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

[furrowtickler]

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

Jazz just did ..... you ignored it . Sea level is sea level . The same wherever coastal properties are ding bat

[furrowtickler]

So in many places on earth , surface fluctuations happen constantly, especially around the unstable pacific rim ... chuck where you not taught that in school ????

It’s called plate tectonics.... it happens, and has for a millennial
There are many coastal places all around the planet that have risen and fallen long long before fossil fuels, get you head out of your ass

[furrowtickler]

The Hip new about this years ago ...
New Orleans is Sinking Baby ....
hello 👋

[chuckChuck]

A5 glad to see you have accepted that human caused climate change and global warming is accelerating sea level rise. We have made progress!

There is a range of predictions and models but no matter what the predictions or models say there is certainty that sea levels are rising and that coastal flooding and disruption is occurring and will continue to get worse. There will be a significant cost.

The rise is relatively slow and seems inconsequential unless you happen to be living on a vulnerable coast where flooding and storm surges are a threat.

Most people are worried about the next day and can't plan for a future that is far off beyond their
lifetimes.

I am not sure why some posters can't accept the science of climate change and different points of views without personal attacks and threats?

As I have said make your argument and post the science from a credible source to backup your point.
If you can't do that then why are you bothering to post?

Here is a challenge. Name one credible scientific organization that says that the prevailing climate science proving human caused climate change is all wrong. Activist and denial organizations don't count. Good luck.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

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.

Or you could just trade in the useless touchscreen phone for a real Blackberry phone with a keyboard and touchpad, then you can just move the cursor over the reply button and precisely push the reply arrow instead of randomly guessing where a fat finger on a touchscreen might actually land.

I have yet to accidentally like a post by Chuck or Austranada thanks to the Blackberry Classic phones.

Perfect for one handed operation while operating equipment also.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

There is a range of predictions and models but no matter what the predictions or models say there is certainty that sea levels are rising and that coastal flooding and disruption is occurring and will continue to get worse. There will be a significant cost.

The rise is relatively slow and seems inconsequential unless you happen to be living on a vulnerable coast where flooding and storm surges are a threat.

Most people are worried about the next day and can't plan for a future that is far off beyond their
lifetimes.

Yes, there is absolute certainty that sea levels are rising, that certainty comes from the fact that they started rising long before anthropogenic CO2 was an issue. The range of guesses which according to your earlier sources is between no acceleration and 2000% acceleration per century is not quite so certain. Well actually it was 90% certain as per the source, but I'm not sure how to apply that certain uncertainty to my real world situation.

But back to the Smithsonian numbers, and the rise I calculated in a previous post. According to their numbers, we will get a foot of sea level rise in 200 years no matter what, and thanks to CO2, it may only take 150 years to get the same foot. So now can we figure out where to devote our scarce resources in the fight against relentless SLR? Do you think we should continue to pretend that all SLR is human caused and in order to solve all the problems presented in your report at the beginning of the thread, focus all of our resources to fighting CO2, only to have the very same problems occur a few years later anyways due to natural causes, or should we perhaps accept that adaptation is going to be required either way, and get on with real infrastructure type solutions, and accepting that some areas cannot be saved in the long term(with or without human influence)?

Now do you see why I say that SLR as a poster child for the CAGW cause is such a sacred cow? Even DML was smart enough to abandon ship when he knew the answer wouldn't suit the agenda, but now you have gone and blown the lid wide open. It doesn't sound nearly as scary now does it. And remember, this is all using the grossly inaccurate adjusted numbers, if we instead use undoctored continuous tide gauge numbers the acceleration becomes almost imperceptible.

Do you think that alarmist reports such as the one you started the thread with should have a responsibility to note that all of their predicted disasters are inevitable with or without CAGW, but have a probability (with a range of uncertainty) of occuring a bit sooner with enough added CO2? Or would that not be alarmist enough?

But thanks again for your help.

[jazz]

chuck seriously you have got to have a cold shower and engage your brain. The lab coats are not infallible, they are people just like everyone and they spotted a gravy train 30 yrs ago.

All oceans are connected so sea level rise is going to be the same everywhere. So a place like New Orleans who might see a 10 ft storm surge during a hurricane will now see a 10.1 ft storm surge when sea levels rise. Its not going to mean anything for places we shouldn't be living.

I have explained clearly why climate science should be scrutinized and even ridiculed. There are two reasons, the facts on the ground differ from reality. The first climate alarmists started in 1989 and her we are. That means the models are fd or being manipulated. The earth is not a greenhouse. It is an open system and the geology of the planet has a big impact on our climate and weather. Plus trying to model a dozen non steady state variables is impossible. From someone who used to run simulations, the computer will never converge to a solution unless it is fed concrete data as an start condition. They don't have that, so they fudge it to force the models to converge.

On top of that we have other variables we cant even measure not even included in the models like low level clouds, tectonic events, volcanos, undersea vents, heat loss transfer from the mantle, heat loss into space, solar cycles, sunspots, forest fires, carbon sinks, carbon gradients in the ocean, etc etc.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Here is a challenge. Name one credible scientific organization that says that the prevailing climate science proving human caused climate change is all wrong. Activist and denial organizations don't count. Good luck.

Now, why would I need to prove human caused climate change is all wrong after we just finished agreeing that SLR is caused by both natural factors, and a highly ( laughably) uncertain human component. We have some common ground now, lets build on that instead.

And it should be noted that when you get to frame the debate by defining anyone who disagrees with the alarmist script as an activist or denier, and therefore not acceptable, would make the challenge impossible, now wouldn't it?

[jazz]

Chucks go to is NOAA or NASA. Here is a former NOAA big wig refuting climate change.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/07/30/former-award-winning-noaa-scientist-dr-rex-fleming-declares-his-climate-dissent-converted-from-warmist-to-skeptic-explains-why-climate-change-theory-is-bunk/?fbclid=IwAR0phBlmRV7M0UKELGT3SdG8kiy9QEyIP49nvtZQ 5j6uhK1eIPCcogqn9kU Former Award-Winning NOAA scientist Dr. Rex Fleming declares his climate dissent

[chuckChuck]

Chucks go to is NOAA or NASA. Here is a former NOAA big wig refuting climate change.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/07/30/former-award-winning-noaa-scientist-dr-rex-fleming-declares-his-climate-dissent-converted-from-warmist-to-skeptic-explains-why-climate-change-theory-is-bunk/?fbclid=IwAR0phBlmRV7M0UKELGT3SdG8kiy9QEyIP49nvtZQ 5j6uhK1eIPCcogqn9kU Former Award-Winning NOAA scientist Dr. Rex Fleming declares his climate dissent

Science is made up of more than just one researchers work. What scientific organization and collection of climate scientists support his position?

Your post is from a denial activist site. Not a credible source of science sorry.

[sumdumguy]

I can just imagine how hard it is for a scientist to refute the work that he has been part of for a good part of his working career. He most likely has signed a gag order-non disclosure agreement. Add to that the likelihood that his social order has included the “ scientific” community. Likely that would be the last time he would get invited to the annual Xmas party and every other social function that he was included in prior to his refutation. Remember this hoax is a major part of every source of funding to the scientists and the economic impact on society would be noticed. What would happen if people ignore the fear mongers and everyone quits wasting money on “the carbon hoax”?

[dmlfarmer]

[QUOTE=AlbertaFarmer5;418616]Yes, there is absolute certainty that sea levels are rising, that certainty comes from the fact that they started rising long before anthropogenic CO2 was an issue..... Even DML was smart enough to abandon ship when he knew the answer wouldn't suit the agenda [QUOTE]

BS. I have not abandoned ship in any way! I simply refuse to waste my time responding if no one is willing to critically exam their own beliefs. I still follow the posts because it provides me with the questions I use to question my belief that climate change is real and in large part a result of human actions.

Yes, climate has always changed and always will because of natural factors. But to claim man has no impact on climate is head in the sand thinking. In a large part fossil fuels are simply stored solar energy, captured by plants (and indirectly by animals) chemically converted into matter and then over long periods the decaying matter becomes fossil fuels. In the last hundred years man has inefficiently released millions of years of a huge amount of that stored energy releasing the chemical bonds and carbon back into the environment, both as waste heat and greenhouse gasses. Even the cities and roadways we build using that stored energy capture more solar energy, which over the long term impacts climate.

Is it possible to give with 100% certainty what portion of the observable impacts of climate change is attributable to man and what part to nature - of course not; so to demand such proof is unreasonable. But I do get a laugh out of the people making such demands are the same ones who unable or refuse to provide measurable data and criteria on the impact the current CO2 levels of over 400ppm will have on the climate (after discounting for all other factors).

This is not to say science has not tried and I will refer you to 10peer reviewed studies and papers which all claim man's impact on climate is much more than the natural causes.
Tett et al. 2000
Meehl et al. 2004
Stone et al. 2007
Lean and Rind 2008
Huber and Knutti 2011
Gillett et al. 2012
Wigley and Santer 2012
Jones et al. 2013
IPCC AR5
Ribes et al. 2016
In fact some of these studies agree with AF5 that we are naturally entering a global cooling period, but mans impact is so large it is negating the cooling expected. (As an aside - interesting that while we are seeing the highest Arctic temps ever recorded, Europe and other parts of the world are setting temp records we are also at the bottom of the 11 year sunspot cycle Hummmmm)

But rather critically read such studies and come to your own conclusions, guys like Jazz post propaganda like the 3 pictures of Fort Denison to prove sea levels are not rising. Take note there is no reference as to tide levels at the time of photos, atmospheric pressure, ocean temps, time of year, ocean currents, all of which impact sea level. Tide alone at Fort Denison change sea levels by about 2 meters between high and low tide each and every day. And I should point out, in the last decade Australia has done an impact study on the effect rising sea levels will have on Fort Denison. Funny they did this if sea levels are not rising as Jazz claims.

Climate change has become way to politized. The funny part is if you read both the Liberal policy and Conservative policy, they both have the same CO2 targets. The pathway for the Liberals is based on a visible but much hated carbon tax which is to be used to fund green initiatives and reduce demand. On the other hand the Conservative policy calls for penalties for emissions and incentives for reduction. But as farmers we should be well aware that any costs placed on the corporate Canada are priced in and passed on to consumers. Just like tariffs, the bottom line is the consumer pays either way for any attempts to mitigate climate change. So do you prefer a visible tax or hidden tax?

But the point that everyone is missing, is agriculture could be a huge part of the solution and as farmers we should be demanding our share of funds for mitigating climate change. Instead we are still caught up in the argument if man made climate change is real. WE are fighting amongst ourselves rather than milking the climate change cow for all it is worth. Too many are demanding proof of climate change instead of payment for farming practices that reduce climate change.

[dmlfarmer]

Interestingly, a main argument against doing anything is the amount of CO2 Canada contributes is so little any thing we do will not stop climate change. I wonder how much CO2 Ethiopia contributes, yet in one day this week the country's citizen set a world record for planting 350,000,000 trees in 12 hours in an effort to mitigate climate change.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-49151523

[dmlfarmer]

And if it climate change did not prose real economic risk, why did Moody's just buy a climate data firm and warn cities it would be introducing a climate change risk consideration for credit ratings for cities and counties?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/climate/moodys-ratings-climate-change-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/climate/moodys-ratings-climate-change-data.html

[farmaholic]

I would like to response to dml's post in a positive way.

Release of stored energy, whether fossil fuels or Earth's own core "condensates"...... there is some truth to that. I don't believe deep oil has anything to do with organic life, shallow coal beds are another story.....I can buy that. But anything "burned" releases energy in the form of heat and other gases.

Cities are always warmer than the countryside, pavement and concrete and too many vehicles and seasonal heating/cooling of buildings. There are some vast heavily populated areas. Do they outweigh the huge sparsely populated areas in comparison?

Then there's the natural cycles of the sun and it's affects on our weather.


How delicate is the balance? I don't know.

Are things changing at a quicker pace than the inevitable changes seen in the past, from the beginning of time? I don't know.....we are only looking at a minute fragment in time, I think it's hard to ascertain anything from it.

If reducing some "fuel" use helps reduce pollution.....that would be a good thing, but to say it will have an affect on the weather/climate.....I don't know.

I don't know how anyone can come in on only one side of the debate. I believe there will always be change but how much of an effect human activity is having on that change is whats up for debate.

I think it possible to have a foot on both sides of the line in the sand.

Is the human race smug enough to believe it can affect climate? Or are we?

How do you explain an environment that supported both dinosaur life and glaciation at the same spot on the earth?