If the Gulf Stream collapses, you won’t need ice in your Gin and Tonic

According to the American writer Gore Vidal, one must choose between two missions in life. Either to Comfort the Afflicted; or to Afflict the Comfortable. Now, generally speaking, the Daily Mail is normally very much on the side of the Comfortable. Hardly a bunch of Islington Green Remoaner Marxist Liberals, you might say. So when they publish something which might in some way be slightly comfort-afflicting, we know it’s been through a pretty fine toothcomb first. And today we present just such a story by their admirable Jonathan Chadwick called The Real Life Day After Tomorrow. Not only does it speculate that the warming currents of the North Atlantic might collapse, plunging us into a new Ice Age. But there is a chance that it might happen rather soon. [1]

Most people know that the reason that Western Europe is tolerably warm is due to the fact that certain ocean currents move vast quantities of heat up from the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico to these otherwise benighted shores. Thanks to global warming and melting ice caps, those currents could switch off as early as next year. We cannot hope to improve on the excellent explanations and top notch, easy-to-understand graphics in Jonathan’s article. But we could beg you to look at some of the comments. and the squeals and howls of outrage from those whose weltenschauung is horribly imperilled by Jonathan’s words. Denial, evasion and getting shouty are common psychological defence mechanisms of people who are often uncertain of their own case. Blaming the messenger can be another; although we are all guilty of that.

Perhaps the latter was on display in the case of climate scientist Michael Mann, who, because of his scientific work, became the subject of unpleasant personal attacks from those who objected to his findings. To us it all seems a bit reminiscent of what happened to Galileo in the 1640s. Fortunately Mann has won damages from some of his adversaries , and this may buy back some space for objective debate in some areas of science. We wait to see. Whatever happens, those who prefer to deny, for whatever reason, should remember. Reality, be it economic, physical or logical, will eventually come round to charge a price. The longer you leave it, the higher that price will be.

[1]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13073449/Gulf-Stream-plunging-Europe-deep-freeze.html

[2]https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00396-y?utm_source=Live+Audience&utm_campaign=0f1db6493c-briefing-dy-20240212&utm_medium=email&utm_term=

#jonathan chadwick #climate change #global warming #ice caps #AMOC #climate denial

Air Pollution: what’s the worst bit?

We do quite a lot of pollution stories here. Too much carbon dioxide and methane are wrecking the climate. Too much sewage is turning the seas toxic. But there’s one area we haven’t covered enough. The effect of air pollution directly on our lungs. According to the latest report from the UK Government (which, after 14 years of Conservative rule can hardly be a bastion of woke tofu-eating commie liberals):

Epidemiological studies have shown that long-term exposure to air pollution (over years or lifetimes) reduces life expectancy, mainly due to cardiovascular and respiratory diseases and lung cancer. Short-term exposure (over hours or days) to elevated levels of air pollution can also cause a range of health impacts, including effects on lung function, exacerbation of asthma, increases in respiratory and cardiovascular hospital admissions and mortality.[1]

It is estimated that air pollution in the UK may be causing up to 36000 excess deaths per year.

The combined effects of all those cars, lorries, aeroplanes, factories, fossil fuel power stations and goodness-knows-what-else, produce quite a cocktail of potentially deadly things for us to breathe. But most experts agree that the Two Big Killers are particulate matter, the so-called PM_n series and nitrates, mainly NO₂. But which is worse? If we got rid of PM_2.5 for example, would the NO₂ still be murdering us? An ingenious study by Joshua Bateman and Martin Clift, reported in the Conversation, seems to suggest an answer. The researchers have created laboratory models of the alveolar epithelium, the key tissue of the human lung which interacts with the atmosphere. For the first time it was possible to expose these cells to different levels of pollutants, both singly and together.

The results suggest the Two Big Killers are at their worst when they act together. And this has a important implications in the struggle for clean air. Just like early attempts to reduce smoking, attempts to clean up the air have run into enormous resistance, which can be bolstered by generous funding from various interest groups which seem to have little interest in clean air. Might it be possible to concentrate first on reducing one of the Big Two Killers first? That would not save as many lives as eliminating both. But it is a much more achievable, and feasible, start.

[1]https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-matters-air-pollution/health-matters-air-pollution

[2]https://theconversation.com/air-pollution-we-recreated-the-deepest-sections-of-your-lung-in-a-laboratory-to-understand-how-polluted-air-can-affect-your-health-2220

#nitrates #particulate matter #air pollution #cancer #cardio vascular disease