Not the FT As Well!

Alerted in the comments earlier to this from the FT:

As climate change intensifies, floods such as this could become more severe, requiring new defences such as an additional Thames barrier. Although sea levels have risen only slightly through climate change, the Thames barrier is now raised about six times a year, having been designed to be raised twice a year.

Guys, please? A little favour? When discussing this subject could you please note that the SE of England is dropping 2.3 mm a year as a result ofthe end of the last ice age?

Thank you, your cooperation is appreciated.

12 comments on “Not the FT As Well!

  1. Firstly, I’d appreciate my promised geek points.

    Secondly, this last FT para is something that is difficult to analyse; it sort of melts away under the microscope:

    ‘as climate change intensifies’, well unless you know in which way it is changing (warming or cooling) you can’t say that it’s intensifying

    ‘floods such as this could …’ there again maybe they could not.

    ‘Although sea levels have only risen slightly through climate change’ FFS. ‘through’ means ‘because of’? Please quantify ‘slightly’, over what time period and mapped against what global warming/cooling?

    ‘The Thames barrier is now raised six times a year, having been designed to be raised twice a year’, no you stupid fucks, it was designed to be raised as often as was needed every time there was a perceived risk of flooding to London. Even when built, it was accepted that a bigger better replacement might be required a few decades hence.

    Thanks for that, g’night.

  2. Also, can it be accepted that weather conditions such as this, at this time of the year, aren’t exactly abnormal? Apparently everything and anything is down to global warming.

  3. SE of England is dropping 2.3 mm a year

    I thought it was about that per decade, anyone got a reference?

    Tim adds: As far as I’m aware, 2.3 cm per decade, 2.3 mm per year.

  4. Whether or not the Thames barrier is raised depends on decisions by the operators. They will have a set of operating rules to aid this decision. I am told that when the barrier was first installed the operating rules envisaged raising the barier only rarely, but a few years ago it was decided to raise it much more frequently, i.e. for smaller surges. This could be justified for training of staff, testing the operation and so on. To use this change of operating policy as evidence for climate change is perverse.

  5. You sure that you have the right cause for some of England sinking? Might it not be due to all those people standing on it weighing it down. They weren’t there in the good old days.

  6. See, if it’s sinking 2.3mm a year, WE DON’T NEED TO SHUT THE BARRIER! Because, like, it’s not real water or something.

    Who here knows where the C&W Docklands Telecoms Centre is?

    Tim adds: You’ve told us where it is before Alex.

    The point is only that while climate change accounts for some of the sea level rise in the SE UK, it doesn’t account for all of it. (About 50% in fact). So those who use increased raising of the Thames Barrier as proof of the effects of climate change are not being entirely factual. That’s all.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.