mistake you have made I'm afraid.

The climate is changing for reasons we don't fully understand. To point the finger at only one element of the POSSIBLE cause is the same as blaming road accidents on tyre manufacturers.

Journo


I'm open minded, Journo . . .

16.07.2004 18:35

So find me a report that claims climate change is not anthropogenic that wasn't written by scientists with a financial interest in the fossil fuel industry - i'm sure there are some but I haven't come accross them. Conflicts of interest in scientific research are very commonplace because the main source of much funding is the private sector, and the authors don't always disclose their interests in journal articles.

Certainly, the climate goes through natural cycles, this we know. But we are supposedly heading towards an ice age, yet global temperatures are warming. The Earth's biosphere is incredibly complex; but some things *are* known: a small amount of global warming could be catestrophic for life on earth, and human activity is contributing to this warming.

More research into natural cycles/other causes is of course a good idea, but 'further research' is not a reasion to stall on cutting CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. To my knowledge the idea there is not consensus on anthropogenic global warming is fossil fuel industry propaganda. Remember, the official science of GM crops is that 'there is no evidence they may be harmful' - A complete lie that favours corporate interests (See Jeremy Smith, Seeds of Deception).

Tom


Forget history, look around!

17.07.2004 05:42

Here's a thought, no evidence, no theories, just working on what we already know to be facts.

Carbon Dioxide blankets the earth, insulates and reflects heat downward. It gets into the atmosphere as carbon burns, through a variety of fires some volcanic some forest and others industrial and some just through mans consumerist activity.

Since the industrial revolution burning has gone through several fuels, Wood, coal, gas and oil and all of which are now at peak production while its shared exhaust reaches an equal peak.

Before the industrial revolution Trees absorbed and stored CO2,Trees are still the only repositorie for the storage of CO2. However since then the planet has lost 80% of its woodlands, the tree's lost also yealded their stored carbon skyward, unfortunatly todays man made contribution and natures continuing production has found a planet unable to cope due partly to the absence of forests and development of industralisation, nature cannot absorb the difference and will not maintain Climate control.
It is of no importants if the planet has had climate changes in its past, the planet has never been host to 7 billion idiots all wanting a luxury apartment three sqaure meals and a good 4x4, before, this is the problem it faces now.

Simon Willace


Any luck?

18.07.2004 14:50

don't tell me you were just trolling now journo . . . did you find any uncompromised articles?

Tom