https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72g71y7j82o

On 28/02/2024 14:22, Coffee wrote:
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72g71y7j82o
>

And is anyone surprised. Climate change will have all sorts of similar
risks to roads, power infrastructure, rail etc.

I am of the opinion that all the money being wasted on unreliable wind
and wave should be directed at modifying infrastructure rather than the
impossible idea of stopping climate change - it will continue happening
whatever we try to do.

--
Colin

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:05:32 +0000
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>On 28/02/2024 14:22, Coffee wrote:
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72g71y7j82o
>>
>
>And is anyone surprised. Climate change will have all sorts of similar
>risks to roads, power infrastructure, rail etc.
>
>I am of the opinion that all the money being wasted on unreliable wind
>and wave should be directed at modifying infrastructure rather than the
>impossible idea of stopping climate change - it will continue happening
>whatever we try to do.

You might as well say some cancers will continue happening so why bother
treating them and slowing progress?

On 28/02/2024 17:07, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:05:32 +0000
> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 28/02/2024 14:22, Coffee wrote:
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72g71y7j82o
>>>
>>
>> And is anyone surprised. Climate change will have all sorts of similar
>> risks to roads, power infrastructure, rail etc.
>>
>> I am of the opinion that all the money being wasted on unreliable wind
>> and wave should be directed at modifying infrastructure rather than the
>> impossible idea of stopping climate change - it will continue happening
>> whatever we try to do.
>
> You might as well say some cancers will continue happening so why bother
> treating them and slowing progress?
>
>

Not saying "do nothing", saying the direction of expenditure should be
changed.

--
Colin

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:12:05 +0000
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>On 28/02/2024 17:07, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:05:32 +0000
>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 28/02/2024 14:22, Coffee wrote:
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72g71y7j82o
>>>>
>>>
>>> And is anyone surprised. Climate change will have all sorts of similar
>>> risks to roads, power infrastructure, rail etc.
>>>
>>> I am of the opinion that all the money being wasted on unreliable wind
>>> and wave should be directed at modifying infrastructure rather than the
>>> impossible idea of stopping climate change - it will continue happening
>>> whatever we try to do.
>>
>> You might as well say some cancers will continue happening so why bother
>> treating them and slowing progress?
>>
>>
>
>Not saying "do nothing", saying the direction of expenditure should be
>changed.

Modifying infrastructure will only get you so far. There's not much you can
do if you're under 3m of water for example.

On 28/02/2024 18:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:12:05 +0000
> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 28/02/2024 17:07, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:05:32 +0000
>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 28/02/2024 14:22, Coffee wrote:
>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72g71y7j82o
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And is anyone surprised. Climate change will have all sorts of similar
>>>> risks to roads, power infrastructure, rail etc.
>>>>
>>>> I am of the opinion that all the money being wasted on unreliable wind
>>>> and wave should be directed at modifying infrastructure rather than the
>>>> impossible idea of stopping climate change - it will continue happening
>>>> whatever we try to do.
>>>
>>> You might as well say some cancers will continue happening so why bother
>>> treating them and slowing progress?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not saying "do nothing", saying the direction of expenditure should be
>> changed.
>
> Modifying infrastructure will only get you so far. There's not much you can
> do if you're under 3m of water for example.
>

No, but the railways, roads etc would have been moved upward by 3+m by
then if monies were allocated appropriately.

--
Colin

ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
> On 28/02/2024 18:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:12:05 +0000
>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 28/02/2024 17:07, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:05:32 +0000
>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 28/02/2024 14:22, Coffee wrote:
>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72g71y7j82o
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And is anyone surprised. Climate change will have all sorts of similar
>>>>> risks to roads, power infrastructure, rail etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am of the opinion that all the money being wasted on unreliable wind
>>>>> and wave should be directed at modifying infrastructure rather than the
>>>>> impossible idea of stopping climate change - it will continue happening
>>>>> whatever we try to do.
>>>>
>>>> You might as well say some cancers will continue happening so why bother
>>>> treating them and slowing progress?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not saying "do nothing", saying the direction of expenditure should be
>>> changed.
>>
>> Modifying infrastructure will only get you so far. There's not much you can
>> do if you're under 3m of water for example.
>>
>
> No, but the railways, roads etc would have been moved upward by 3+m by
> then if monies were allocated appropriately.

But if we continue to move carbon which used to be in the atmosphere, and
was then captured by organic life and stored underground, back into the
atmosphere the seas will keep rising and we’ll have to move the railways,
roads, houses, farms etc back upward again.

Same

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 21:02:50 +0000
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>On 28/02/2024 18:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:12:05 +0000
>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 28/02/2024 17:07, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:05:32 +0000
>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 28/02/2024 14:22, Coffee wrote:
>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72g71y7j82o
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And is anyone surprised. Climate change will have all sorts of similar
>>>>> risks to roads, power infrastructure, rail etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am of the opinion that all the money being wasted on unreliable wind
>>>>> and wave should be directed at modifying infrastructure rather than the
>>>>> impossible idea of stopping climate change - it will continue happening
>>>>> whatever we try to do.
>>>>
>>>> You might as well say some cancers will continue happening so why bother
>>>> treating them and slowing progress?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not saying "do nothing", saying the direction of expenditure should be
>>> changed.
>>
>> Modifying infrastructure will only get you so far. There's not much you can
>> do if you're under 3m of water for example.
>>
>
>No, but the railways, roads etc would have been moved upward by 3+m by
>then if monies were allocated appropriately.

Good luck raising the whole of london by 3m. It would have to be abandoned.

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 22:38:22 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>> No, but the railways, roads etc would have been moved upward by 3+m by
>> then if monies were allocated appropriately.
>
>But if we continue to move carbon which used to be in the atmosphere, and
>was then captured by organic life and stored underground, back into the

Which is unlikely to ever happen again at the same level because all those
trees that got buried and turned into coal instead of decaying happened because
the fungus that breaks down lignin hadn't yet evolved.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 22:38:22 -0000 (UTC)
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>> No, but the railways, roads etc would have been moved upward by 3+m by
>>> then if monies were allocated appropriately.
>>
>> But if we continue to move carbon which used to be in the atmosphere, and
>> was then captured by organic life and stored underground, back into the
>
> Which is unlikely to ever happen again at the same level because all those
> trees that got buried and turned into coal instead of decaying happened because
> the fungus that breaks down lignin hadn't yet evolved.

You’re saying we’ve dug up all the coal and oil? Really?

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 21:02:50 +0000
> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 28/02/2024 18:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:12:05 +0000
>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 28/02/2024 17:07, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:05:32 +0000
>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 28/02/2024 14:22, Coffee wrote:
>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72g71y7j82o
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And is anyone surprised. Climate change will have all sorts of similar
>>>>>> risks to roads, power infrastructure, rail etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am of the opinion that all the money being wasted on unreliable wind
>>>>>> and wave should be directed at modifying infrastructure rather than the
>>>>>> impossible idea of stopping climate change - it will continue happening
>>>>>> whatever we try to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> You might as well say some cancers will continue happening so why bother
>>>>> treating them and slowing progress?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not saying "do nothing", saying the direction of expenditure should be
>>>> changed.
>>>
>>> Modifying infrastructure will only get you so far. There's not much you can
>>> do if you're under 3m of water for example.
>>>
>>
>> No, but the railways, roads etc would have been moved upward by 3+m by
>> then if monies were allocated appropriately.
>
> Good luck raising the whole of london by 3m. It would have to be abandoned.

Especially the UndergrounD, and your beloved Elizabeth Line.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:46:00 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 22:38:22 -0000 (UTC)
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> No, but the railways, roads etc would have been moved upward by 3+m by
>>>> then if monies were allocated appropriately.
>>>
>>> But if we continue to move carbon which used to be in the atmosphere, and
>>> was then captured by organic life and stored underground, back into the
>>
>> Which is unlikely to ever happen again at the same level because all those
>> trees that got buried and turned into coal instead of decaying happened
>because
>> the fungus that breaks down lignin hadn't yet evolved.
>
>You’re saying we’ve dug up all the coal and oil? Really?

No, I'm saying its unlikely any significant amounts of coal would ever form
again even if humans vanished overnight.

As for oil - the jury is still out on how that forms, whether its biological
or geological.

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:46:01 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 21:02:50 +0000
>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 28/02/2024 18:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:12:05 +0000
>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 28/02/2024 17:07, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:05:32 +0000
>>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 28/02/2024 14:22, Coffee wrote:
>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72g71y7j82o
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And is anyone surprised. Climate change will have all sorts of similar
>>>>>>> risks to roads, power infrastructure, rail etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am of the opinion that all the money being wasted on unreliable wind
>>>>>>> and wave should be directed at modifying infrastructure rather than the
>>>>>>> impossible idea of stopping climate change - it will continue happening
>>>>>>> whatever we try to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You might as well say some cancers will continue happening so why bother
>>>>>> treating them and slowing progress?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not saying "do nothing", saying the direction of expenditure should be
>>>>> changed.
>>>>
>>>> Modifying infrastructure will only get you so far. There's not much you can
>
>>>> do if you're under 3m of water for example.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, but the railways, roads etc would have been moved upward by 3+m by
>>> then if monies were allocated appropriately.
>>
>> Good luck raising the whole of london by 3m. It would have to be abandoned.
>
>Especially the UndergrounD, and your beloved Elizabeth Line.

The tube would be the first thing to be abandoned if london flooded.

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 22:38:22 -0000 (UTC)
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> No, but the railways, roads etc would have been moved upward by 3+m by
>>>> then if monies were allocated appropriately.
>>>
>>> But if we continue to move carbon which used to be in the atmosphere, and
>>> was then captured by organic life and stored underground, back into the
>>
>> Which is unlikely to ever happen again at the same level because all those
>> trees that got buried and turned into coal instead of decaying happened because
>> the fungus that breaks down lignin hadn't yet evolved.
>
> You’re saying we’ve dug up all the coal and oil? Really?

The point is the process that caused plants to become coal in the
Carboniferous ended when fungi evolved to break down lignin. That largely
ended the process that forms coal, making digging it up basically a one
time thing, it won’t, even on geological timescales, reform.

Robin

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:52:22 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:46:01 -0000 (UTC)
>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 21:02:50 +0000
>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 28/02/2024 18:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:12:05 +0000
>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 28/02/2024 17:07, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:05:32 +0000
>>>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2024 14:22, Coffee wrote:
>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72g71y7j82o
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And is anyone surprised. Climate change will have all sorts of similar
>>>>>>>> risks to roads, power infrastructure, rail etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am of the opinion that all the money being wasted on unreliable wind
>>>>>>>> and wave should be directed at modifying infrastructure rather than the
>>>>>>>> impossible idea of stopping climate change - it will continue happening
>>>>>>>> whatever we try to do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You might as well say some cancers will continue happening so why bother
>>>>>>> treating them and slowing progress?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not saying "do nothing", saying the direction of expenditure should be
>>>>>> changed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Modifying infrastructure will only get you so far. There's not much you can
>>
>>>>> do if you're under 3m of water for example.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, but the railways, roads etc would have been moved upward by 3+m by
>>>> then if monies were allocated appropriately.
>>>
>>> Good luck raising the whole of london by 3m. It would have to be abandoned.
>>
>>Especially the UndergrounD, and your beloved Elizabeth Line.
>
>The tube would be the first thing to be abandoned if london flooded.

Much of the Tube is well below today's sea level:

If you take the average depth below sea level of all the platforms in each Tube station – an important clarification –
London Bridge comes out on top (bottom). Its platforms are, on average, 22m below sea level.

Likewise, Southwark follows at 21m, Elephant & Castle at 18m, followed by Pimlico at 16m below sea level on average.

But seeing as some stations have very shallow platforms on lines like the District and Circle, alongside very deep
platforms on lines like the Central – think of the annoyance of changing at Notting Hill Gate or King’s Cross St Pancras
– the average depth in one station probably isn’t all that useful.

This brings us to the deepest single platform.

The eastbound and westbound platforms of the Jubilee line at London Bridge make a good showing, with both coming in at
23.2m below sea level.

Southwark, just next door, makes an effort, but can’t really compete at 20.5m below sea level on its two Jubilee line
platforms.

Common knowledge, and Google search, has it that Westminster has the Tube’s deepest platform – but according to TfL’s
own figures that’s not the case.

While the westbound Jubilee Line platform at Westminster is very deep – at 25.4m below sea level – it’s beaten to the
top (bottom) spot by Waterloo next door.

Both the eastbound and westbound Jubilee platforms at Waterloo are 26m below sea, making them the deepest Tube platforms
on the network.

https://citymonitor.ai/transport/metros/which-london-s-deepest-tube-station-2938

On 29/02/2024 14:10, Recliner wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:52:22 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:46:01 -0000 (UTC)
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 21:02:50 +0000
>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 28/02/2024 18:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:12:05 +0000
>>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 28/02/2024 17:07, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:05:32 +0000
>>>>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2024 14:22, Coffee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72g71y7j82o
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And is anyone surprised. Climate change will have all sorts of similar
>>>>>>>>> risks to roads, power infrastructure, rail etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am of the opinion that all the money being wasted on unreliable wind
>>>>>>>>> and wave should be directed at modifying infrastructure rather than the
>>>>>>>>> impossible idea of stopping climate change - it will continue happening
>>>>>>>>> whatever we try to do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You might as well say some cancers will continue happening so why bother
>>>>>>>> treating them and slowing progress?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not saying "do nothing", saying the direction of expenditure should be
>>>>>>> changed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Modifying infrastructure will only get you so far. There's not much you can
>>>
>>>>>> do if you're under 3m of water for example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, but the railways, roads etc would have been moved upward by 3+m by
>>>>> then if monies were allocated appropriately.
>>>>
>>>> Good luck raising the whole of london by 3m. It would have to be abandoned.
>>>
>>> Especially the UndergrounD, and your beloved Elizabeth Line.
>>
>> The tube would be the first thing to be abandoned if london flooded.
>
> Much of the Tube is well below today's sea level:
>
> If you take the average depth below sea level of all the platforms in each Tube station – an important clarification –
> London Bridge comes out on top (bottom). Its platforms are, on average, 22m below sea level.
>
> Likewise, Southwark follows at 21m, Elephant & Castle at 18m, followed by Pimlico at 16m below sea level on average.
>
> But seeing as some stations have very shallow platforms on lines like the District and Circle, alongside very deep
> platforms on lines like the Central – think of the annoyance of changing at Notting Hill Gate or King’s Cross St Pancras
> – the average depth in one station probably isn’t all that useful.
>
> This brings us to the deepest single platform.
>
> The eastbound and westbound platforms of the Jubilee line at London Bridge make a good showing, with both coming in at
> 23.2m below sea level.
>
> Southwark, just next door, makes an effort, but can’t really compete at 20.5m below sea level on its two Jubilee line
> platforms.
>
> Common knowledge, and Google search, has it that Westminster has the Tube’s deepest platform – but according to TfL’s
> own figures that’s not the case.
>
> While the westbound Jubilee Line platform at Westminster is very deep – at 25.4m below sea level – it’s beaten to the
> top (bottom) spot by Waterloo next door.
>
> Both the eastbound and westbound Jubilee platforms at Waterloo are 26m below sea, making them the deepest Tube platforms
> on the network.
>
> https://citymonitor.ai/transport/metros/which-london-s-deepest-tube-station-2938

Interesting, but less relevant than the elevation of the station
entrance, ventilation shaft or other orifice through which rising water
might enter and cause trouble.

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 11:53:17 -0000 (UTC)
Bob <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 22:38:22 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> No, but the railways, roads etc would have been moved upward by 3+m by
>>>>> then if monies were allocated appropriately.
>>>>
>>>> But if we continue to move carbon which used to be in the atmosphere, and
>>>> was then captured by organic life and stored underground, back into the
>>>
>>> Which is unlikely to ever happen again at the same level because all those
>>> trees that got buried and turned into coal instead of decaying happened
>because
>>> the fungus that breaks down lignin hadn't yet evolved.
>>
>> You’re saying we’ve dug up all the coal and oil? Really?
>
>The point is the process that caused plants to become coal in the
>Carboniferous ended when fungi evolved to break down lignin. That largely
>ended the process that forms coal, making digging it up basically a one
>time thing, it won’t, even on geological timescales, reform.

Though given the amount of plastic going into the oceans there may well be
a wierd thin complex hydrocarbon layer awaiting any future prospectors!

Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
> On 29/02/2024 14:10, Recliner wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:52:22 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:46:01 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 21:02:50 +0000
>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 28/02/2024 18:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:12:05 +0000
>>>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2024 17:07, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:05:32 +0000
>>>>>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2024 14:22, Coffee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72g71y7j82o
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And is anyone surprised. Climate change will have all sorts of similar
>>>>>>>>>> risks to roads, power infrastructure, rail etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am of the opinion that all the money being wasted on unreliable wind
>>>>>>>>>> and wave should be directed at modifying infrastructure rather than the
>>>>>>>>>> impossible idea of stopping climate change - it will continue happening
>>>>>>>>>> whatever we try to do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You might as well say some cancers will continue happening so why bother
>>>>>>>>> treating them and slowing progress?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not saying "do nothing", saying the direction of expenditure should be
>>>>>>>> changed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Modifying infrastructure will only get you so far. There's not much you can
>>>>
>>>>>>> do if you're under 3m of water for example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, but the railways, roads etc would have been moved upward by 3+m by
>>>>>> then if monies were allocated appropriately.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good luck raising the whole of london by 3m. It would have to be abandoned.
>>>>
>>>> Especially the UndergrounD, and your beloved Elizabeth Line.
>>>
>>> The tube would be the first thing to be abandoned if london flooded.
>>
>> Much of the Tube is well below today's sea level:
>>
>> If you take the average depth below sea level of all the platforms in
>> each Tube station – an important clarification –
>> London Bridge comes out on top (bottom). Its platforms are, on average,
>> 22m below sea level.
>>
>> Likewise, Southwark follows at 21m, Elephant & Castle at 18m, followed
>> by Pimlico at 16m below sea level on average.
>>
>> But seeing as some stations have very shallow platforms on lines like
>> the District and Circle, alongside very deep
>> platforms on lines like the Central – think of the annoyance of changing
>> at Notting Hill Gate or King’s Cross St Pancras
>> – the average depth in one station probably isn’t all that useful.
>>
>> This brings us to the deepest single platform.
>>
>> The eastbound and westbound platforms of the Jubilee line at London
>> Bridge make a good showing, with both coming in at
>> 23.2m below sea level.
>>
>> Southwark, just next door, makes an effort, but can’t really compete at
>> 20.5m below sea level on its two Jubilee line
>> platforms.
>>
>> Common knowledge, and Google search, has it that Westminster has the
>> Tube’s deepest platform – but according to TfL’s
>> own figures that’s not the case.
>>
>> While the westbound Jubilee Line platform at Westminster is very deep –
>> at 25.4m below sea level – it’s beaten to the
>> top (bottom) spot by Waterloo next door.
>>
>> Both the eastbound and westbound Jubilee platforms at Waterloo are 26m
>> below sea, making them the deepest Tube platforms
>> on the network.
>>
>> https://citymonitor.ai/transport/metros/which-london-s-deepest-tube-station-2938
>
> Interesting, but less relevant than the elevation of the station
> entrance, ventilation shaft or other orifice through which rising water
> might enter and cause trouble.

Indeed - it was that sort of thing that I was thinking would make the
system unusable or somewhat curtailed.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>> On 29/02/2024 14:10, Recliner wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:52:22 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:46:01 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 21:02:50 +0000
>>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 28/02/2024 18:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:12:05 +0000
>>>>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2024 17:07, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:05:32 +0000
>>>>>>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2024 14:22, Coffee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72g71y7j82o
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And is anyone surprised. Climate change will have all sorts of similar
>>>>>>>>>>> risks to roads, power infrastructure, rail etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am of the opinion that all the money being wasted on unreliable wind
>>>>>>>>>>> and wave should be directed at modifying infrastructure rather than the
>>>>>>>>>>> impossible idea of stopping climate change - it will continue happening
>>>>>>>>>>> whatever we try to do.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You might as well say some cancers will continue happening so why bother
>>>>>>>>>> treating them and slowing progress?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not saying "do nothing", saying the direction of expenditure should be
>>>>>>>>> changed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Modifying infrastructure will only get you so far. There's not much you can
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> do if you're under 3m of water for example.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, but the railways, roads etc would have been moved upward by 3+m by
>>>>>>> then if monies were allocated appropriately.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good luck raising the whole of london by 3m. It would have to be abandoned.
>>>>>
>>>>> Especially the UndergrounD, and your beloved Elizabeth Line.
>>>>
>>>> The tube would be the first thing to be abandoned if london flooded.
>>>
>>> Much of the Tube is well below today's sea level:
>>>
>>> If you take the average depth below sea level of all the platforms in
>>> each Tube station – an important clarification –
>>> London Bridge comes out on top (bottom). Its platforms are, on average,
>>> 22m below sea level.
>>>
>>> Likewise, Southwark follows at 21m, Elephant & Castle at 18m, followed
>>> by Pimlico at 16m below sea level on average.
>>>
>>> But seeing as some stations have very shallow platforms on lines like
>>> the District and Circle, alongside very deep
>>> platforms on lines like the Central – think of the annoyance of changing
>>> at Notting Hill Gate or King’s Cross St Pancras
>>> – the average depth in one station probably isn’t all that useful.
>>>
>>> This brings us to the deepest single platform.
>>>
>>> The eastbound and westbound platforms of the Jubilee line at London
>>> Bridge make a good showing, with both coming in at
>>> 23.2m below sea level.
>>>
>>> Southwark, just next door, makes an effort, but can’t really compete at
>>> 20.5m below sea level on its two Jubilee line
>>> platforms.
>>>
>>> Common knowledge, and Google search, has it that Westminster has the
>>> Tube’s deepest platform – but according to TfL’s
>>> own figures that’s not the case.
>>>
>>> While the westbound Jubilee Line platform at Westminster is very deep –
>>> at 25.4m below sea level – it’s beaten to the
>>> top (bottom) spot by Waterloo next door.
>>>
>>> Both the eastbound and westbound Jubilee platforms at Waterloo are 26m
>>> below sea, making them the deepest Tube platforms
>>> on the network.
>>>
>>> https://citymonitor.ai/transport/metros/which-london-s-deepest-tube-station-2938
>>
>> Interesting, but less relevant than the elevation of the station
>> entrance, ventilation shaft or other orifice through which rising water
>> might enter and cause trouble.
>
> Indeed - it was that sort of thing that I was thinking would make the
> system unusable or somewhat curtailed.

Most such entrances are well above current sea levels, or the likely level
in 2100. Of course, the Thames Barrier will need to be replaced with a
higher, wider one long before then.

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:34:16 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Indeed - it was that sort of thing that I was thinking would make the
>> system unusable or somewhat curtailed.
>
>Most such entrances are well above current sea levels, or the likely level
>in 2100. Of course, the Thames Barrier will need to be replaced with a
>higher, wider one long before then.

Go to embankment station at high tide and look how the river is almost
level with the road. It would only take another metre or 2 for the river
to spill over. Also the jubilee and liz line stations (why the hell didn't
they put the EL under the jubilee instead of 300m away?) at canary wharf are
only a few metres above the level of the dock water which is at high tide
level.

On 29.02.2024 17:34, Recliner wrote:
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>> On 29/02/2024 14:10, Recliner wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:52:22 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:46:01 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 21:02:50 +0000
>>>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2024 18:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:12:05 +0000
>>>>>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2024 17:07, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:05:32 +0000
>>>>>>>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2024 14:22, Coffee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72g71y7j82o
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And is anyone surprised. Climate change will have all sorts of similar
>>>>>>>>>>>> risks to roads, power infrastructure, rail etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am of the opinion that all the money being wasted on unreliable wind
>>>>>>>>>>>> and wave should be directed at modifying infrastructure rather than the
>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible idea of stopping climate change - it will continue happening
>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever we try to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You might as well say some cancers will continue happening so why bother
>>>>>>>>>>> treating them and slowing progress?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not saying "do nothing", saying the direction of expenditure should be
>>>>>>>>>> changed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Modifying infrastructure will only get you so far. There's not much you can
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> do if you're under 3m of water for example.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, but the railways, roads etc would have been moved upward by 3+m by
>>>>>>>> then if monies were allocated appropriately.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good luck raising the whole of london by 3m. It would have to be abandoned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Especially the UndergrounD, and your beloved Elizabeth Line.
>>>>>
>>>>> The tube would be the first thing to be abandoned if london flooded.
>>>>
>>>> Much of the Tube is well below today's sea level:
>>>>
>>>> If you take the average depth below sea level of all the platforms in
>>>> each Tube station – an important clarification –
>>>> London Bridge comes out on top (bottom). Its platforms are, on average,
>>>> 22m below sea level.
>>>>
>>>> Likewise, Southwark follows at 21m, Elephant & Castle at 18m, followed
>>>> by Pimlico at 16m below sea level on average.
>>>>
>>>> But seeing as some stations have very shallow platforms on lines like
>>>> the District and Circle, alongside very deep
>>>> platforms on lines like the Central – think of the annoyance of changing
>>>> at Notting Hill Gate or King’s Cross St Pancras
>>>> – the average depth in one station probably isn’t all that useful.
>>>>
>>>> This brings us to the deepest single platform.
>>>>
>>>> The eastbound and westbound platforms of the Jubilee line at London
>>>> Bridge make a good showing, with both coming in at
>>>> 23.2m below sea level.
>>>>
>>>> Southwark, just next door, makes an effort, but can’t really compete at
>>>> 20.5m below sea level on its two Jubilee line
>>>> platforms.
>>>>
>>>> Common knowledge, and Google search, has it that Westminster has the
>>>> Tube’s deepest platform – but according to TfL’s
>>>> own figures that’s not the case.
>>>>
>>>> While the westbound Jubilee Line platform at Westminster is very deep –
>>>> at 25.4m below sea level – it’s beaten to the
>>>> top (bottom) spot by Waterloo next door.
>>>>
>>>> Both the eastbound and westbound Jubilee platforms at Waterloo are 26m
>>>> below sea, making them the deepest Tube platforms
>>>> on the network.
>>>>
>>>> https://citymonitor.ai/transport/metros/which-london-s-deepest-tube-station-2938
>>>
>>> Interesting, but less relevant than the elevation of the station
>>> entrance, ventilation shaft or other orifice through which rising water
>>> might enter and cause trouble.
>>
>> Indeed - it was that sort of thing that I was thinking would make the
>> system unusable or somewhat curtailed.
>
> Most such entrances are well above current sea levels, or the likely level
> in 2100. Of course, the Thames Barrier will need to be replaced with a
> higher, wider one long before then.

The Thames Barrier is a tidal surge defence barrier. As the Thames
continually brings water in from the west, the barrier must be opened at
low tide to let it out. If sea levels rise, then the height of low water
will also rise.

Robin

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 18:05:00 +0100
Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>On 29.02.2024 17:34, Recliner wrote:
>> Most such entrances are well above current sea levels, or the likely level
>> in 2100. Of course, the Thames Barrier will need to be replaced with a
>> higher, wider one long before then.
>
>The Thames Barrier is a tidal surge defence barrier. As the Thames
>continually brings water in from the west, the barrier must be opened at
>low tide to let it out. If sea levels rise, then the height of low water
>will also rise.

If the barrier was kept closed long enough the river would simply back up
and flood london instead. Might take a week or so instead of 12 hours like the
tide but the end result would be the same.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 18:05:00 +0100
> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 29.02.2024 17:34, Recliner wrote:
>>> Most such entrances are well above current sea levels, or the likely level
>>> in 2100. Of course, the Thames Barrier will need to be replaced with a
>>> higher, wider one long before then.
>>
>> The Thames Barrier is a tidal surge defence barrier. As the Thames
>> continually brings water in from the west, the barrier must be opened at
>> low tide to let it out. If sea levels rise, then the height of low water
>> will also rise.
>
> If the barrier was kept closed long enough the river would simply back up
> and flood london instead. Might take a week or so instead of 12 hours like the
> tide but the end result would be the same.

Yes, it obviously needs to be open at low tide, but it will need to be
closed more often at high tide, and will need to be raised to deal with
those higher high tides. .

On 29.02.2024 18:03, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:34:16 GMT
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Indeed - it was that sort of thing that I was thinking would make the
>>> system unusable or somewhat curtailed.
>>
>> Most such entrances are well above current sea levels, or the likely level
>> in 2100. Of course, the Thames Barrier will need to be replaced with a
>> higher, wider one long before then.
>
> Go to embankment station at high tide and look how the river is almost
> level with the road. It would only take another metre or 2 for the river
> to spill over. Also the jubilee and liz line stations (why the hell didn't
> they put the EL under the jubilee instead of 300m away?) at canary wharf are
> only a few metres above the level of the dock water which is at high tide
> level.

The JL and EL are routed as they are because of other obstacles. They
need to be aligned uder either the Import (north) or Export (middle)
dock to avoid the foundations of the tall buildings in and around Canary
Wharf. The JL runs on to North Greenwich, and a route from the Import
Dock to North Greenwich would involve excessively tight corners to avoid
the Blackwall Tunnel, and put it in entirely the wrong direction at
North Greenwich to then continue north to Canning Town.

If the EL had been built under the Export dock, where the JL is, the
route from there to Custom House would require it to plough straight
through the Blackwall tunnels. If it was routed south, followign the
alignment of the JL, it would then get in the way of the planned
Silvertown Tunnel. By routing it under the Import Dock, its alignment
can pass to the north of the Blackwall tunnels, giving it a reasonably
direct approach to Custom House, and avoid intereference with the
Silvertown Tunnel.

Robin

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 18:05:00 +0100
>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 29.02.2024 17:34, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Most such entrances are well above current sea levels, or the likely level
>>>> in 2100. Of course, the Thames Barrier will need to be replaced with a
>>>> higher, wider one long before then.
>>>
>>> The Thames Barrier is a tidal surge defence barrier. As the Thames
>>> continually brings water in from the west, the barrier must be opened at
>>> low tide to let it out. If sea levels rise, then the height of low water
>>> will also rise.
>>
>> If the barrier was kept closed long enough the river would simply back up
>> and flood london instead. Might take a week or so instead of 12 hours like the
>> tide but the end result would be the same.
>
> Yes, it obviously needs to be open at low tide, but it will need to be
> closed more often at high tide, and will need to be raised to deal with
> those higher high tides. .

Have you (youse) ever been to the Delta Works in Zeeland? In principle
like the Thames barrier but on a much larger scale.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply