OK

Second Foundation.

The solution within.

A report today suggests that we've all been spending too much time on ourselves, chasing each other to arrive first at all the reward stations that we've all lost sight of the bigger social pictures. Don't we all know that already? Ex ministers of the crown profit from the positions they've been honoured with - well, Tony gave them the tacit example, of course. He just upped and left to feather his nest as much as possible.

Me, I've never been very clear of whether there was a where we were going and, if so, whether we should be going there at all! Certainly, I'm not too good at "follow my leader" as I need to see actions make sense in the broader perspective. Thus the "put your head down and just get on with something" also became hard to swallow. Remember"Not in my name"? I didn't see that a war against the Iraqis was justified, I didn't believe Blair and, ten years earlier, had marched against the first offensive. Then, afterwards, seeing and hearing it all being carried out "in my name", as if I approved of it, always felt wrong. Such a lack of accountability or of democracy of any sort.

So it all cruises on. Copenhagen and East Anglia showed the World was not ready, able or mature enough to deal with the consequences of the dash for development, growth and industry. The interesting irony in the juxtapositioning of the two locations is that, prior to the last major climate change event, you could have walked from one to the other. An increase in global temperature and greenhouse gas concentration had led to the melting of a colossal amount of the ice sheet and an increase in sea levels of the sixty metres or so needed to drown a vast area of rich lowlands, inhabited by probably substantial populations of humans and other species. Auroch, maybe mammoth, bison and the like as well as species common today. I'm talking of a mere 8000 years ago, maybe ten at most when Doggerland was submerged beneath the returning North Sea. Returning after maybe a thirty thousand year absence!

There are two factors here. One is the inevitability and the dramatic effect of climate change and the other is that it is not hasty in its action. It was some eight to ten thousand years after the glacial retreat began that Doggerland was lost. Yes "after the end of the ice age". Greenhouse gas concentrations - carbon dioxide and water vapour - had increased substantially (CO2 up from 180ppm to 280ppm, roughly) and still sixty metres of sea level rise took ten thousand years.

Eventually another fifty metres worth of ice rejoined the oceans, roughly by the time the Romans invaded Britain, to bring about something like our current sea levels.

I digressed a bit, but with purpose, as I feel the Doggerland saga shines a lot of light on our present day discussions.

1. It was a natural event and demonstrated how sea levels can change substantially and that vast landscapes can be lost (or gained, as the Earth subsequently cools!)
2. Over the whole timespan the annual increase in sea level was 6 mm per annum.
3. It appears that CO2 levels and temperature rose very early as the glacial period turned to retreat, although not wholly uniformly or conjointly - temperature preceded CO2 increase. I have not seen evidence on water vapour.
4. During the first ten thousand years of glacial retreat (from 18000 bp) there was a prolonged increase in vegetative growth, with global forestation reaching a level of twice the present. As sea levels rose there was also loss of forested land but the upper figure stands.
5. There was thus a larger capacity in that era for the global ecosystems to absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide than we have at present.
6. Our present rate of sea level rise is generally measured to be 2mm to 6mm per annum or even less so seems to present no immediate threat.
7. Comparing now and the era of Doggerland's flooding then CO2 was in balance, now it is rising and already 100ppm higher. The only sink that's diminished now is the forest - oceans and (mostly northern) mosses being unchanged and presumably working at full pelt.
8. As CO2 levels continue to climb so the existing sinks are not coping. We should, thus, replant the missing woodland, or a good portion of it.
9. Now, in the post glacial period CO2 levels must have risen more than is apparent to the measurers (ice cores etc) as much was immediately sunk into re-emerging forests (and moss). Thus the actual release of CO2 must have been such that it allowed 280ppm to be maintained and at the same time allowed, over 10000 years carbon equivalent to 150 ppm to be stored as woodland.
10. Remember that carbon was also being laid down as moss during this time and the balance between release from and solution into is very unclear.

Was that clear? As far as I can see, it is blindingly obvious that although climate change is a slow process sea levels will rise henceforth. In the post glacial era there was probably an equivalent amount of atmospheric carbon to current levels, only it was being taken into the terrestrial ecosystem so didn't stay in the atmosphere as it does now - with nowhere else to go! Way back then CO2 went to the new woodlands and we still got sea level rise, albeit over a few thousand years. If we don't recreate our forests could it be that sea levels will carry on rising until all the ice is gone. so what if that's going to be in 5000 years. We really should act responsibly and try to turn things round. It's a bit of a faith thing, I guess. Hmm, not that easy to sell.

I'll come back to this!