Global Warming and UK, Europe Travelers
 

Gordon Brown, on a BBC report said, to paraphrase, that the Gloustershire area floods were caused because when old pipes and tiles were laid long ago they did not take in the effect of global warming, which caused this tremendous rainfall and subsequent flooding.

Nature Magazine just carried a piece saying that increased rainfall in UK and northern Europe is to be expected as a consequence of global warming - especially there will be a lot more severe rains and floods as global warming produces more extremes in weather.

Indeed the past June was the wettest in England on record since it began in 1700s.

And the Continent too is suffering thru what some locals call the worst summer ever - Paris outdoor cafes are using heaters, folks are wearing coats, etc.

Meanwhile Romania and the area is coping with record high temps. Again due to global warming it seems. southern Europe may become too hot in summer for some travelers.

So for the traveler the situation's effects may include:

More rain means less pleasure walking around northern cities. Less hiking on muddy footpaths in UK.

Cool rainy summers will cause even more northerners to flee to warmer climates like Italy and Spain each summer, overcrowding already teeming vacation areas.

folks won't ask the evergreen questions "Will i need AC in London, Paris or Amsterdam?

Bike trips in Holland or UK will become a thing of the past?

In general tourism in UK and northern countries may suffer a lot.

What other implications may there be?

And GW deniers and Al Gore haters keep your idiotic comments to yourself - keep your head in the sand, to put it nicely or keep your head up... to put it not so nicely.

The floods area catastrophic event - not a climate change. Think along the line of a perfect storm. It won't happen on a regular basis.

As for the rest? Who honestly knows?

<It won't happen on a regular basis>

well many scientists think exactly that it may happen more and more often - so that current flood control mechanisms are inadequate to protect against the 100 year flood that now may occur every few years.

Certainly over the last few years I see UK as having a rainy season 4 out of 6 years rather than a summer. Similarly the snows of Yorkshire which came every year for a long time now barely give a smattering of cover year after year. Finally the winds we get in the spring early summer are worse and worse.

So yes the climate is changing. The effect can also be seen where the champagne houses are buying wineries in the south of england as their future.

So what to do. Travel by train if you can not car or plane. Fly by plane but full efficient planes. Take longer holidays and buy less stuff. All sounds good to me

Hmm I read that it was a La Niña affect causing the jetstream to be disrupted. It is certainly a different scenario to the one they have been flogging us for a long time of us getting a mediterranean climate. Now they are saying warm wet winters and cool wet summers. Yippee. However I for one will not be heading off to melt in 40 degrees of heat in Southern/Eastern Europe. It is lovely and quiet here now, with everyone on holiday. The roads are drivable, my local woods are empty, I can put up with the mud and coolness in exchange for the peace.
It will take more than a few (tens of) centimetres of rain to get the Dutch off their bikes - what are you? Made of sugar?:)

PalenQ, you are absolutely right. If we can all try to leave a smaller carbon 'footprint', it can help.

Remember the old term: Reduce, Re-use, Recycle. It makes even more sense today. Good words to live by.
:)>-

Pal,

read the other thread about the floods and note the quote from the hydrologist and professor of water management from the University of bristol which i included in my own response earlier today.

He asserts that it is much too early to accurately connect this recent/ongoing phenomenon with golbal warming but he does predict there will be more floods in britain in the future "due to climate change."

hetismij - many scientists seem to think that GW will alter the Gulf Stream and some say it has already started and cannot be stopped - so that northern Europe and UK, currently warmed by the warm currents so even at a far northern latitude have mild winters - that when the stream changes these areas may become tundra - good for those long-distance skates on canals but bitterly cold in winter and cool in summer.

MaureenB - yes right on and i try every way so was daunting to hear on BBC this morning that gas flares burning from oil wells in Nigeria (natural gas is a byproduct and it's burned off in huge flares that have been burning for years) - that if these were put out and the natural gas captured and used - that this would produce more a reduction in GW causes than all the current steps in the rest of the world.

Apparently Russia has many such flares as well.

The floods are certainly a freak event, who knows it may be related to climate change. But its a bit a a step to then deduce this will lead to more general "cool wet summers" in Europe. During the past 5 summers (including 2 of the hottest on record in the UK), people were making exactly the opposite prediction, that the weather here was somehow morphing into a southern Mediterranean climate and tourists would be flocking here to enjoy the weather!

<<< (including 2 of the hottest on record in the UK) >>>

Temperature is not related to rainfall otherwise India wouldn't have a monsoon.

And as of the end of June the UK had been significantly warmer than the long term average.

Again it's my impression that climate change due to human activity probably will produce extremes - yes some hotter than normal summers and summers like this one so far - gone may be the average summers with only hot and cold - again not good for the tourist, especially Americans wed to AC

In the not so very long run, we may have to rethink the entire tourism-based economy. Whether we think about the carbon footprint and climate effects of increasing flights, or the effect on the places visited, the extension of mass tourism as more and more countries (particularly the very populous ones) have the disposable income to allow their people to visit the same must-see places, it just may not be sustainable.

How can we develop "virtual tourist" experiences to try and cope?

Yup, taken as read Alan, but PalenQ made several references to "cool rainy summers", "people in coats etc". I just wanted to make the point that despite the freak rainfall this year, the underlying trend has been for hotter, longer summers.

A. The Earth has been warming, with the exception of the mini-ice age, for the last 25,000 years.

B. According to the IPCC 3rd report, if CO2 levels were miraculously brought down to those of 1990, it would take centuries before the Earth stopped warming.

This assumes that anthropogenic contributions of GreenHouse Gases are the major cause of global warming.

If they are not, the Earth is just going to warm up until it decides to cool down and whatever we do won't matter.

I suggest buying land in Canada.

((I))

London last year in the second week of July was hot and dry, setting high temperature records.

It was like California there.

Also read that the carbon emissions of aircraft is exactly half of all shipping.

<i>In general tourism in UK and northern countries may suffer a lot</i>

Prague seems to being doing fine after its' recent &quot;1000 year flood&quot;...

They were growing fine wines in southern England before the &quot;Little Ice Age.&quot; We seem to be inching closer to that type of climate. No doubt, the climate is changing, but that is always the case. Whether or not human activity is contributing (significantly) to this change is not certain, and what we can effectively do about it even if the human contribution is significant is even less certain.

It is interesting to speculate as to what may happen in the future, but in the short term, there is little reason for anyone to change their travel habits with a view to the climate.

The climate on Venus is warming - human caused greenhouse gasses aren't causing that -- either ;)

Reading up on Provence, I came across paragraph about a village on the Mediterranean Sea which boasts a Lascaux-type seaside cave with Paleolithic paintings. The catch is, the entrance is 31 meters below sea level (discovered by a scuba diver). So obviously, it was at or above sea level at some time. I don't think, as craggy as the coast is there, that the land has sunk. Therefore the ocean must have risen, due to melting glaciers. Must have been due to the CO2 from all those campfires, eh?

Climate is changing. It's happened before and it's happening again.

It's idiotic to think that we can stabilize the planet in whatever state we happen to find most convenient or suitable for our purposes.

There was nothing special about the Earth's climate at the beginning of the 20th century, the start of the industrial revolution, or even when humans first appeared on this planet a few million years ago.

The geologic and geochemical evidence is clear. There is no standard (or &quot;normal&quot;) atmospheric temperature profile. There is no standard atmospheric concentration of CO2. There is no standard sea level. These parameters have been in constant flux for 4 1/2 billion years.

A few politicians, oblivious to the lessons of geology, have proposed that we simply &quot;lock&quot; the planet into its current state, which is perceived as &quot;normal&quot; by the majority of people.

The Earth may have other plans.

smueller - i think many scientists would debate you vigorously on this

yes there have been cycles but scientists have measured the rates of various past warming and cooling cycles and today's - and there is no parallel in today's rate of increase - in 100 years they predict a warming increase that normally due to cycles would take a few thousand years.

The facts are nearly 100% clear on man's effects on climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions. That many folk don't buy is about as mystifying to me as to why so many believe in God or other baseless foolish myths.

Or be like the Oceania islander on NPR the other day who when asked if global warming would basically flood his tiny barely above sea level island - he said that he wasn't worried because God would not let that happen.

Heads in the sands IMO

It's not just about what happens in countries like mine. We may face massive displacements of people as &quot;climate refugees&quot; and such economic pressures that we can't afford to travel so much anyway.

in 1973 they were warning about Global cooling and the new Ice Age. What short memories folks have . . . . .

think of all the leaps in knowledge since 1973 - more i think than in any similar period in history - Internet, communications, weather satellites.

In 1973 Lymphoma for one thing was nearly always deadly - now one of the highest cure rates. Science does advance.

Comparisons to what scientists were saying in 1973 have absolutely no relevance to what many know now - atmospheric science like other sciences has had lots of progress since then.

I am truly amazed by the skepticism that many here show - i have not studied it much but read a lot of what reputable scientists feel - not blow holeing politicians.

By what you are saying, what scientists say 25 years from now will have no bearing on what they say now . . .

During the past decade, the phenomenon of abrupt climate change has become accepted by both geologists and climatologists. It is no longer even controversial.

Google search on &quot;Abrupt Climate Change&quot; and you will find numerous references such as the following from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute - &quot;recent and rapidly advancing evidence that Earth’s climate repeatedly has shifted abruptly and dramatically in the past, and is capable of doing so in the future.&quot;

As far as the role of humans is concerned, I don't doubt that there is a contribution. It is quite possibly even the dominate contribution. That doesn't make the process of climate change any more reversible on a short timescale. Even if we completely ceased carbon emissions immediately, the atmosphere and surface would continue to warm due to the &quot;excess&quot; of greenhouse gases that currently exists. There is a lag effect associated with greenhouse gas concentrations. It may be decades before the full heating potential of an existing concentrations is manifest. Complex physical systems do not attain equilibrium instantaneously.

The solution to climate change is adaptation, not a Quixotic attempt to &quot;repair&quot; the planet.

no not necessarily though i see how you could jump to that conclusion.

In 25 years lymphoma will still be treated successfully but probably more effectively even

Science of course builds on knowledge and if in 25 years they change their tune it will be because somehow man changed their emissions.

It's not phony science as some claim.

What scientists know in 2007 is leaps and leaps above 1973 - so today's predictions are thus based on much more probably certain science at this point.

Again i'm not knowlegeable much about the actual science but you deniers will be arguing with the world's top scientists who i think know a whole lot more than me or you.

again the alarming thing is that the change in climate over the Earth's history has always taken a few thousand years and in this century alone the change will be tremendously greater than any period on record - not even close - thus the natural cycle theory is rubbish - that stat alone convinced me.

Science versus knee-jerk skeptics, it's an old story. Do you also believe the Earth is flat? Or we the Sun revolves around us. This debate reminds me of those long struggles when science had it right but folk myths delayed us realizing that.

Actually the flat earth analogy is appropo to this

500 years ago many people though the Earth was flat

Now we think it's not

Under your theory perhaps in another 500 years we will think it flat again.

Nope knowledge doesn't work that way.

PalenQ it was your theory

&quot;Comparisons to what scientists were saying in XXXX have absolutely no relevance to what many know now&quot;

Adaptation is one strategy.

How about not continue with the same level of emissions to exacerbate the problem further?

The year 1973 refers to a NEWSWEEK article that talked about the coming ice age. It was overwhelmingly criticized and the author recanted.

Is that really where you are getting your scientific information? From Newsweek?

Around that same time, by the way, greenhouse gases were becoming a major topic in science journals, and the mechanism would soon become verified. It has been around as a postulation since the 19th century. Global warming may be new to you, but not to those studying climate.

Please...drop the 1973 reference to a popular magazine article once and for all.

Gee, it's actually not that hot here in Houston but it has been very rainy in Texas. However, no hurricanes so far this season!

&gt;Climate is changing. It's happened before and it's happening again.

Remember the Sahara Forest?

&gt;there is no parallel in today's rate of increase ...

I respectfully rise to disagree.

It was once possible to walk on dry land from the north of England to Denmark. In less than 100 years the North Sea intruded.

((I))

&gt;...the change in climate over the Earth's history has always taken a few thousand years...&lt;

The mini ice age lasted for about 300 years - 1500+ to about 1850. It's why the Vikings abandoned Greenland.

((I))

I'm glad you mentioned Greenland, ira. Gives me the opening to again reference this research - not from 1973.

A report published in the journal Science concludes that Greenland was once green. The researchers, led by Eske Willersly of the University of Copenhagen, say the findings from core samples recovered from 1.2 mile thick ice contain DNA from butterflies, moths, flies and beetles in addition to the presence of pine, yew and alder trees.

I wonder if the scientists of the day (approximtely half a million years ago) were warning the populace to change their lifestyle or their island would soon be encased in ice.

You an find more about the Greenland study at this BBC site:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6276576.stm

How many of the US members of this forum are willing to give up their European travels to alleviate climate change? I doubt very many.

Mile for mile, air travel carbon emissions, on a per passenger basis, are comparable (within a factor of two) of emissions produced by automobile travel. According to Greenpeace, one of the most environmentally &quot;unfriendly&quot; acts one can commit is air travel.

One roundtrip flight from Denver to Paris can counteract an entire year of riding your bike to work.

Perhaps we should return to a way of life that was common a century ago, when private automobiles and foreign travel were only for the wealthy elite.

Go ahead and keep pretending nothing's happening.

Southern Europe is burning, with the highest temperatures ever recorded in Serbia. 30% of their annual harvest is lost to heat. Greece has declared a state of emergency. 500 people have died in Hungary, 30 in Romania. Tourists are being evacuated in Puglia. Temps as high as 45 degrees C (113 degrees F). Forest fires are raging out of control in all of these countries.

I always wondered why, thousands of years ago, man migrated from Africa (where it was nice and warm) to places like Finland, Siberia, Alaska, etc.

Now I know. They had global warming then, too.

Deniers of global warming like Ira should be 100% sure of their 'phony science' or else even a 10% or so chance that it may indeed be true ot then would be apolceptic. (sp?)

I'm sorry Ira unless you have data to support your charges about the alarming rate of global warming - to many scientist totally unparelled in Earth's history - yes TOTALLY unparalled - even a 10% chance of being true with its deleterious effects on human life, then you should support all efforts to curb this at least this alarming trend might at even 5% or olwer - and even the most obivous bloke can not say it's totally phony - yet you seem to say so - this is so totally head in the sand that i hope our government leaders would not be so delusinary.

I may be perceived by denier folks like you to be 'smart ass' if you really look at the recent science i'm sure you would agree with me.

Study it a bit and i'm sure you'll have a more enlightened and not knee jerk reaction.
Get ready for that peanut farm in Georgia to suffer from disastrous storms or absurd heat.

Sorry though i respect you a whole lot in this insatncw i think you have your head in the sand - been watching perhaps Gosx News too mcuh.