Seil Chat

What are the issues that will affect Seil in the future?

Will the rising sea-level, caused by melting polar ice-caps affect the tidal currents around the island and raise the risk of damage to property in storms? Could it affect prawn fishing?

Will warmer, wetter weather have an impact on lifestyle on the island?

Will warmer, wetter weather combined with low cost air travel divert tourists to sunnier climes taking away much needed local revenue and trade?

What are the issues that will be discussed on SeilChat in 10 years time?

Climate models appear to be predicting warmer, wetter and stormier winters, but hotter, drier summers. As most tourists come to the area in the summer, it is possible that such changes in our climate would work to our economic benefit as people forsake the arid wastelands of southern Europe for the balmy mediterranean waters of Argyll. Might even do for the midgies - a good or bad thing, depending on who you ask. The skiing industry in Scotland looks doomed, but that is only of peripheral interest to Seil I suppose.

Rising sea levels are, or course, something of a worry on an island where much of the property is clustered around the shoreline, but current predictions imply that won't be a major issue for a few decades yet - unless there is some catastrophic collapse of ice shelves, in which case we are all snookered in any case. The stormier winters are going to be a pain if last year was anything to go by, but eventually everything likely to come down in a gale will have come down and we'll adjust to life with fewer trees and more robust sheds.

The major issue which will affect us in years to come is the one which has already received some attention here - changing demographics as the population becomes ever more dominated by older, better off incomers (such as, I confess, myself and Mrs Dice). Positive or negative depends on your point of view, but it is bound to have (is already having) an impact.

Of more immediate concern, perhaps unrelated to climate or demographic issues, will be the future of our 3 most vital institutions - the Oyster Bar, the TNT, and the shop, in no particular order of importance. The loss of any one of these would have a dramatic negative impact, in my view.

Serious enough?

I blame Al Gore for all the innocents who have swallowed the CO2 global warming guff; still the same folks probably got all scared about the millenium bug too and may well be panicking about bird flu or whatever current scare the powers that be are using to control us and/or stealth tax us.
BTW wasn't Al Gore vice pres when the States rejected Kyoto...not saying he's dazed and confused or anything but you know what I mean.
Good job the global warming doomsayers weren't around during the medieval warm period when the geordies were making wine and when the danes were cropping Greenland....they'd have covered the country in useless windmills and taxed the peasants to the hilt to pay for them.
Anyway, don't panic folks. Don't you know that sea level is falling around the coasts of Scotland - its called isostatic readjustment. Well known but ignored by Daily mail readers.
ps Brrrrr; bit chilly today eh?

Anyway, don't panic folks. Don't you know that sea level is falling around the coasts of Scotland

Tell that to the shoppie mannie - he's had the sea all over his lawn again a few times recently!

Oh blubberer!
#Days of heavy rain running off the hills and into Clachandubh lochan.
#The lochan trying to drain into Balvicar Bay.
#Tides coming in and halting the flow from the lochan.
#A strong southerly or easterly wind.
.......that's they way its always been. Ain't no CO2 global warming involved in the quite normal flooding of that particular lawn.
You're sounding like one of those people who builds a house on a flood plain and then blames 4x4s when your little feeties get wet.

Nothing much to do with Al Gore, he is after all a politician and therefore flawed in every conceivable way. However there are a few facts extremely hard to ignore.
One, levels of CO2 and other gasses in the atmosphere have been increasing significantly since the industrial revolution, and rates of increase have grown in recent decades.
Two, the mechanisms by which increased levels of these gases in an atmosphere will lead to increased retention of solar energy are very well understood.
Three, the rate of rise of global mean temperatures over the last few decades is greater than at any time in the earth's history, at least as far as we are able to discern.

Now is it too much of a stretch to acknowledge that the first two might just have a bearing on the third?

Of course global climate fluctuates. There are likely to be many causes of climate change, many of them probably not well understood. The alarming fact is that it is fluctuating much faster than, for example, before and after the medieval warm period so beloved of those who wish to deny any human responsibility. The big mistake pretty much everyone in the anti camp always makes is to assume that if the climate became warmer in the past when human activity was not a factor, then human actovity cannot ever be a factor. This is of course deeply flawed logic.

The long and the short of it is, how do we make our decisions? Do we base them on the available evidence, no matter how unpalatable, or do we assume that everything will be all right because the alternative is going to be difficult? If the majority of climatologists are wrong and there is no human influence on climate, yet we have taken steps to reduce our impact on atmospheric composition, then we have spent a lot of money we could have better spent on tanks or motorways or bonusses. If we choose to do nothing because we don't want to curb our lifestyle in any way, and we are screwing up the atmosphere, irrevocably, then we are fornicated.

Personally, I have no kids and don't really care too much what happens in another 50 years or so, not my problem.

Don't you know that sea level is falling around the coasts of Scotland - its called isostatic readjustment

You of course are referring to what used to be termed Post-Glacial Rebound but you are infact inaccurate, in that, it is the land that is in fact rising in the post glacial isostatic adjustment of the Western Highlands, rather than, as you suggest, the sea level falling.

The speed at which this occurs is the real issue - Are the eustatic processes outweighed by the actions of isostacy??

You wanted serious!

Isn't it God's challenge that we learn and find ways to survive? The day we know everything is the day Life will end?

Can we afford to take a chance on doing nothing in the hope that Life in some form will survive no matter what? Or is it God's challenge that we confront the issues and work towards ensuring our survival?

A philosopher eh?

Pentlandpirate wrote:Isn't it God's challenge that we learn and find ways to survive? The day we know everything is the day Life will end?

Can we afford to take a chance on doing nothing in the hope that Life in some form will survive no matter what? Or is it God's challenge that we confront the issues and work towards ensuring our survival?

Pretty much no to each question. It's not God's cjhallenge, we can't just go blaming God every time we mess things up. No, I think it would be foolhardy to just hope everything will be OK and that oil-funded research is only finding results compatible with the oil companies' goals by astonishing co0incidence. And again no, it's not God's challenge, it's ours.

Life will survive. Life always does. Fact is, unfortunately for the rest of the planit, humanity will survive. I'm just not sure mere "survival" is really the summit of human aspiration.

Life`ll end with the sun but I don`t think there`ll be homo sapiens to see it...

No, Herby, we are confronted by the challenge of survival as set by God, don't you think?

Or was Life perfect before Mankind, and now we have created a challenge of survival as a result of our actions?

Pentlandpirate wrote:No, Herby, we are confronted by the challenge of survival as set by God, don't you think?

Or was Life perfect before Mankind, and now we have created a challenge of survival as a result of our actions?

Despite my qualifications as a man of the cloth, I have little truck for gods, capitalised or otherwise. Any challenges we face are either the same challenges as those faced by less spiritually obsessed species (food, shelter, procreation), or those we set ourselves, intentionally or otherwise.

Before mankind, life was a constant challenge to obtain nutrition, stay alive, propagate the species. We have merely added "get a BMW and a plasma TV and total global acceptance of my ideology" to the list. Probably not the evolutionary high point we are led to believe.

In response to Hippy Dice's selective science as follows:
One, levels of CO2 and other gasses in the atmosphere have been increasing significantly since the industrial revolution, and rates of increase have grown in recent decades.
= The IPCC have admitted that CO2 levels fell between 1945 and 1965; the very time time when the western world was rapidly reindustrialising after the devastation of industry through WW2...doh!
Two, the mechanisms by which increased levels of these gases in an atmosphere will lead to increased retention of solar energy are very well understood.
= By who? If these gases are retaining solar energy by some strange mechanism why do we get frosts at night. Do these gases suddenly disappear during the hours of darkness?...doh!
Three, the rate of rise of global mean temperatures over the last few decades is greater than at any time in the earth's history, at least as far as we are able to discern.
OMG! Do you not comprehend the rises in global temperature which took place 10,000 years ago which melted the mile thick sheet of ice which covered Argyll at that time and which extended over one third of the northern hemisphere? Do you and your fellow Gore-ites not know history beyond the last few months?
And, in response to Eric the so-called Viking's statement as follows:
it is the land that is in fact rising in the post glacial isostatic adjustment of the Western Highlands, rather than, as you suggest, the sea level falling.
= Try to think "relative" my little horny friend, eh?
Love to all etc.
ps Wonderful skiing in the Cairngorms at the moment. Best in living memory they say. Oh no....there's an ice age coming. Quick, tax it.

I know I am getting to someone when they start trying to insult me. Good one.

First, any reduction in CO" levels over a short period does nothing to negate the simple fact that CO2 levels are currently many times their level prior to the industrial revolution.
Second, the mechanisms by which CO2 in the atmosphere reduce radiation of heat absorbed from the sun back into space are very well understood by everyone who has a small knowledge of science. Your argument suggests that you may not be among that number. CO2 does not reduce that radiation as much as water vapour does, however, which is why clear nights are frostier than cloudy ones. Without the CO2, those frosty nights would be a damned sight frostier. Doh?
Third, did I say the last few decades? Yes, I do believe I do. And I do believe I said the rate of increase in temperature. To the scientific mind, that would suiggest that I am saying that the temperature has risen quite quickly over a short period. At the end of the last ice age, the temperature rose by a greater amount, but over a much longer period. Thus the rate of rise was much lower.
It's really very simple.

As for your final riposte to Eric - your argument appears to be that global mean sea levels are not likely to rise, and have used falling sea levels around Scotland to support that contention. Relative is not the issue - the issue is absolute mean sea level. If you can climb the mast faster than the ship is disappearing below the water, does this mean the ship is not sinking?

Despite the postings of some, is it reasonable to suggest most on this forum are of the more mature type, if not old then middle aged and upwards?

So this global warming thingy, should it become a problem, is it really likely to impact on our lives in 10 or 20 years, when we might still be alive? Or is it a problem we can just leave for future generations who are unknown to us and some might say they do not care about?

After all what has changed? Every generation blames its parents for the way we are and the world we inherited. And by then we are dead so should we care?

Herbert;
A little fatuous I'm afraid.
Lets see; you wrote:
Second, the mechanisms by which CO2 in the atmosphere reduce radiation of heat absorbed from the sun back into space are very well understood by everyone who has a small knowledge of science. Your argument suggests that you may not be among that number.
=Perhaps, therefore, you could explain and/or describe this mechanism, in language which is brief and simple enough for us all to be able to understand.
Also you claimed:
CO2 does not reduce that radiation as much as water vapour does, however, which is why clear nights are frostier than cloudy ones. Without the CO2, those frosty nights would be a damned sight frostier.
=Looks like water vapour is the problem then. Why hasn't GB taxed it yet then?
Finally I'd love to see your temperature rise data and time scale data plus subsequent maths for this little gem:
I am saying that the temperature has risen quite quickly over a short period. At the end of the last ice age, the temperature rose by a greater amount, but over a much longer period. Thus the rate of rise was much lower.
=Do you know nothing about the sudden inundation of the Black Sea? Our distant ancestors have told us about it in many ways, including written and oral. What mechanism caused that apart from a rapid rise in temperature and subsequent melting of land based ice.
Love and kisses, Ed.
ps How is the BSE scare going these days?
pps Bet you loved the News at Ten relaunch; esp. the film report live from the Antarctic showing meltwater dripping off icicles, and cracks in the ice sheet. Do they really think that we don't know that its Summer in the Antartic right now?

At the risk of fuelling the conspiracy theorists - Shankers - you are beginning to sound a wee bit like the gimp -masked arachnid, Ja?

You do, however, make a few salient points....

As for..........

Isn't it God's challenge that we learn and find ways to survive?

What if there isn't a God PP? Will it still be a challenge?

Can we not let evolution take it's course? - In fact - that's not a decision for us, is it - evolution will take it's course despite us?

longshanks wrote: Herbert;

It's Herby, actually. The clue is in the way I spell it.

longshanks wrote: =Perhaps, therefore, you could explain and/or describe this mechanism, in language which is brief and simple enough for us all to be able to understand.

I don't have time this evening to go into it in detail. Suffice to say that energy reaching the Earth from the sun does so at frequencies which are not absorbed by carbon dioxide, but energy re-emitted is at infra-red frequencies which are absorbed and thus trapped by CO2. Very simple chemistry, and chemistry which has been well understood for over a century.

longshanks wrote: Also you claimed:
[=Looks like water vapour is the problem then. Why hasn't GB taxed it yet then?

The area of most concern is the upper atmosphere, where there is little water vapour, but where increasing concentrations of CO2 are having a significant impact. As an aside, a likely outcome of this, though, is that as the atmospheric temperature increases, so does the amount of water vapour it can hold, which is only likely to accelerate atmospheric warming.

longshanks wrote: Finally I'd love to see your temperature rise data and time scale data plus subsequent maths for this little gem:

=Do you know nothing about the sudden inundation of the Black Sea? Our distant ancestors have told us about it in many ways, including written and oral. What mechanism caused that apart from a rapid rise in temperature and subsequent melting of land based ice.

Local changes at the end of the last ice age were moderately rapid - perhaps over as little as 70-100 years (some authorities claim even shorter time-spans). The adjustment of global mean temperatures was much more gradual than that. We are discussing a global situation here, not local climatic changes.

As is so often the case in this type of discussion, you have in this thread digressed, perhaps in an attempt to deflect - once in reference to the millenium bug, implying that that was all just a scare story. Perhaps it has not occurred to you that nothing came of it because tens of thousands of people worldwide worked very hard to make sure of that. Secondly, here, in reference to BSE - again, I suspect, to try and make the point that if one scare story turns out to be false, they must all therefore be false. This is, of course, flawed logic (again), and sadly you have chosen particularly poor examples. The millenium bug was indeed a serious threat, averted because it was identified in time. As for BSE, we still have no idea if this is a problem, or will be a problem, owing to the protracted incubation period of this nasty disease.

Nothing fatuous there, I think you will find.

Well said Eric, proves you're more than half a bee. Good to see, too, that you understand Gaia.
No conspiracy though. Just understand that to keep millions compliant in a democracy those in power need to give us an enemy/fear which we are led to believe they are confronting on our behalf. With the demise of the red threat they latched onto a plethora; global warming being just one example.
Loadsa levels in this forum. No, I'm not eight legged.
Sleep tight Herbert; I've put sandbags outside your favela.....looking forward to your explanation ("very well understood by everyone") as to how CO2 causes our temperatures to rise rapidly.