Modi’s net zero in just 49 years is not a good sign – politicalbetting.com

IshmaelZ said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TOPPING said:

So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

I don't believe that.

Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)

I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).

That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.

A quick google says you’re wrong.
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/what-is-the-global-volume-of-land-ice-and-how-is-it-changing/

(average depth of Greenland ice sheet is c.1500m)

RCS’s top of the head calcs do sometimes contain a gross error he’s overlooked. In this case it’s that a chunk of that “covered by water” percentage is sea ice, including much of the Arctic and Antarctica, which is where a lot of the extra water would come from.

How's that an error?

If the ice in those areas gets turned into water rising the sea level then the sea level will rise there every bit as much as it rises anywhere else.

Erm if sea ice is floating on water then melting it will cause no change in sea level whatsoever. A gent by the name of Archimedes worked that one out about 2000 years ago. It is already displacing the sea just by floating on it. (This does not quite apply if it is anchored to nearby land)

A common fallacy which ignores the fact that Archimedes is about mass, not volume. Icebergs melting raise sea level by about 2.6%

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/345381/does-the-sea-level-increase-if-an-iceberg-melts

https://wobbly.earth/post/archimedes/

https://phys.org/news/2010-04-icebergs-sea.html

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OT David Starkey has launched his own Youtube channel. He looks quite old now, and should buy a separate webcam, or move the one he has.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6t5oQs-YSfhgOC4Y5UEqqA/videos

IshmaelZ said:

Flatlander said:

Philip_Thompson said:

pigeon said:

On the general topic of sea level rises caused by melting glaciers: the 70m estimate assumes the collapse of the entire East Antarctic ice sheet, which is very stable and seems unlikely to go except under very extreme circumstances.

If both the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melt completely then I think that gets us to somewhere around 15m, but even that would take several centuries. It's really only people living in very low lying areas or those vulnerable to flooding caused by swollen rivers or stormwater run-off that have much to worry about within the lifetime of anybody posting here.

If sea level guaranteed flooding of everything below sea level then how much of the Netherlands would be gone?

If the sea level rises, I expect we'd swiftly adapt to prevent it from flooding our land.

And yet we already have tidal flooding incidents.

There was a big one fairly recently that affected thousands of people but got buried under the news of the death of Nelson Mandela.

I don't believe any of the more catastrophic predictions are likely in the short term either, but even 0.5m would be a challenge in some parts (particularly Hull, if anyone cares, and London).

Richard_Tyndall said:

IshmaelZ said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

IshmaelZ said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TOPPING said:

So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

I don't believe that.

Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)

I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).

That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.

A quick google says you’re wrong.
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/what-is-the-global-volume-of-land-ice-and-how-is-it-changing/

(average depth of Greenland ice sheet is c.1500m)

RCS’s top of the head calcs do sometimes contain a gross error he’s overlooked. In this case it’s that a chunk of that “covered by water” percentage is sea ice, including much of the Arctic and Antarctica, which is where a lot of the extra water would come from.

How's that an error?

If the ice in those areas gets turned into water rising the sea level then the sea level will rise there every bit as much as it rises anywhere else.

Erm if sea ice is floating on water then melting it will cause no change in sea level whatsoever. A gent by the name of Archimedes worked that one out about 2000 years ago. It is already displacing the sea just by floating on it. (This does not quite apply if it is anchored to nearby land)

A common fallacy which ignores the fact that Archimedes is about mass, not volume. Icebergs melting raise sea level by about 2.6%

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/345381/does-the-sea-level-increase-if-an-iceberg-melts

https://wobbly.earth/post/archimedes/

https://phys.org/news/2010-04-icebergs-sea.html

But doesn't a glass of frozen water go down in volume when it melts?

Yes, but it's all fresh water, and it doesn't have 10% sticking out above the surface

In this case that really does not make any difference. The 10% above the surface would make no difference to the level in the glass if it melts as it is already displacing the water it is floating in.

The question was "a glass of frozen water." Nothing to float in.

rcs1000 said:

Flatlander said:

rcs1000 said:

IshmaelZ said:

rcs1000 said:

IshmaelZ said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TOPPING said:

So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

I don't believe that.

Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)

I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).

That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.

Are you counting the polar ice caps?

I was not.

But let's have a little play there too, shall we?

Firstly, we're going to assume that every single bit of ice is going to melt there. (Which would be an astonishing warming of the earth, given that the South Pole still only gets to around 28 degrees below in summer.

But let's start with the North Pole. According to Wikipedia: "Earth's North Pole is covered by floating pack ice (sea ice) over the Arctic Ocean. Portions of the ice that do not melt seasonally can get very thick, up to 3–4 meters thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 meters thick. One-year ice is usually about 1 meter thick. The area covered by sea ice ranges between 9 and 12 million km2." Let's go with 5 meters over the whole lot.

Let's just play with numbers. 10 million km at 5m depth compared to 150 million km of oceans. Now, I'm rounding here, but that means that if the whole North Pole was to melt, that would add about 30cm to world sea levels.

Hmmm... Not getting to a 70 meter increase there.

Let's add the South Pole shall we.

That's 14.6 million square miles. Let's round up to 15 million miles. And let's assume an average depth of 100 meters. That means that Antarctica could add 10 meters to sea levels. But again those seem like pretty chunky top of the head calculations, even ignoring the fact that there's been no diminution of ice levels at the South Pole and that it remains pretty damn cold there.

Let's not assume an average depth of 100 metres, let's go with the well established average depth of two kilometres, maxing out at 5 kilometres. this makes a difference.

The highest point in Antarctica is below 5km - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinson_Massif - and that definitely contains quite a lot of rock. From the picture there's clearly rock at the actual surface.

And remember you can't count the ice below sea level. Because that will actually, as it melts, lower sea levels.

Vinson is a fairly isolated volcano.

Here is a map of the rock underneath Antarctica...
https://cpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com/sites.uci.edu/dist/8/1765/files/2018/10/products_bed.jpg

Note how much of it is below sea level (although there's no sea there at the moment because it is sealed out by the ice).

Ice thickness...
https://cpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com/sites.uci.edu/dist/8/1765/files/2018/10/products_thickness.jpg

You'll notice it is quite thin on the mountain ranges, but these are actually holding back the vast mass of ice sheet in the interior.

That is a fascinating image, thank you. It suggests that lots of the ice in Antarctica is actually below sea level. So you can't just work out how much ice there is and add it to the sea level.

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

The right of centre LDP have retained their majority in yesterday's Japanese general election under their new leader and PM Fumio Kishida with 261 seats, down 23. The centre left Constitutional Democratic party was second with 96 up 41

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Japanese_general_election

Kishida seems very leftwing. Left of Ed Miliband in some of his proposals, he's really spooked the markets.

rcs1000 said:

IshmaelZ said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TOPPING said:

So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

I don't believe that.

Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)

I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).

That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.

A quick google says you’re wrong.
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/what-is-the-global-volume-of-land-ice-and-how-is-it-changing/

(average depth of Greenland ice sheet is c.1500m)

RCS’s top of the head calcs do sometimes contain a gross error he’s overlooked. In this case it’s that a chunk of that “covered by water” percentage is sea ice, including much of the Arctic and Antarctica, which is where a lot of the extra water would come from.

How's that an error?

If the ice in those areas gets turned into water rising the sea level then the sea level will rise there every bit as much as it rises anywhere else.

Erm if sea ice is floating on water then melting it will cause no change in sea level whatsoever. A gent by the name of Archimedes worked that one out about 2000 years ago. It is already displacing the sea just by floating on it. (This does not quite apply if it is anchored to nearby land)

A common fallacy which ignores the fact that Archimedes is about mass, not volume. Icebergs melting raise sea level by about 2.6%

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/345381/does-the-sea-level-increase-if-an-iceberg-melts

https://wobbly.earth/post/archimedes/

https://phys.org/news/2010-04-icebergs-sea.html

Raises sea level by 2.6%?

Shouldn't it be expressed in meters or centimeters, because 2.6% is relative to what?

TimT said:

rcs1000 said:

IshmaelZ said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TOPPING said:

So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

I don't believe that.

Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)

I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).

That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.

A quick google says you’re wrong.
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/what-is-the-global-volume-of-land-ice-and-how-is-it-changing/

(average depth of Greenland ice sheet is c.1500m)

RCS’s top of the head calcs do sometimes contain a gross error he’s overlooked. In this case it’s that a chunk of that “covered by water” percentage is sea ice, including much of the Arctic and Antarctica, which is where a lot of the extra water would come from.

How's that an error?

If the ice in those areas gets turned into water rising the sea level then the sea level will rise there every bit as much as it rises anywhere else.

Erm if sea ice is floating on water then melting it will cause no change in sea level whatsoever. A gent by the name of Archimedes worked that one out about 2000 years ago. It is already displacing the sea just by floating on it. (This does not quite apply if it is anchored to nearby land)

A common fallacy which ignores the fact that Archimedes is about mass, not volume. Icebergs melting raise sea level by about 2.6%

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/345381/does-the-sea-level-increase-if-an-iceberg-melts

https://wobbly.earth/post/archimedes/

https://phys.org/news/2010-04-icebergs-sea.html

Raises sea level by 2.6%?

Shouldn't it be expressed in meters or centimeters, because 2.6% is relative to what?

Yeah, I don't get that number.

Archimedes is about displacement, not about melting.

The ratio of densities of ice to water is 0.92, so ice takes up 108.7% of the space that that amount of water would, or water takes up only 92% of the volume of the ice that melts.

IanB2 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

IshmaelZ said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TOPPING said:

So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

I don't believe that.

Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)

I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).

That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.

A quick google says you’re wrong.
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/what-is-the-global-volume-of-land-ice-and-how-is-it-changing/

(average depth of Greenland ice sheet is c.1500m)

RCS’s top of the head calcs do sometimes contain a gross error he’s overlooked. In this case it’s that a chunk of that “covered by water” percentage is sea ice, including much of the Arctic and Antarctica, which is where a lot of the extra water would come from.

How's that an error?

If the ice in those areas gets turned into water rising the sea level then the sea level will rise there every bit as much as it rises anywhere else.

Erm if sea ice is floating on water then melting it will cause no change in sea level whatsoever. A gent by the name of Archimedes worked that one out about 2000 years ago. It is already displacing the sea just by floating on it. (This does not quite apply if it is anchored to nearby land)

A common fallacy which ignores the fact that Archimedes is about mass, not volume. Icebergs melting raise sea level by about 2.6%

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/345381/does-the-sea-level-increase-if-an-iceberg-melts

https://wobbly.earth/post/archimedes/

https://phys.org/news/2010-04-icebergs-sea.html

But doesn't a glass of frozen water go down in volume when it melts?

You've forgotten that ice floats and therefore there's a chunk sticking out of the water. Enough to sink a ship, so I heard.

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

Flatlander said:

rcs1000 said:

IshmaelZ said:

rcs1000 said:

IshmaelZ said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TOPPING said:

So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

I don't believe that.

Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)

I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).

That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.

Are you counting the polar ice caps?

I was not.

But let's have a little play there too, shall we?

Firstly, we're going to assume that every single bit of ice is going to melt there. (Which would be an astonishing warming of the earth, given that the South Pole still only gets to around 28 degrees below in summer.

But let's start with the North Pole. According to Wikipedia: "Earth's North Pole is covered by floating pack ice (sea ice) over the Arctic Ocean. Portions of the ice that do not melt seasonally can get very thick, up to 3–4 meters thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 meters thick. One-year ice is usually about 1 meter thick. The area covered by sea ice ranges between 9 and 12 million km2." Let's go with 5 meters over the whole lot.

Let's just play with numbers. 10 million km at 5m depth compared to 150 million km of oceans. Now, I'm rounding here, but that means that if the whole North Pole was to melt, that would add about 30cm to world sea levels.

Hmmm... Not getting to a 70 meter increase there.

Let's add the South Pole shall we.

That's 14.6 million square miles. Let's round up to 15 million miles. And let's assume an average depth of 100 meters. That means that Antarctica could add 10 meters to sea levels. But again those seem like pretty chunky top of the head calculations, even ignoring the fact that there's been no diminution of ice levels at the South Pole and that it remains pretty damn cold there.

Let's not assume an average depth of 100 metres, let's go with the well established average depth of two kilometres, maxing out at 5 kilometres. this makes a difference.

The highest point in Antarctica is below 5km - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinson_Massif - and that definitely contains quite a lot of rock. From the picture there's clearly rock at the actual surface.

And remember you can't count the ice below sea level. Because that will actually, as it melts, lower sea levels.

Vinson is a fairly isolated volcano.

Here is a map of the rock underneath Antarctica...
https://cpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com/sites.uci.edu/dist/8/1765/files/2018/10/products_bed.jpg

Note how much of it is below sea level (although there's no sea there at the moment because it is sealed out by the ice).

Ice thickness...
https://cpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com/sites.uci.edu/dist/8/1765/files/2018/10/products_thickness.jpg

You'll notice it is quite thin on the mountain ranges, but these are actually holding back the vast mass of ice sheet in the interior.

That is a fascinating image, thank you. It suggests that lots of the ice in Antarctica is actually below sea level. So you can't just work out how much ice there is and add it to the sea level.

I think it gets horribly complicated at this point.

The only reason that so much of Antartica is below sea level is because of the weight of ice on top of it which is pushing it down - the isostatic effect I was talking about on the last thread. If you melt all that ice then the land will rebound in isostatic readjustment and if that happens then most of that water is going to end up in the seas.

Thanks for that - v interesting

Is the rock beneath the water really that elastic?

And if so, that represents a massive amount of trapped energy

Foxy said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Charles said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TOPPING said:

So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

If Cherbourg becomes a new channel island…

That's quite encouraging. The Cotswolds survive.

Nothing to worry about then.

It looks like my house will have a sea view (I am at 140m above sea level) but my football team may need to swap to water polo.

MattW said:

stodge said:

IshmaelZ said:

https://www.floodmap.net/ lets you play with the levels if you think 70m is silly (which it is). The cloggies are basically fucked by even a 1 metre rise; any more than that, Cambridge are serious losers.

Apologies for the redundant "any more than that" in the preceding sentence.

A 2-meter rise puts Stodge Towers at risk.

We have the Thames Flood Barrier though we're on the wrong side and have to rely on the Barking Creek flood barrier - the world's largest guillotine. It's a brave idea to cut off the tidal flow - the problem is all the water backing up down the River Roding would have nowhere to go and we'd be flooded from the land side.

It's an unattractive prospect.

Mine says 167m.

TimT said:

Flatlander said:

TimT said:

rcs1000 said:

IshmaelZ said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TOPPING said:

So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

I don't believe that.

Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)

I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).

That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.

A quick google says you’re wrong.
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/what-is-the-global-volume-of-land-ice-and-how-is-it-changing/

(average depth of Greenland ice sheet is c.1500m)

RCS’s top of the head calcs do sometimes contain a gross error he’s overlooked. In this case it’s that a chunk of that “covered by water” percentage is sea ice, including much of the Arctic and Antarctica, which is where a lot of the extra water would come from.

How's that an error?

If the ice in those areas gets turned into water rising the sea level then the sea level will rise there every bit as much as it rises anywhere else.

Erm if sea ice is floating on water then melting it will cause no change in sea level whatsoever. A gent by the name of Archimedes worked that one out about 2000 years ago. It is already displacing the sea just by floating on it. (This does not quite apply if it is anchored to nearby land)

A common fallacy which ignores the fact that Archimedes is about mass, not volume. Icebergs melting raise sea level by about 2.6%

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/345381/does-the-sea-level-increase-if-an-iceberg-melts

https://wobbly.earth/post/archimedes/

https://phys.org/news/2010-04-icebergs-sea.html

Raises sea level by 2.6%?

Shouldn't it be expressed in meters or centimeters, because 2.6% is relative to what?

Yeah, I don't get that number.

Archimedes is about displacement, not about melting.

The ratio of densities of ice to water is 0.92, so ice takes up 108.7% of the space that that amount of water would, or water takes up only 92% of the volume of the ice that melts.

I think it is because salt water is 2.5% more dense than a fresh water iceberg.

Interesting physics question. If you mix a solution of volume A with a quantity of a solvent volume B, is the resultant volume A+B or something else (presumably it would be less than or equal to, but not greater than)?

I do not know the answer to that.

Edit: My guess is that it would be A+B, because the soluant is dissolved fully within the volume of the solvent, so the volume of the solvent in the solution is A, and the total volume of the solvent will be A+B, and hence that will be the volume.

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

pigeon said:

On the general topic of sea level rises caused by melting glaciers: the 70m estimate assumes the collapse of the entire East Antarctic ice sheet, which is very stable and seems unlikely to go except under very extreme circumstances.

If both the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melt completely then I think that gets us to somewhere around 15m, but even that would take several centuries. It's really only people living in very low lying areas or those vulnerable to flooding caused by swollen rivers or stormwater run-off that have much to worry about within the lifetime of anybody posting here.

If sea level guaranteed flooding of everything below sea level then how much of the Netherlands would be gone?

If the sea level rises, I expect we'd swiftly adapt to prevent it from flooding our land.

If you fired a shotgun straight at me, I expect I'd swiftly adapt to prevent it from harming me.

That's a stupid analogy.

These changes aren't going to happen without warning and at the speed of gunfire.

No, but dikes aren't built in a day, either. And your "We are fine because look at the Netherlands" argument doesn't really work, because the Netherlands are wiped out by a 1 metre rise according to all the maps.

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

tlg86 said:

LOL, Welby has apologised for his comments...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/01/justin-welby-apologises-for-likening-climate-threat-to-nazis

Because he was up for the annual Godwin Grand Prize otherwise. How did he expect the Jewish community to react to a comparison with their genocide?

There was nothing remotely offensive about it to Jews.

If anything by comparing the failure of world leaders to combat Nazism in the 1930s (thus enabling the Holocaust) to the risk of world leaders today failing to do enough to combat climate change he was saying not enough was done to protect Jews then.

As far as I can see he had no need to apologise whatsoever

It was wholly unnecessary and he is right to apologise

He is head of the Anglican Church and his language was ill judged, but then who listens to the clergy these days anyway

I repeat, what was actually offensive about it to Jews?

He is also primus inter pares of the Anglican communion, representing 92 million Anglicans worldwide, as well as head of the Church of England. Plenty listen to him, including me

Your blind love is the least surprising

And for a Christian to suggest people will be cursed and comparing anything with the Nazis was crass

And please note, he has apologised so why defend him

Nor is the jump on the latest bandwagon from you.

He also did not compare anyone to the Nazis, he compared potential inaction over climate change to inaction in the 1930s in failing to tackle the Nazis. Not the same thing at all. Some scientists will also tell you that potentially millions could die from flooding, drought, starvation etc caused by climate change.

If he wished to apologise to shut up the thought police like you that is up to him, in my view he still had nothing to apologise for

TimT said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TOPPING said:

So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

I don't believe that.

Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)

I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).

That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.

That's an official USG estimate, from NOAA, so I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-would-sea-level-change-if-all-glaciers-melted?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

Flatlander said:

rcs1000 said:

IshmaelZ said:

rcs1000 said:

IshmaelZ said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TOPPING said:

So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

I don't believe that.

Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)

I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).

That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.

Are you counting the polar ice caps?

I was not.

But let's have a little play there too, shall we?

Firstly, we're going to assume that every single bit of ice is going to melt there. (Which would be an astonishing warming of the earth, given that the South Pole still only gets to around 28 degrees below in summer.

But let's start with the North Pole. According to Wikipedia: "Earth's North Pole is covered by floating pack ice (sea ice) over the Arctic Ocean. Portions of the ice that do not melt seasonally can get very thick, up to 3–4 meters thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 meters thick. One-year ice is usually about 1 meter thick. The area covered by sea ice ranges between 9 and 12 million km2." Let's go with 5 meters over the whole lot.

Let's just play with numbers. 10 million km at 5m depth compared to 150 million km of oceans. Now, I'm rounding here, but that means that if the whole North Pole was to melt, that would add about 30cm to world sea levels.

Hmmm... Not getting to a 70 meter increase there.

Let's add the South Pole shall we.

That's 14.6 million square miles. Let's round up to 15 million miles. And let's assume an average depth of 100 meters. That means that Antarctica could add 10 meters to sea levels. But again those seem like pretty chunky top of the head calculations, even ignoring the fact that there's been no diminution of ice levels at the South Pole and that it remains pretty damn cold there.

Let's not assume an average depth of 100 metres, let's go with the well established average depth of two kilometres, maxing out at 5 kilometres. this makes a difference.

The highest point in Antarctica is below 5km - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinson_Massif - and that definitely contains quite a lot of rock. From the picture there's clearly rock at the actual surface.

And remember you can't count the ice below sea level. Because that will actually, as it melts, lower sea levels.

Vinson is a fairly isolated volcano.

Here is a map of the rock underneath Antarctica...
https://cpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com/sites.uci.edu/dist/8/1765/files/2018/10/products_bed.jpg

Note how much of it is below sea level (although there's no sea there at the moment because it is sealed out by the ice).

Ice thickness...
https://cpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com/sites.uci.edu/dist/8/1765/files/2018/10/products_thickness.jpg

You'll notice it is quite thin on the mountain ranges, but these are actually holding back the vast mass of ice sheet in the interior.

That is a fascinating image, thank you. It suggests that lots of the ice in Antarctica is actually below sea level. So you can't just work out how much ice there is and add it to the sea level.

I think it gets horribly complicated at this point.

The only reason that so much of Antartica is below sea level is because of the weight of ice on top of it which is pushing it down - the isostatic effect I was talking about on the last thread. If you melt all that ice then the land will rebound in isostatic readjustment and if that happens then most of that water is going to end up in the seas.

Thanks for that - v interesting

Is the rock beneath the water really that elastic?

And if so, that represents a massive amount of trapped energy

MattW said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

tlg86 said:

LOL, Welby has apologised for his comments...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/01/justin-welby-apologises-for-likening-climate-threat-to-nazis

Because he was up for the annual Godwin Grand Prize otherwise. How did he expect the Jewish community to react to a comparison with their genocide?

There was nothing remotely offensive about it to Jews.

If anything by comparing the failure of world leaders to combat Nazism in the 1930s (thus enabling the Holocaust) to the risk of world leaders today failing to do enough to combat climate change he was saying not enough was done to protect Jews then.

As far as I can see he had no need to apologise whatsoever

It was wholly unnecessary and he is right to apologise

He is head of the Anglican Church and his language was ill judged, but then who listens to the clergy these days anyway

I repeat, what was actually offensive about it to Jews?

He is also primus inter pares of the Anglican communion, representing 92 million Anglicans worldwide, as well as head of the Church of England. Plenty listen to him, including me

Your blind love is the least surprising

And for a Christian to suggest people will be cursed and comparing anything with the Nazis was crass

And please note, he has apologised so why defend him

Nor is the jump on the latest bandwagon from you.

He also did not compare anyone to the Nazis, he compared potential inaction over climate change to inaction in the 1930s in failing to tackle the Nazis. Not the same thing at all. Some scientists will also tell you that potentially millions could die from flooding, drought, starvation etc caused by climate change.

If he wished to apologise to shut up the thought police like you that is up to him, in my view he still had nothing to apologise for

HYUFD is right on that, @Big_G_NorthWales.

Here is the BBC:
The Archbishop of Canterbury has "unequivocally" apologised for comparing politicians who fail to act on climate change to those who "ignored what was happening in Nazi Germany".
...
Speaking to BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg, Mr Welby said history would judge current world leaders "probably on this fortnight alone".

"They could have been brilliant in everything else they've done, and they will be cursed if they don't get this right," he said.

"They could have been rubbish at everything else they've done but if they get this right, the children of today will rise up and bless them in 50 years."

Mr Welby said that if they failed to act future generations would speak of them in "far stronger terms than we speak today of... the politicians who ignored what was happening in Nazi Germany because this will kill people all around the world for generations".

But far too subtle, so he was right to kill it before it really started.

NorthofStoke said:

IshmaelZ said:

NorthofStoke said:

TimT said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TOPPING said:

So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

I don't believe that.

Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)

I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).

That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.

That's an official USG estimate, from NOAA, so I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-would-sea-level-change-if-all-glaciers-melted?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products

I'll dismiss it out of hand. They are illustrating the amount of water locked in land ice. There is no chance whatsoever of the Antarctic ice sheet melting in a time frame of tens of thousands of years. It would need a complete reconfiguration of the earth's climate and tectonic re-arrangement of the continents. Chances of major part of Greenland ice sheet melting even if we push CO2 much higher is also pretty slim! If you take pessimistic but feasible estimates there would be challenges but let's keep away from apocalyptic visions - there are enough emanating from Glasgow.

They are posing the question purely as a hypothetical, and giving the right answer. Agreed, it's a very remote hypothetical, and it would be more useful to give more attention to the effects of a realistic 2 metre rise.

Much more remote than a wipe out via an asteroid. The rate of sea level rise isn't really increasing very much from the rate we have experienced emerging from the little ice age. It needs to get a move on if the more worrying predictions are to have any credibility.

Philip_Thompson said:

LostPassword said:

TimT said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TOPPING said:

So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

I don't believe that.

Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)

I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).

That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.

That's an official USG estimate, from NOAA, so I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-would-sea-level-change-if-all-glaciers-melted?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products

I'm surprised that rcs would rubbish the number without actually looking at any data. I remember arguing with an internet troll many years ago about whether there was enough ice on Greenland to raise sea levels by 7m (there is) and found out that the average depth of the ice sheet there is well over a kilometre.

The estimate of 100m on average is ludicrously bad.

7m matches with rcs's estimate though.

The rest of the ice seems to be in the centimetres, its the Greenland ice that's troubling (though its also extremely unlikely to all go anyway).

But even if that all melted which is extremly unlikely, then that's only at rcs's 7m estimate - where is the other 63m supposed to come from?

IshmaelZ said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

Flatlander said:

rcs1000 said:

IshmaelZ said:

rcs1000 said:

IshmaelZ said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TOPPING said:

So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

I don't believe that.

Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)

I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).

That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.

Are you counting the polar ice caps?

I was not.

But let's have a little play there too, shall we?

Firstly, we're going to assume that every single bit of ice is going to melt there. (Which would be an astonishing warming of the earth, given that the South Pole still only gets to around 28 degrees below in summer.

But let's start with the North Pole. According to Wikipedia: "Earth's North Pole is covered by floating pack ice (sea ice) over the Arctic Ocean. Portions of the ice that do not melt seasonally can get very thick, up to 3–4 meters thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 meters thick. One-year ice is usually about 1 meter thick. The area covered by sea ice ranges between 9 and 12 million km2." Let's go with 5 meters over the whole lot.

Let's just play with numbers. 10 million km at 5m depth compared to 150 million km of oceans. Now, I'm rounding here, but that means that if the whole North Pole was to melt, that would add about 30cm to world sea levels.

Hmmm... Not getting to a 70 meter increase there.

Let's add the South Pole shall we.

That's 14.6 million square miles. Let's round up to 15 million miles. And let's assume an average depth of 100 meters. That means that Antarctica could add 10 meters to sea levels. But again those seem like pretty chunky top of the head calculations, even ignoring the fact that there's been no diminution of ice levels at the South Pole and that it remains pretty damn cold there.

Let's not assume an average depth of 100 metres, let's go with the well established average depth of two kilometres, maxing out at 5 kilometres. this makes a difference.

The highest point in Antarctica is below 5km - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinson_Massif - and that definitely contains quite a lot of rock. From the picture there's clearly rock at the actual surface.

And remember you can't count the ice below sea level. Because that will actually, as it melts, lower sea levels.

Vinson is a fairly isolated volcano.

Here is a map of the rock underneath Antarctica...
https://cpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com/sites.uci.edu/dist/8/1765/files/2018/10/products_bed.jpg

Note how much of it is below sea level (although there's no sea there at the moment because it is sealed out by the ice).

Ice thickness...
https://cpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com/sites.uci.edu/dist/8/1765/files/2018/10/products_thickness.jpg

You'll notice it is quite thin on the mountain ranges, but these are actually holding back the vast mass of ice sheet in the interior.

That is a fascinating image, thank you. It suggests that lots of the ice in Antarctica is actually below sea level. So you can't just work out how much ice there is and add it to the sea level.

I think it gets horribly complicated at this point.

The only reason that so much of Antartica is below sea level is because of the weight of ice on top of it which is pushing it down - the isostatic effect I was talking about on the last thread. If you melt all that ice then the land will rebound in isostatic readjustment and if that happens then most of that water is going to end up in the seas.

Thanks for that - v interesting

Is the rock beneath the water really that elastic?

And if so, that represents a massive amount of trapped energy

Scotland is presently isostatically rebounding from the last ice age at about 0.5mm p.a. However sea levels are rising at 2mm p.a. so a net sinking effect. And I think the South is really screwed because the isostatic effect is seesaw.

Rock is inelastic, it's presumably what the rock sits on that matters.

Roger said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

Fr/UK relations are in bad shape

Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted

The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering

https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1455236274319724558?s=20

Macron might be seeking to win the adoration of the FBPE Twitter crowd with that childish language.

Not sure its going to achieve much else though.

....Childish language!

"We won't roll over...."

Liz Truss sounding like Maggie's new tribute act

(.......and doesn't it sound dated?)

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

LostPassword said:

TimT said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TOPPING said:

So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

I don't believe that.

Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)

I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).

That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.

That's an official USG estimate, from NOAA, so I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-would-sea-level-change-if-all-glaciers-melted?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products

I'm surprised that rcs would rubbish the number without actually looking at any data. I remember arguing with an internet troll many years ago about whether there was enough ice on Greenland to raise sea levels by 7m (there is) and found out that the average depth of the ice sheet there is well over a kilometre.

The estimate of 100m on average is ludicrously bad.

7m matches with rcs's estimate though.

The rest of the ice seems to be in the centimetres, its the Greenland ice that's troubling (though its also extremely unlikely to all go anyway).

But even if that all melted which is extremly unlikely, then that's only at rcs's 7m estimate - where is the other 63m supposed to come from?

Surely if Greenland's ice all melted so would most of Antarctica's? That said IIRC even with rapid global warming it would take many centuries for Greenland's ice to melt, due to the significant latent heat of melting of H2O.

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

LostPassword said:

TimT said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TOPPING said:

So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

I don't believe that.

Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)

I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).

That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.

That's an official USG estimate, from NOAA, so I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-would-sea-level-change-if-all-glaciers-melted?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products

I'm surprised that rcs would rubbish the number without actually looking at any data. I remember arguing with an internet troll many years ago about whether there was enough ice on Greenland to raise sea levels by 7m (there is) and found out that the average depth of the ice sheet there is well over a kilometre.

The estimate of 100m on average is ludicrously bad.

7m matches with rcs's estimate though.

The rest of the ice seems to be in the centimetres, its the Greenland ice that's troubling (though its also extremely unlikely to all go anyway).

But even if that all melted which is extremly unlikely, then that's only at rcs's 7m estimate - where is the other 63m supposed to come from?

"About 2.1% of all of Earth's water is frozen in glaciers... 97.2% is in the oceans and inland seas."

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-much-earths-water-stored-glaciers?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products

The average depth of the oceans is 4km. 2.1% of 4km is 84m, ignoring the effects of the increased surface area as the oceans rise. 70m seems a reasonable estimate to me if ALL the glaciers melted.

Of course they are not all going to melt for many, many centuries, even with a massive increase in global temperature but if they ever did...

If they ever did, over centuries, we'd probably develop ways to expel water from the planet. Imagine future-SpaceX successors sending water out into space to get it off the planet to prevent the planet from flooding.

It'd be designed by future- @Morris_Dancer

Looking at Mars, I think expelling water from planet Earth would be a very bad idea.

Whenever I see a satellite photo of the Earth, I am struck by what a thin and fragile layer of atmosphere we have, and the same is true for water.

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

IshmaelZ said:

GIN1138 said:

I mean it's not great but Xi staying away basically makes the whole thing redundant anyway?

From the Beeb

"As we mentioned earlier, China's President Xi Jinping hasn't been attending today's conference - in contrast to many of his counterparts.

But the Chinese leader has released a letter to UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

In it he's reaffirmed China's aim for emissions to peak in the country before 2030, and for carbon neutrality to be achieved by 2060."

He has outbid India by 10 years, and done it without getting on a jet plane. Hard to see much to complain about.

And as has been pointed out, it doesn't get much drearier than a Scottish city in November.

China has four times the CO2 output per capita of India, and haven’t bid anything, since his letter is a mere restatement.
His non attendance is more a declaration that China doesn’t give a damn what the rest of the world thinks.

But they DO give a damn. They are not stupid. They can see the world is being fucked over. Pollution is a major issue in China, and global warming is one of the drivers of low human fertility ("fuck it the world is fucked"), which is a massive issue in Beijing

They might disagree on the way to the end, but they understand the path has to be found

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

IshmaelZ said:

GIN1138 said:

I mean it's not great but Xi staying away basically makes the whole thing redundant anyway?

From the Beeb

"As we mentioned earlier, China's President Xi Jinping hasn't been attending today's conference - in contrast to many of his counterparts.

But the Chinese leader has released a letter to UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

In it he's reaffirmed China's aim for emissions to peak in the country before 2030, and for carbon neutrality to be achieved by 2060."

He has outbid India by 10 years, and done it without getting on a jet plane. Hard to see much to complain about.

And as has been pointed out, it doesn't get much drearier than a Scottish city in November.

China has four times the CO2 output per capita of India, and haven’t bid anything, since his letter is a mere restatement.
His non attendance is more a declaration that China doesn’t give a damn what the rest of the world thinks.

But they DO give a damn. They are not stupid. They can see the world is being fucked over. Pollution is a major issue in China, and global warming is one of the drivers of low human fertility ("fuck it the world is fucked"), which is a massive issue in Beijing

They might disagree on the way to the end, but they understand the path has to be found

I also seem to recall that China itself is physically particularly susceptible to the effects of global warming.

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Roger said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

Fr/UK relations are in bad shape

Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted

The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering

https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1455236274319724558?s=20

Macron might be seeking to win the adoration of the FBPE Twitter crowd with that childish language.

Not sure its going to achieve much else though.

....Childish language!

"We won't roll over...."

Liz Truss sounding like Maggie's new tribute act

(.......and doesn't it sound dated?)

I regret to inform PB that Roger, an elderly, esteemed and retired member of this parish, has returned to make a comment

Surely old posters returning is a cause for celebration not regret?

I still live in hope of a messianic return of SeanT one day!

DecrepiterJohnL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Brenda dropping another hint that London Bridge will soon fall.

The Queen has called on world leaders to look beyond their own lifetimes and “answer the call of future generations” with an ambitious agreement to tackle climate change.

In a speech delivered by video to more than 120 leaders gathered in Glasgow for the Cop26 climate change conference she said that “none of us will live for ever” and urged them to rise above “the politics of the moment”.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cop26-queen-tells-delegates-in-glasgow-it-is-time-for-action-lxpqmbdwr

Turns out the only reason HMQ has suspended official duties is because she is moonlighting as an Uber driver.

The Queen spotted driving car near Windsor estate
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59123349

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

Flatlander said:

rcs1000 said:

IshmaelZ said:

rcs1000 said:

IshmaelZ said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TOPPING said:

So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

I don't believe that.

Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)

I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).

That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.

Are you counting the polar ice caps?

I was not.

But let's have a little play there too, shall we?

Firstly, we're going to assume that every single bit of ice is going to melt there. (Which would be an astonishing warming of the earth, given that the South Pole still only gets to around 28 degrees below in summer.

But let's start with the North Pole. According to Wikipedia: "Earth's North Pole is covered by floating pack ice (sea ice) over the Arctic Ocean. Portions of the ice that do not melt seasonally can get very thick, up to 3–4 meters thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 meters thick. One-year ice is usually about 1 meter thick. The area covered by sea ice ranges between 9 and 12 million km2." Let's go with 5 meters over the whole lot.

Let's just play with numbers. 10 million km at 5m depth compared to 150 million km of oceans. Now, I'm rounding here, but that means that if the whole North Pole was to melt, that would add about 30cm to world sea levels.

Hmmm... Not getting to a 70 meter increase there.

Let's add the South Pole shall we.

That's 14.6 million square miles. Let's round up to 15 million miles. And let's assume an average depth of 100 meters. That means that Antarctica could add 10 meters to sea levels. But again those seem like pretty chunky top of the head calculations, even ignoring the fact that there's been no diminution of ice levels at the South Pole and that it remains pretty damn cold there.

Let's not assume an average depth of 100 metres, let's go with the well established average depth of two kilometres, maxing out at 5 kilometres. this makes a difference.

The highest point in Antarctica is below 5km - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinson_Massif - and that definitely contains quite a lot of rock. From the picture there's clearly rock at the actual surface.

And remember you can't count the ice below sea level. Because that will actually, as it melts, lower sea levels.

Vinson is a fairly isolated volcano.

Here is a map of the rock underneath Antarctica...
https://cpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com/sites.uci.edu/dist/8/1765/files/2018/10/products_bed.jpg

Note how much of it is below sea level (although there's no sea there at the moment because it is sealed out by the ice).

Ice thickness...
https://cpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com/sites.uci.edu/dist/8/1765/files/2018/10/products_thickness.jpg

You'll notice it is quite thin on the mountain ranges, but these are actually holding back the vast mass of ice sheet in the interior.

That is a fascinating image, thank you. It suggests that lots of the ice in Antarctica is actually below sea level. So you can't just work out how much ice there is and add it to the sea level.

I think it gets horribly complicated at this point.

The only reason that so much of Antartica is below sea level is because of the weight of ice on top of it which is pushing it down - the isostatic effect I was talking about on the last thread. If you melt all that ice then the land will rebound in isostatic readjustment and if that happens then most of that water is going to end up in the seas.

Thanks for that - v interesting

Is the rock beneath the water really that elastic?

And if so, that represents a massive amount of trapped energy

Yep it really is that elastic. We are seeing exactly the same thing in Northern Europe still 12,000 years after the glaciers finally retreated. Scotland is rising and South Eastern England is sinking by around 20cm a century. It doesn't need ice either. The Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana is sinking at about 60cm a century due to the sediment mass outflows from the Mississippi (around 550 million tons of sediment a year).

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

IshmaelZ said:

GIN1138 said:

I mean it's not great but Xi staying away basically makes the whole thing redundant anyway?

From the Beeb

"As we mentioned earlier, China's President Xi Jinping hasn't been attending today's conference - in contrast to many of his counterparts.

But the Chinese leader has released a letter to UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

In it he's reaffirmed China's aim for emissions to peak in the country before 2030, and for carbon neutrality to be achieved by 2060."

He has outbid India by 10 years, and done it without getting on a jet plane. Hard to see much to complain about.

And as has been pointed out, it doesn't get much drearier than a Scottish city in November.

China has four times the CO2 output per capita of India, and haven’t bid anything, since his letter is a mere restatement.
His non attendance is more a declaration that China doesn’t give a damn what the rest of the world thinks.

But they DO give a damn. They are not stupid. They can see the world is being fucked over. Pollution is a major issue in China, and global warming is one of the drivers of low human fertility ("fuck it the world is fucked"), which is a massive issue in Beijing

They might disagree on the way to the end, but they understand the path has to be found

I also seem to recall that China itself is physically particularly susceptible to the effects of global warming.

Scott_xP said:

Flatlander said:

Sam Cam's family own a big hoose on the beach at Glenbatrick (accessible by boat or walking across the island), but there's very little else there.

I spent a miserable week on Jura once

SandyRentool said:

kle4 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Brenda dropping another hint that London Bridge will soon fall.

The Queen has called on world leaders to look beyond their own lifetimes and “answer the call of future generations” with an ambitious agreement to tackle climate change.

In a speech delivered by video to more than 120 leaders gathered in Glasgow for the Cop26 climate change conference she said that “none of us will live for ever” and urged them to rise above “the politics of the moment”.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cop26-queen-tells-delegates-in-glasgow-it-is-time-for-action-lxpqmbdwr

Turns out the only reason HMQ has suspended official duties is because she is moonlighting as an Uber driver.

The Queen spotted driving car near Windsor estate
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59123349

With the description of her outfit, the opening sounds like it thinks she boosted someone else's car amd was trying to be ignognito.

The Queen has been pictured driving near Windsor Castle, three days after being advised by her doctors to rest and only carry out light duties.

The monarch, 95, was photographed in a headscarf and sunglasses behind the wheel of a green Jaguar estate car.

"green Jaguar estate"

Must have been an EV. Very appropriate.

Charles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

Flatlander said:

rcs1000 said:

IshmaelZ said:

rcs1000 said:

IshmaelZ said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

TOPPING said:

So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

I don't believe that.

Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)

I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).

That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.

Are you counting the polar ice caps?

I was not.

But let's have a little play there too, shall we?

Firstly, we're going to assume that every single bit of ice is going to melt there. (Which would be an astonishing warming of the earth, given that the South Pole still only gets to around 28 degrees below in summer.

But let's start with the North Pole. According to Wikipedia: "Earth's North Pole is covered by floating pack ice (sea ice) over the Arctic Ocean. Portions of the ice that do not melt seasonally can get very thick, up to 3–4 meters thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 meters thick. One-year ice is usually about 1 meter thick. The area covered by sea ice ranges between 9 and 12 million km2." Let's go with 5 meters over the whole lot.

Let's just play with numbers. 10 million km at 5m depth compared to 150 million km of oceans. Now, I'm rounding here, but that means that if the whole North Pole was to melt, that would add about 30cm to world sea levels.

Hmmm... Not getting to a 70 meter increase there.

Let's add the South Pole shall we.

That's 14.6 million square miles. Let's round up to 15 million miles. And let's assume an average depth of 100 meters. That means that Antarctica could add 10 meters to sea levels. But again those seem like pretty chunky top of the head calculations, even ignoring the fact that there's been no diminution of ice levels at the South Pole and that it remains pretty damn cold there.

Let's not assume an average depth of 100 metres, let's go with the well established average depth of two kilometres, maxing out at 5 kilometres. this makes a difference.

The highest point in Antarctica is below 5km - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinson_Massif - and that definitely contains quite a lot of rock. From the picture there's clearly rock at the actual surface.

And remember you can't count the ice below sea level. Because that will actually, as it melts, lower sea levels.

Vinson is a fairly isolated volcano.

Here is a map of the rock underneath Antarctica...
https://cpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com/sites.uci.edu/dist/8/1765/files/2018/10/products_bed.jpg

Note how much of it is below sea level (although there's no sea there at the moment because it is sealed out by the ice).

Ice thickness...
https://cpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com/sites.uci.edu/dist/8/1765/files/2018/10/products_thickness.jpg

You'll notice it is quite thin on the mountain ranges, but these are actually holding back the vast mass of ice sheet in the interior.

That is a fascinating image, thank you. It suggests that lots of the ice in Antarctica is actually below sea level. So you can't just work out how much ice there is and add it to the sea level.

I think it gets horribly complicated at this point.

The only reason that so much of Antartica is below sea level is because of the weight of ice on top of it which is pushing it down - the isostatic effect I was talking about on the last thread. If you melt all that ice then the land will rebound in isostatic readjustment and if that happens then most of that water is going to end up in the seas.

Thanks for that - v interesting

Is the rock beneath the water really that elastic?

And if so, that represents a massive amount of trapped energy

Yep it really is that elastic. We are seeing exactly the same thing in Northern Europe still 12,000 years after the glaciers finally retreated. Scotland is rising and South Eastern England is sinking by around 20cm a century. It doesn't need ice either. The Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana is sinking at about 60cm a century due to the sediment mass outflows from the Mississippi (around 550 million tons of sediment a year).

Against that, in London ground level is 6 or 7 metres higher than in Roman times. Does the 20cms take that into account or are we effectively getting lower but thicker?

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Roger said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

Fr/UK relations are in bad shape

Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted

The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering

https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1455236274319724558?s=20

Macron might be seeking to win the adoration of the FBPE Twitter crowd with that childish language.

Not sure its going to achieve much else though.

....Childish language!

"We won't roll over...."

Liz Truss sounding like Maggie's new tribute act

(.......and doesn't it sound dated?)

I regret to inform PB that Roger, an elderly, esteemed and retired member of this parish, has returned to make a comment

Surely old posters returning is a cause for celebration not regret?

I still live in hope of a messianic return of SeanT one day!

He did a "piece" in the Spectator today. The usual predictable whingeing

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-if-wokeness-really-is-the-new-christianity-

My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.

"Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.

Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.

rottenborough said:

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

Flatlander said:

Sam Cam's family own a big hoose on the beach at Glenbatrick (accessible by boat or walking across the island), but there's very little else there.

I spent a miserable week on Jura once

How did you en-Jura it?

(Sorry)

Coat sir?

Farooq said:

Benpointer said:

Farooq said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Roger said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

Fr/UK relations are in bad shape

Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted

The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering

https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1455236274319724558?s=20

Macron might be seeking to win the adoration of the FBPE Twitter crowd with that childish language.

Not sure its going to achieve much else though.

....Childish language!

"We won't roll over...."

Liz Truss sounding like Maggie's new tribute act

(.......and doesn't it sound dated?)

I regret to inform PB that Roger, an elderly, esteemed and retired member of this parish, has returned to make a comment

Surely old posters returning is a cause for celebration not regret?

I still live in hope of a messianic return of SeanT one day!

He did a "piece" in the Spectator today. The usual predictable whingeing


https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-if-wokeness-really-is-the-new-christianity-

Haha, what a load of shit

Tbf, I suspect Sean knows it's a load of old bollocks but it's probably a nice little earner. More fool the idiots who run the Speccie for commissioning it.

Well they get the traffic, and the readership get their dose. So everyone's happy, even if the world is marginally dumber as a result.

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Roger said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

Fr/UK relations are in bad shape

Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted

The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering

https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1455236274319724558?s=20

Macron might be seeking to win the adoration of the FBPE Twitter crowd with that childish language.

Not sure its going to achieve much else though.

....Childish language!

"We won't roll over...."

Liz Truss sounding like Maggie's new tribute act

(.......and doesn't it sound dated?)

I regret to inform PB that Roger, an elderly, esteemed and retired member of this parish, has returned to make a comment

Surely old posters returning is a cause for celebration not regret?

I still live in hope of a messianic return of SeanT one day!

He did a "piece" in the Spectator today. The usual predictable whingeing

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-if-wokeness-really-is-the-new-christianity-

My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.

"Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.

Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.

If I am ever fortunate enough to meet the great ex-PBer himself, I shall relay your earnest and worthy critiques. But I doubt I will be so lucky

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Roger said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

Fr/UK relations are in bad shape

Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted

The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering

https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1455236274319724558?s=20

Macron might be seeking to win the adoration of the FBPE Twitter crowd with that childish language.

Not sure its going to achieve much else though.

....Childish language!

"We won't roll over...."

Liz Truss sounding like Maggie's new tribute act

(.......and doesn't it sound dated?)

I regret to inform PB that Roger, an elderly, esteemed and retired member of this parish, has returned to make a comment

Surely old posters returning is a cause for celebration not regret?

I still live in hope of a messianic return of SeanT one day!

He did a "piece" in the Spectator today. The usual predictable whingeing

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-if-wokeness-really-is-the-new-christianity-

My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.

"Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.

Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.

If I am ever fortunate enough to meet the great ex-PBer himself, I shall relay your earnest and worthy critiques. But I doubt I will be so lucky

Fysics_Teacher said:

turbotubbs said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Roger said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

Fr/UK relations are in bad shape

Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted

The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering

https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1455236274319724558?s=20

Macron might be seeking to win the adoration of the FBPE Twitter crowd with that childish language.

Not sure its going to achieve much else though.

....Childish language!

"We won't roll over...."

Liz Truss sounding like Maggie's new tribute act

(.......and doesn't it sound dated?)

I regret to inform PB that Roger, an elderly, esteemed and retired member of this parish, has returned to make a comment

Surely old posters returning is a cause for celebration not regret?

I still live in hope of a messianic return of SeanT one day!

He did a "piece" in the Spectator today. The usual predictable whingeing

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-if-wokeness-really-is-the-new-christianity-

My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.

"Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.

Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.

We’ve been discussing at work. Last year I had some feedback on a cancer unit I teach asking if I could not use the terms men and women in reference to prostate and breast cancer FFS. Our homepage has an article about use of pronouns. A colleague specifically mentioned a black scientists ethnicity but did not mention others Jewishness in a recorded lecture.

It’s real, and it needs challenging. I dont want to upset anyone, but most of this crap is totally over the top.

To be fair, there are men who get breast cancer I think?

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Roger said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

Fr/UK relations are in bad shape

Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted

The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering

https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1455236274319724558?s=20

Macron might be seeking to win the adoration of the FBPE Twitter crowd with that childish language.

Not sure its going to achieve much else though.

....Childish language!

"We won't roll over...."

Liz Truss sounding like Maggie's new tribute act

(.......and doesn't it sound dated?)

I regret to inform PB that Roger, an elderly, esteemed and retired member of this parish, has returned to make a comment

Surely old posters returning is a cause for celebration not regret?

I still live in hope of a messianic return of SeanT one day!

He did a "piece" in the Spectator today. The usual predictable whingeing

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-if-wokeness-really-is-the-new-christianity-

My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.

"Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.

Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.

If I am ever fortunate enough to meet the great ex-PBer himself, I shall relay your earnest and worthy critiques. But I doubt I will be so lucky

turbotubbs said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Roger said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

Fr/UK relations are in bad shape

Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted

The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering

https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1455236274319724558?s=20

Macron might be seeking to win the adoration of the FBPE Twitter crowd with that childish language.

Not sure its going to achieve much else though.

....Childish language!

"We won't roll over...."

Liz Truss sounding like Maggie's new tribute act

(.......and doesn't it sound dated?)

I regret to inform PB that Roger, an elderly, esteemed and retired member of this parish, has returned to make a comment

Surely old posters returning is a cause for celebration not regret?

I still live in hope of a messianic return of SeanT one day!

He did a "piece" in the Spectator today. The usual predictable whingeing

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-if-wokeness-really-is-the-new-christianity-

My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.

"Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.

Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.

We’ve been discussing at work. Last year I had some feedback on a cancer unit I teach asking if I could not use the terms men and women in reference to prostate and breast cancer FFS. Our homepage has an article about use of pronouns. A colleague specifically mentioned a black scientists ethnicity but did not mention others Jewishness in a recorded lecture.

It’s real, and it needs challenging. I dont want to upset anyone, but most of this crap is totally over the top.

rottenborough said:

turbotubbs said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Roger said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

Fr/UK relations are in bad shape

Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted

The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering

https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1455236274319724558?s=20

Macron might be seeking to win the adoration of the FBPE Twitter crowd with that childish language.

Not sure its going to achieve much else though.

....Childish language!

"We won't roll over...."

Liz Truss sounding like Maggie's new tribute act

(.......and doesn't it sound dated?)

I regret to inform PB that Roger, an elderly, esteemed and retired member of this parish, has returned to make a comment

Surely old posters returning is a cause for celebration not regret?

I still live in hope of a messianic return of SeanT one day!

He did a "piece" in the Spectator today. The usual predictable whingeing

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-if-wokeness-really-is-the-new-christianity-

My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.

"Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.

Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.

We’ve been discussing at work. Last year I had some feedback on a cancer unit I teach asking if I could not use the terms men and women in reference to prostate and breast cancer FFS. Our homepage has an article about use of pronouns. A colleague specifically mentioned a black scientists ethnicity but did not mention others Jewishness in a recorded lecture.

It’s real, and it needs challenging. I dont want to upset anyone, but most of this crap is totally over the top.

Leeds uni students have demanded all senior staff publish their pronouns apparently.

God knows what that means but it sounds woke to me.

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Roger said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

Fr/UK relations are in bad shape

Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted

The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering

https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1455236274319724558?s=20

Macron might be seeking to win the adoration of the FBPE Twitter crowd with that childish language.

Not sure its going to achieve much else though.

....Childish language!

"We won't roll over...."

Liz Truss sounding like Maggie's new tribute act

(.......and doesn't it sound dated?)

I regret to inform PB that Roger, an elderly, esteemed and retired member of this parish, has returned to make a comment

Surely old posters returning is a cause for celebration not regret?

I still live in hope of a messianic return of SeanT one day!

He did a "piece" in the Spectator today. The usual predictable whingeing

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-if-wokeness-really-is-the-new-christianity-

My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.

"Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.

Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.

If I am ever fortunate enough to meet the great ex-PBer himself, I shall relay your earnest and worthy critiques. But I doubt I will be so lucky

Sean will quite rightly ignore my critiques - he after all is the one getting paid for his words; mine have no market value whatsoever.