Climate Change Puts Buildings, Coastlines, The North At Most Risk: Report Extreme wea

[blackpowder]

Can't anyone talk about anything real.

[jazz]

A5 if you are sure that human caused climate change is not causing sea level rise then show us credible published science that backs up your claim.

Sea levels are not rising anything beyond natural occurrences, therefore nothing to prove. The burden of proof is on you. And the data on the ground confirms it.

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/gwyn-morgan-here-are-a-few-climate-change-head-scratchers-for-canadian-voters-to-ponder

Apocalyptic projections of rapid sea level rises are driving municipal and provincial governments on both our east and west coasts to implement “sea level rise plans” that include sterilizing waterfront from development, building sea barriers and even buying out and destroying homes that are deemed vulnerable. So just how fast are sea levels rising? Here again the NOAA provides the answer. Despite all the calamitous rhetoric, the NOAA states that sea levels “continue to rise at the rate of about one-eighth of an inch (3.2 mm) per year.” At that rate, a house built 10 feet above sea level today would still be 9 feet 7 inches above sea level 40 years from now.

https://iowaclimate.org/2019/02/13/sea-levels-in-and-around-sydney-harbour-1886-to-2018/

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Everyone is well aware that there are natural climate cycles that are also warming the planet and causing sea level rise. If you want to know what percentage is natural or man made look up the research. I don't have the answer.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step, congratulations.

So you are so passionate about this subject that you are willing to devote a not insubstantial portion of your life lecturing us about the horrors of CAGW and associated sea level rise, you are spending your own money on solar to fight it, you are pushing for our collective tax dollars to be used to fight it on a massive scale, and you propose we all sacrifice our standard of living in the name of the cause, yet you can't be bothered to verify the actual extent of the problem.

So, in your mind, it wouldn't make any difference if the human contribution was causing 95% of sea level rise, or 5%, the draconian solutions wouldn't change? Facts really aren't important when you have emotion on your side, right? Do you think it is important that our political leaders should bother to inform themselves about such details, before committing us all to paying for their green dreams? Perhaps you should ask climate Barbie if she knows the answer, or if she shares your attitude, after all, she is not a climate scientist, how should we expect her to know such minor details.

Scientists and policy makers around the world are worried about the rapid increase in greenhouse gases that are accelerating human caused climate change which could lead to out of control warming that will last for 1000s of years.

I'm going to need a citation for that one, do you know what the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is, do you think it is 1000's of years?

Yes their may be benefits for some regions but the assumption this is going to be good for the planet and all residents is just absolute bullshit coming from flat earthers who are mostly too stupid to understand the science.

You are on a roll this morning. You just finished admitting that you can't be bothered to learn and understand what percentage of SLR is human caused, or are incapable of processing the information, then you denigrate people who are too stupid to understand the science. I couldn't make this up if I tried. I've been trying so hard to help you become a better debater, and then you go and make such massive gaffes, it almost makes me want to give up.

You have had ample opportunity to provide evidence that human caused climate change is not occurring and you have provided no credible scientific evidence to back up your claims. End of story.

And, once again, I have agreed with you all along that human are causing climate change, I've even provided you a list of the ways in which it is occurring. What is at issue is the magnitude. And that is not a minor unimportant detail.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

A5 if you are sure that human caused climate change is not causing sea level rise then show us credible published science that backs up your claim.

Do you read anything I've written in this entire thread? Where have I denied that there is a human component to warming and therefore SLR? I just keep insisting that the proportion of the human contribution is actually very important, and you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge or quantify that fact.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Can't anyone talk about anything real.

But it is so much fun backing Chuck into a corner, and forcing him to reveal the gross ignorance and blind ideology of his cause. Besides, I have nothing better to do while bouncing around cutting and raking hay lately.

[chuckChuck]

Then show us the science that proves it is not important or that it won't cause coastal flooding.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Then show us the science that proves it is not important or that it won't cause coastal flooding.

When did I make such claims? And why would I need to prove claims that I did not make? Do you read anything anyone else posts?

[jazz]

When did I make such claims? And why would I need to prove claims that I did not make? Do you read anything anyone else posts?

I made the claim and backed it up above with data from one of chucks favs NOAA. They state the rise is a mere mm per yr and no indication of a runaway effect that climate alarmists like to spew, like earth will turn into venus in 12 yrs if we don't tax the hell out of people.

I am a full climate change denier and I stand by it. And I have a science background with my engineering degree. In university we developed non steady state models of simple systems and I saw first hand the inherent inaccuracies and problems modelling chaotic systems when they involved simple forces in a lab setting. I know scaling that modelling up to a chaotic system like the planet, not just the climate, is a near impossibility, there fore I contend that there is enough error in the models and natural variation on the planet to render this tiny expected change in temp and carbon basically a non issue. The total lack of real world observations to verify any predictions makes it even more suspect.

What throws its entire credibility out the window is the political reaction to it. Instead of real plans to deal with whatever perceived danger there is, a tax is applied for income redistribution and we are told fairy tales about solar and wind.

Its 100% garbage courtesy of globalist cabal.

[chuckChuck]

NOAA says the rate of increase has nearly doubled since the early 1990s. Models are indeed just estimates and predictions, that is why the science has range of models and predictions because there are many unknowns. But to suggest sea level rise is not a problem is a bonehead statement. It already is in some locations because the sea level is changing at different rates in different locations.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
Highlights:

In 2017, global sea level was 3 inches (77 mm) above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present).
The pace of sea level rise is accelerating.
In many locations along the U.S. coastline, nuisance flooding is now 300% to more than 900% more frequent than it was 50 years ago.

The pace of global sea level rise nearly doubled from 1.7 mm/year throughout most of the twentieth century to 3.1 mm/year since 1993.

Future sea level rise

As global temperatures continue to warm, sea level will continue to rise. How much it will rise depends mostly on the rate of future carbon dioxide emissions and future global warming. How fast it will rise depends mostly on the rate of glacier and ice sheet melting.

The pace of sea level rise accelerated beginning in the 1990s, coinciding with acceleration in glacier and ice sheet melting. However, it’s uncertain whether that acceleration will continue, driving faster and faster sea level rise, or whether internal glacier and ice sheet dynamics (not to mention natural climate variability) will lead to “pulses” of accelerated melting interrupted by slow downs.

In 2012, at the request of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, NOAA scientists conducted a review of the research on global sea level rise projections, and concluded that there is very high confidence (greater than 90% chance) that global mean sea level will rise at least 8 inches (0.2 meter) but no more than 6.6 feet (2.0 meters) by 2100.

[chuckChuck]

When did I make such claims? And why would I need to prove claims that I did not make? Do you read anything anyone else posts?

Jazz posted images from one location at fort Denison as proof of limited or insignificant sea level rise.

NOAA and NASA's data set shows a much higher sea level rise based on long term observations and satellite data from 1993 onward. If that is the best evidence you can provide then you have lost already.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

very high confidence (greater than 90% chance) that global mean sea level will rise at least 8 inches (0.2 meter) but no more than 6.6 feet (2.0 meters) by 2100.

And once again this is the type of prediction which is being passed off as science, and governments are making policy based on. Please read it carefully.

They are very confident that sea level rise will be equal to what it has been for the past few centuries, or 20 times higher than that, or anywhere inbetween. And they are ONLY 90% confident of that range. I would give a range that broad a full 100% chance.

Chuck, If I come and look at your canola crop in August, and I state that I am 90% sure it will yield between 20 and 400 bushels per acre, will that 90% number give you the confidence to forward sell at least 200 bushels per acre, after all, that is only half of my 90% confidence interval?

Likewise, how much taxpayer money should we be willing to spend based on a prediction so broad it is beyond meaningless. This stuff would be hilarious if we didn't have gullible, incompetent and corrupt government leaders wasting billions based on predictions so vague they are worthless.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

In 2017, global sea level was 3 inches (77 mm) above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present).

Gee, that sounds really ominously scary doesn't it, highest ever in the satellite Era. Now refer back to your long term graph from NASA, how many years since 1870 have been record high sea levels? If you answered almost every one, you would be correct, and if you went back to the height of the little ice age, or the last glaciation, you would find the same thing. Almost every year is higher than the previous. Doesn't sound quite as scary now, does it. The fact that it is record high tells us nothing about the cause. All ittells us is that the millenia long, relentless, uptrend in sea level continues unabated.

No, if we are going to make responsible and practical public policy decisions regarding SLR, First we need to quantify how much is natural and inevitable, How much is human caused and therefore preventable possibly even reversible. Should we be focusing our efforts and money on prevention or adaptation ? If the Natural and inevitable portion is the more significant, and we spend our scarce resources on prevention for the next 50 years, we will be woefully unprepared and unable to adapt when the inevitable occurs. Likewise, it would be a shame to spend all our resources adapting if it could have been prevented. Or some balance between the two.

It is now painfully apparent that Chuck and DML, and all of their propaganda sources do not know the answer, and will make no effort to find out.

[Guest]

The scam is quickly coming to an end
The schysters know they have lost, we know it , they know it , trump certainly knows it , but they refuse to give up
Most people that are die hards now are simply in it for the money
And no doubt ,solar, wind , hydro , NG generation , clean coal and even nuclear all have their place but none is a one size fits all ?
Certainly solar would work much better for mallee than in this god foresaken frozen place
But quit the bullshit , they will all get their moment in the sun when theyre ready and in the right locale

[AlbertaFarmer5]

The scam is quickly coming to an end
The schysters know they have lost, we know it , they know it , trump certainly knows it , but they refuse to give up
Most people that are die hards now are simply in it for the money

It is certainly indicative of their desperation and how many have fled the cause when after scraping the bottom of the barrel, the best spokesperson tgey could send us is Chuck, who can't even figure out if sea levels would be rising, falling, or constant without human influences, but still doesn't let that stop him from being the foremost authority he knows on the subject.

[jazz]

I for one have to credit chuck for his devotion to his delusion. Not many people with that kind if dedication. But math always seems to get in the way.

So its a climate emergency. Canada has to get down to 2000 levels or whatever to save the planet in 12 years. Best place to start would be home electricity. There are 10M house holds in Canada. each would need about 4000w in panels to go off FF based generation. Panels costs about $2.50 a watt.

10M homes x 4000 watts x $2.50 per watt = $100,000,000B

That's exactly what Trudeau spent in 4 years into thin air and supporting climate change in other countries. Yeah its serious alright. Seriously scary anyone falls for this.