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

[fjlip]

So its a climate emergency. Canada has to get down to 2000 levels or whatever to save the planet in 12 years.

1.6% of world's CO2 contribution, if we TOTALLY disappeared the planet would NOT notice! Who gives a SHIT even if it is true, but I also am totally unconvinced a clueless denier.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

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.

Yes, I too really admire Chucks dedication to a cause which he obviously feels very strongly about. It is just very puzzling how someone with such strong opinions and beliefs in a cause would put so little effort into understanding and learning everything possible about it. This is not the typical fanatisism when the adherents are so enamoured with something that they live and breath it, and lap up every tidbit of information that is available.

[chuckChuck]

From the Smithsonian
https://ocean.si.edu/through-time/ancient-seas/sea-level-rise
Over the past 20,000 years or so, sea level has climbed some 400 feet (120 meters). As the climate warmed as part of a natural cycle, ice melted and glaciers retreated until ice sheets remained only at the poles and at the peaks of mountains. Early on, the sea rose rapidly, sometimes at rates greater than 10 feet (3 meters) per century, and then continued to grow in spurts of rapid sea level rise until about 7,000 years ago. Then, the climate stabilized and sea level rise slowed, holding largely steady for most of the last 2,000 years, based on records from corals and sediment cores. Now, however, sea level is on the rise again, rising faster now than it has in the past 6,000 years. The oldest tide gauges and coastal sediment preserved beneath swamps and marshes show that sea level began to rise around 1850, which is right around the time people started burning coal to propel steam engine trains, and it hasn't stopped since. The climate likely started warming as a part of a natural cycle, but the accelerated warming in the last two hundred years or so is due to a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The resulting rise in sea level is likely twice what we would have seen without the increase in greenhouse gasses due to human activities.

[pgluca]

Yes, I too really admire Chucks dedication to a cause which he obviously feels very strongly about. It is just very puzzling how someone with such strong opinions and beliefs in a cause would put so little effort into understanding and learning everything possible about it. This is not the typical fanatisism when the adherents are so enamoured with something that they live and breath it, and lap up every tidbit of information that is available.

AlbertaFarmer5 I am obviously persona non grata on this web site Chuck wasn't open minded enough to watch this maybe you will. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ&feature=youtu.be

[chuckChuck]

You guys are looking so far up your own asses for answers that you don't realize how out of touch you are with the climate science.

You spent most of the last few posts discussing me instead of presenting any evidence from a credible scientific source to prove your point.

Not one Conservative political leader in Canada disagrees with the current climate science, but you eggheads persist in your flat earth views. LOL

[pgluca]

AlbertaFarmer5 I am obviously persona non grata on this web site Chuck wasn't open minded enough to watch this maybe you will. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ&feature=youtu.be

Sorry Screwed up the link it should be this: https://youtu.be/oYhCQv5tNsQ

[LWeber]

You guys are looking so far up your own asses for answers that you don't realize how out of touch you are with the climate science.

You spent most of the last few posts discussing me instead of presenting any evidence from a credible scientific source to prove your point.

Not one Conservative political leader in Canada disagrees with the current climate science, but you eggheads persist in your flat earth views. LOL

***** like button - get rid of it.

You guys are arguing with a POS who thought the CWB paid a premium because Richard Gray peer reviewed it down the hall with UofS profs or like minded alumni.

Grow a pair Chucky - you've been hiding for 12 fn years..

How about I post your home acreage land location from the quarter you reside on. That's the great thing about the old Agriville; you just thought you were hiding. You weren't.

[A990]

..what makes a scientific source credible? the average person has no idea the politics involved in research and funding

[farmaholic]

Don't have to get rid of the "like" button, just move it away from the "reply to" button. And while you're at it put a dislike button up too but far enough away from other buttons so fat fingers don't make mistakes.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

***** like button - get rid of it.

You guys are arguing with a POS who thought the CWB paid a premium because Richard Gray peer reviewed it down the hall with UofS profs or like minded alumni.

Grow a pair Chucky - you've been hiding for 12 fn years..

How about I post your home acreage land location from the quarter you reside on. That's the great thing about the old Agriville; you just thought you were hiding. You weren't.

Now that is a little too harsh. Most of us are well aware of who we are arguing with, and his past positions, history and politics. But no need to threaten the poor guy, lets just stick with having some good clean fun at his expense, and learning a thing or two about climate and energy along the way.

It's a win win, Chuck gets to feel righteous, smug and self important, we get entertainment value, and possibly learn something.

Besides, from his new position as a keyboard warrior, at least he is now mostly harmless to farmers livelihoods.

And for goodness sakes don't scare him off. He is our window into how our enemies think, and it is fascinating, and free and effortless to access

[Guest]

***** like button - get rid of it.

You guys are arguing with a POS who thought the CWB paid a premium because Richard Gray peer reviewed it down the hall with UofS profs or like minded alumni.

Grow a pair Chucky - you've been hiding for 12 fn years..

How about I post your home acreage land location from the quarter you reside on. That's the great thing about the old Agriville; you just thought you were hiding. You weren't.

We all know where he is

[AlbertaFarmer5]

AlbertaFarmer5 I am obviously persona non grata on this web site Chuck wasn't open minded enough to watch this maybe you will. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ&feature=youtu.be

Thanks for posting the video link. I did watch the video a few years ago. Explains the motivation behind the movement very well, unfortunately, 12 years later, not much has changed, except the alarmists have become ever shriller in their screams.

Anything with Dr. Roy Spencer, Paul Driessen, John Christy, and Chuck's favourite, Tim Ball is worth reading/watching/listening too.

I embedded the video for you.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

From the Smithsonian
https://ocean.si.edu/through-time/ancient-seas/sea-level-rise
Over the past 20,000 years or so, sea level has climbed some 400 feet (120 meters). As the climate warmed as part of a natural cycle, ice melted and glaciers retreated until ice sheets remained only at the poles and at the peaks of mountains. Early on, the sea rose rapidly, sometimes at rates greater than 10 feet (3 meters) per century, and then continued to grow in spurts of rapid sea level rise until about 7,000 years ago. Then, the climate stabilized and sea level rise slowed, holding largely steady for most of the last 2,000 years, based on records from corals and sediment cores. Now, however, sea level is on the rise again, rising faster now than it has in the past 6,000 years. The oldest tide gauges and coastal sediment preserved beneath swamps and marshes show that sea level began to rise around 1850, which is right around the time people started burning coal to propel steam engine trains, and it hasn't stopped since. The climate likely started warming as a part of a natural cycle, but the accelerated warming in the last two hundred years or so is due to a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The resulting rise in sea level is likely twice what we would have seen without the increase in greenhouse gasses due to human activities.

Thank you Chuck, it only took nearly 180 posts, and almost a full month, but you finally found a credible source willing to put a vague estimate of human vs. natural sea level rise. The word "likely" is not defined, so I've used the IPCC's definition as being >66% probable, or accurate to within 66%, it is not defined. Since the question was how much faster are seal levels rising due to human activities, so, A 34% error bar would give a range of between 1.32 times 2.68 times faster. Which not coincidentally, is a range of more than double. The word likely sounds impressive, but still yields a very large range of uncertainty if you torture it with math.

Using the Smithsonians numbers, and we will take them at face value for the sake of this discussion, another day we can debate the adjustments, corrections and questionable splices, or the fact that satellite altimetry measurements disagree with observed SLR.

So with no human activity, my red neck mobile home parked 1 foot above mean high tide will have to have blocks added under the wheels in about 200 years. Again, using Smithsonian's range, in the best case, thanks to the human component being added in, I will need to crawl under and jack it up in a mere 150 years.

See, now that wasn't so difficult now was it.

[furrowtickler]

We all know where he is

Yup, that’s why the chicken shit won’t respond to a single post I make anymore.
But that’s ok , the sound of silence is beautiful..... lol

[blackpowder]

It already is in some locations because the sea level is changing at different rates in different locations.
Jeez Chuck. Did you read what you wrote?
Different rates at different locations?
Just fkd yourself!