« Geeky Fun at Christmas | Main | Salty Logs For Climate Clues »

Chistmas Cracker

UK's infrastructure will struggle to cope with climate change, report warns | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Floods, rising temperatures and higher sea levels threaten the UK's road, rail, water and energy networks between 2030 and 2100

Yup those rising temperatures in twenty years time are the problem as all those poor sods camped out at Heathrow will agree.

Official UK climate projections published last year predicting hotter and drier summers, warmer and wetter winters, rising sea levels and more floods, storms and heatwaves, provide a basis for analysing many of the risks threatening vital infrastructure. But URS a global consultancy and management company, also warns that ports and airports could face as yet unquantified threats from changes in prevailing winds, although it admits evidence on which such predictions could be made is, as yet, scanty.
The project makes clear a big and expensive programme of sea and flood defences will be necessary. ..the report warns some existing quaysides may have to be made higher and more inland ports such as Goole, Yorkshire, 50 miles from the open sea developed.
This would be "an expensive and radical option" but might be necessary "if conditions deteriorate substantially". It would mean abandoning billions of pounds of existing assets in "at risk" locations and could provoke a business and public outcry, the report concedes.

Obviously it is beyond the wit of a country that built the Mulberry harbours in days under enemy fire to raise the existing dock walls by a foot or so over a hundred years.

It also notes runways at UK airports are aligned either east-west or southwest-northeast depending on the prevailing wind. "Many only have a single runway or parallel runways, which means on days when there is a strong cross wind, there can be severe disruption. These airports could therefore be vulnerable to a change in prevailing wind direction, but there is no robust climate prediction for this parameter."

In other words there is not an iota of a suspicion that this is a risk but Rupert spent a jolly month flying around on expenses and needed to write up something.

On energy, the report asks: "Should we expect there to be electricity black-outs or periods where gas is unavailable?" One alternative would be for every home to be able to use low-carbon electricity when available and gas (perhaps supplemented by local anaerobic biogas) when it was not. A gradual shift to renewable energy sources, such as sun, wind, waves and tides, which are dependent on climactic conditions for providing electricity, might make stability through a grid system difficult to guarantee.

The Report doesn't then say well that shows that is a stupid idea then but suggests that society ought to get used to blackouts and power rationing.
Oh, and there is a need for a lot more research and funding for writing such hogwash.


Even the IPCC doesn't think sea level rises will exceed one metre by 2100. The mean high water spring tide at Felixstowe (the UK's biggest container port) is just about four metres, and it does appear to cope with that (except when combined with a strong easterly, but that's another story). So (a) why would a mere metre sea level change make any difference and (b) how, precisely are you going to get a 100,000-tonne, 300 metre+ long 9,000 TEU containership to an inland port?

Well we know we've got to get used to blackouts and power rationing (what else does he think smart meters are for?), but it's nothing to do with global "warming" per se.

What it's to do with is twats like him stopping us from building the replacement power stations we so desperately need.

Or - possibly - telling the EU to take a hike and continuing to run the ones we've got; but I suspect this idiot (he would be called Rupert, wouldn't he) is strongly pro-EU anyway.

Post a comment