Test Subsidence Test

Commodity Marketing

Tools

Subsidence

Test
Jan 19, 2021 | 18:28 1 https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/the-ongoing-collapse-of-the-worlds-aquifers/amp

Ok now the land is sinking or or is the ocean rising, wait wait it’s global warming causing rising oceans or or is it sinking land from over pumping aquifers.

What the next headline going to be? 🤦 Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Blaithin's Avatar Jan 19, 2021 | 19:12 2 I feel like your mind would explode if you ever realized how complex the Earth really is. How can all of these things and more happen simultaneously?!? 🤯🤯🤯 Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jan 19, 2021 | 20:08 3 Subsidence is one of the very real, measurable, right here now type of problems humanity faces. The cause is not in any doubt, the solution is achievable, and the consequences are dire.
    Yet it gets zero attention, while we all focus on an issue which has no proof it even exists, only a vaguest notion of the cause/correlation, if it is an issue it will take 100's to 1000's of years to manifest itself, we can't even measure its effect to any meaningful degree when the uncertainties in measurement are orders of magnitude greater than the measured change, proposed solutions have costs in capital, resources, and human labour that exceed the productive capacity of earth.

    And subsidence is only one of multiple such issues that we could actually do something about, and need to do something about. Instead we are building windmills in a vain attempt to save the world from plant food.
    Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Jan 19, 2021 at 20:21.
    Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jan 20, 2021 | 08:33 4 A5 quote "Yet it gets zero attention, while we all focus on an issue which has no proof it even exists,"

    A5 is of course referring to human caused climate change, lying again that there is no proof it even exists!

    So all the world class scientific organizations that I reference in my posts are making human caused climate change up? Is that your argument?

    And what evidence do you have to prove that? A giant conspiracy theory? Here is your chance prove them all wrong! Reply With Quote
    Jan 20, 2021 | 08:47 5 https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/...uences-climate

    Name:  CAQ_global_temperature_time_series_v5.jpg
Views: 766
Size:  19.2 KB

    The green band shows how global average temperature would have changed due to natural forces only, as simulated by climate models. The blue band shows model simulations of the effects of human and natural factors combined. The black line shows observed global average temperatures. As indicated by the green band, without human influences, temperature over the past century would actually have cooled slightly over recent decades. The match up of the blue band and the black line illustrate that only the inclusion of human factors can explain the recent warming. (Figure source: adapted from Huber and Knutti, 201212). Reply With Quote
    Jan 20, 2021 | 08:57 6
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/...uences-climate

    Name:  CAQ_global_temperature_time_series_v5.jpg
Views: 766
Size:  19.2 KB

    The green band shows how global average temperature would have changed due to natural forces only, as simulated by climate models. The blue band shows model simulations of the effects of human and natural factors combined. The black line shows observed global average temperatures. As indicated by the green band, without human influences, temperature over the past century would actually have cooled slightly over recent decades. The match up of the blue band and the black line illustrate that only the inclusion of human factors can explain the recent warming. (Figure source: adapted from Huber and Knutti, 201212).
    Unknowable. You know it, I know it. There is no way to know. Also, your saying by that graph, that without human influence, we would trend cooler? You don’t farm in western Canada, do you? Who would want it cooler?

    It has been trending cooler here. We rarely hit 30 anymore. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • blackpowder's Avatar Jan 20, 2021 | 09:10 7 First out of the gate to call someone a liar and ramrod the thread.
    Our resident politically and scientifically correct pecker head. Reply With Quote

  • Jan 20, 2021 | 09:27 8 Yes lying it is. If you make statements that are proven to be untrue and provide no evidence to backup your statement, then that is lying.

    Name one credible scientific organization that says human caused climate change is not happening?

    After many many months A5 has been unable to provide anything that even comes close.

    In essence he disputes the overwhelming scientific evidence and is calling 1000s of climate scientists liars.
    Last edited by chuckChuck; Jan 20, 2021 at 09:33.
    Reply With Quote
    blackpowder's Avatar Jan 20, 2021 | 09:41 9 Yes he opened the door, and you took the bait in typical fashion. Reply With Quote

  • Jan 20, 2021 | 10:36 10 Blackpowder, take a trip to the Columbia Ice fields. Take a look at the signs showing the dates and the extent of the shrinking glaciers. Take a look at the photos of the glaciers in the museum or on the internet.

    Keep in mind the graph above that shows the human caused portion of climate change and the naturally caused climate change.

    What do you see? Reply With Quote
    Jan 20, 2021 | 10:53 11 I will try replying to this in typical Chuck fashion.

    So, Chuck, what you are telling us, is that you don't care about all the poor people living close to sea level who are not only going to be displaced by subsidence, but also deplete and permanently destroy the aquifers they rely on?
    You said nothing at all about their plight.
    Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Jan 20, 2021 at 11:23.
    Reply With Quote
    blackpowder's Avatar Jan 20, 2021 | 10:55 12 The same as you.
    Take a look at any drill cores what do you see? Reply With Quote
    Jan 20, 2021 | 11:23 13
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Blackpowder, take a trip to the Columbia Ice fields. Take a look at the signs showing the dates and the extent of the shrinking glaciers. Take a look at the photos of the glaciers in the museum or on the internet.

    Keep in mind the graph above that shows the human caused portion of climate change and the naturally caused climate change.

    What do you see?
    How does observing that glaciers are shrinking from their maximum extent (at the end of the little ice age in the 1800's), in any way prove human cause?

    If humans are the cause, then how do you explain the expansion of the same glaciers during the little ice age. Which was the coldest period of the entire holocene, when glaciers reached their maximum extent of the entire holocene.

    How do you account for the retreating glaciers uncovering forests, human artifacts ( and bodies)?

    1000 year old forests uncovered by retreating glaciers in Alaska:
    https://notrickszone.com/2019/08/26/...dieval-period/

    Or in the Alps
    https://www.srf.ch/news/panorama/aus...NxprTELod1jQVM

    In case you would rather read in English:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/...-alps-glacier/

    Or in Norway:
    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...ers-180967949/

    Farms in the Swiss Alps which have succumbed to glacial advance multiple times just within recorded history, only to be recovered again by retreat.

    Has it ever occurred to you that the cyclical nature of glaciers advane and retreat may be a factor, combined with a cherry picked starting point at the absolute maximum advance?
    Is there anything unprecedented about glaciers retreating during warm cycles,or advancing during cooling?
    Did any irreversible tipping points or feedbacks occur during every previous warm period( and all of which were warmer than todays chilly warm period), known as climate optimums?


    What conspiracy theories would you have to invoke to explain the retreating glaciers uncovering human artifacts or forests?
    Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Jan 20, 2021 at 11:31.
    Reply With Quote
  • 3 Likes


  • fjlip's Avatar Jan 20, 2021 | 11:27 14 Excellent answer and questions...CC frantically searching to debunk facts! Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • blackpowder's Avatar Jan 20, 2021 | 13:55 15 I'm just trying to get to a space where we agree to disagree on some things.
    Acknowledge that right or wrong mistakes were made in the past, and are being made now. Do we agree on where our standard of living and sovereignty is going. Where do we want to go and how do we get there.
    Obviously we cant change current thinking but we can talk the math to get to where we want. Policy strategies that involve magic appear to be the path to utopia for now.
    Unfortunately, now the questions must fit the answer. Reply With Quote

  • blackpowder's Avatar Jan 20, 2021 | 19:36 16 And as usual pecker head has buggered off. Reply With Quote
  • 3 Likes


  • Jan 20, 2021 | 20:07 17
    Quote Originally Posted by blackpowder View Post
    And as usual pecker head has buggered off.
    But not before dropping the same ridiculous circular reasoning that he did in the last thread, and didn't respond to it there either.
    The match up of the blue band and the black line illustrate that only the inclusion of human factors can explain the recent warming.
    What a completely meaningless statement, but he falls for it. Twice. Reply With Quote
    Jan 21, 2021 | 00:06 18
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/...uences-climate

    Name:  CAQ_global_temperature_time_series_v5.jpg
Views: 766
Size:  19.2 KB

    The green band shows how global average temperature would have changed due to natural forces only, as simulated by climate models. The blue band shows model simulations of the effects of human and natural factors combined. The black line shows observed global average temperatures. As indicated by the green band, without human influences, temperature over the past century would actually have cooled slightly over recent decades. The match up of the blue band and the black line illustrate that only the inclusion of human factors can explain the recent warming. (Figure source: adapted from Huber and Knutti, 201212).
    Do you get a bonus for each time you display this chart? Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jan 21, 2021 | 01:18 19
    Quote Originally Posted by jwab View Post
    Do you get a bonus for each time you display this chart?
    Also noteworthy that the chart stops in 2005. Saving the embarassment of showing just how far the recorded temperatures( and highly adjusted at that), have deviated from the models in the intervening 16 years. During which the black line has almost fell out of the bottom of the blue range completely.
    Why is that Chuck, why would you present a chart that is 16 years out of date? Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jan 21, 2021 | 08:52 20 A5, Get out your crayons and draw your imaginary chart based on your own imaginary facts to backup your feeble opinion that there is no scientific evidence for human caused climate change.

    The rest of us will rely on peer reviewed science.
    Last edited by chuckChuck; Jan 21, 2021 at 08:56.
    Reply With Quote
    Jan 23, 2021 | 02:51 21
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    A5, Get out your crayons and draw your imaginary chart based on your own imaginary facts to backup your feeble opinion that there is no scientific evidence for human caused climate change.

    The rest of us will rely on peer reviewed science.
    Good news Chuck, I found the rest of the graph, that you missed, I won't need my crayons after all:
    Name:  FoS-Canada-temperature-blog-post-Fig01.jpg
Views: 357
Size:  80.4 KB

    As I suggested above, when the graph extends all the way to 2020, the line (measured temperature) has now fallen completely out of the bottom of the range of the models. Coincidentally, it appears to have peaked exactly at the end of your 16 year out of date graph posted above. Now, I'm sure that isn't cherry picking, must be a coincidence again?

    Now, in all fairness, this is just a graph of Canada's temperatures, not the world. And as it turns out, Canada's temperatures (including all adjustments and urban heat island effects)are rising at less than half of the rate the models predict( see the link below).

    But we can do some extrapolating from this data, to the rest of the world.

    Since we know that Canada's temperatures are rising at double the rate of the rest of the world, and also the highest rates anywhere in the world, and Canada's temperatures are rising at half the rate they are supposed to, that would indicate that the rest of the world has temperatures rising at less than 1/4 of the model values.

    You see, it works both ways, this temperatures are rising twice as fast as everywhere else business.

    In fact, if you work backwards from this through all of the other examples of everywhere warming twice as fast as everywhere else, you get 1/2 to the power of some very large number, and the result is... Well, I won't ruin the surprise for you, type it into a calculator and see for yourself.

    Isn't math wonderful?

    Source:https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/...l-simulations/
    Links to the data are included, incase you would like to analyze it yourself to check the work. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Jan 23, 2021 | 03:45 22
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    Good news Chuck, I found the rest of the graph, that you missed, I won't need my crayons after all:
    Name:  FoS-Canada-temperature-blog-post-Fig01.jpg
Views: 357
Size:  80.4 KB

    As I suggested above, when the graph extends all the way to 2020, the line (measured temperature) has now fallen completely out of the bottom of the range of the models. Coincidentally, it appears to have peaked exactly at the end of your 16 year out of date graph posted above. Now, I'm sure that isn't cherry picking, must be a coincidence again?

    Now, in all fairness, this is just a graph of Canada's temperatures, not the world. And as it turns out, Canada's temperatures (including all adjustments and urban heat island effects)are rising at less than half of the rate the models predict( see the link below).

    But we can do some extrapolating from this data, to the rest of the world.

    Since we know that Canada's temperatures are rising at double the rate of the rest of the world, and also the highest rates anywhere in the world, and Canada's temperatures are rising at half the rate they are supposed to, that would indicate that the rest of the world has temperatures rising at less than 1/4 of the model values.

    You see, it works both ways, this temperatures are rising twice as fast as everywhere else business.

    In fact, if you work backwards from this through all of the other examples of everywhere warming twice as fast as everywhere else, you get 1/2 to the power of some very large number, and the result is... Well, I won't ruin the surprise for you, type it into a calculator and see for yourself.

    Isn't math wonderful?

    Source:https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/...l-simulations/
    Links to the data are included, incase you would like to analyze it yourself to check the work.
    News articles about snow in Sahara desert 4 times in last 40 years... 3 of them were since 2017... but that is 'climate change' caused by 'global warming'... wobble of polar vortex as well... making snow in sahara desert/Spain etc.

    The suns radiance output and activity is prime reason for changes C2... good luck changing that one with charts/graphs/computer models!!!/renewable energy....

    The new clueless religion... Climate change... deny God/creator/creation/earth with intelligent design exists...

    Sign of the times...

    Denial isn't just a river in Egypt...
    Last edited by TOM4CWB; Jan 23, 2021 at 03:53.
    Reply With Quote

  • Jan 23, 2021 | 04:07 23
    Quote Originally Posted by TOM4CWB View Post
    News articles about snow in Sahara desert 4 times in last 40 years... 3 of them were since 2017... but that is 'climate change' caused by 'global warming'... wobble of polar vortex as well... making snow in sahara desert/Spain etc.

    The suns radiance output and activity is prime reason for changes C2... good luck changing that one with charts/graphs/computer models!!!/renewable energy....

    The new clueless religion... Climate change... deny God/creator/creation/earth with intelligent design exists...

    Sign of the times...

    Denial isn't just a river in Egypt...


    Reminds me about the adds saying we are running out of 'fresh water'!

    we are to use less 'fresh water'... so more 'fresh' water goes into the oceans... raising the 'sea level' making 'Climate Change'... because we 'use' 'too much' water growing crops and washing our dishes in the dish washer...

    How stupid is that?

    Next thing we know they will be saying we can't use hydrogen as an energy source because it comes from 'fresh water'!!!
    Last edited by TOM4CWB; Jan 23, 2021 at 04:15.
    Reply With Quote
    Jan 23, 2021 | 09:33 24 Here you can read all about Roy Spencer and his claims with several of his statements challenged.

    https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm

    "Dr. Spencer suggests that global warming is mostly due to natural internal variability, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions.

    Other professional affiliations: Dr. Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy. He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian American public policy think tank. Dr. Spencer is also listed as an expert by the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), a global warming "skeptic" organization [DeSmogBlog]."

    None of the purely scientific organizations he does research for come to the same conclusions he does.

    The graph of land temperature change in Canada is at the lower end of the model forecasts.

    We know that the oceans have absorbed the majority of global warming and that land masses like Canada are not representative of what's happening on the entire globe.

    Even in Canada there is a lot of variability, with parts of the Canadian arctic warming at higher rate than the prairies.

    So you found one scientist out of thousands who has his doubts about human caused climate change and says the models are not accurate. It turns our Roy Spencer is a climate change denier who is affiliated and active with several climate change denier organizations. He is a political activist.

    This really doesn't change the overwhelming scientific evidence or conclusions put forth by all the world leading scientific organizations that human caused climate change is a reality.
    Last edited by chuckChuck; Jan 23, 2021 at 09:44.
    Reply With Quote
    Jan 23, 2021 | 11:32 25 Thank you Chuck for that well researched attack on the messenger. Does any of that change the accuracy of the official data he used?
    Perhaps in the next post you can address the underlying data, and the inescapable conclusions? Given your dire concern about this issue, I would have expected you to be celebrating the fact that it's not as bad as we thought?

    Now, after leading us on this event filled detour and distraction from the original topic, maybe we can get back to discussing the relative risk and potential reward to solving subsidence vs. CO2.

    Given a finite budget of resources, labour, political will, time etc., which would give the best bang for the buck at saving low threatened coastal areas from becoming under water any sooner than necessary?

    Imagine the trillions being proposed to spend on CO2, and how much more effect that money could have if even a small fraction of that was instead invested in water diversion, or desalination, or water use efficiency, so these areas can stop unsustainable pumping of fossil water reserves.
    Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Jan 23, 2021 at 11:35.
    Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Jan 23, 2021 | 13:29 26 I expect the irony(or more likely, gross ignorance) of choosing the receding glaciers poster boy to use an an example in this subsidence thread was lost on Chuck.

    One of the saving graces of being in a slight warming cycle is that the glaciers are net contributors to the water cycle. Towns downstream have more freshwater available to them year round than would be provided by precipitation alone. Which requires less groundwater pumping. Reducing the rate of subsidence.

    When the cycle reverses again, and glaciers are back into expansion phase, even less water will be available, requiring more pumping. Exacerbating the subsidence problem.
    The problem is the solution. Is the problem, is the solution...
    Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Jan 23, 2021 at 15:01.
    Reply With Quote
    Jan 23, 2021 | 17:53 27
    Quote Originally Posted by blackpowder View Post
    I'm just trying to get to a space where we agree to disagree on some things.
    Acknowledge that right or wrong mistakes were made in the past, and are being made now. Do we agree on where our standard of living and sovereignty is going. Where do we want to go and how do we get there.
    Obviously we cant change current thinking but we can talk the math to get to where we want. Policy strategies that involve magic appear to be the path to utopia for now.
    Unfortunately, now the questions must fit the answer.
    No, unfortunately, we can't talk the math. One side adamantely refuses to acknowledge the constraints that math places on their lunatic dreams. A perfect example being the every where is warming twice as fast as every where else that Chuck and friends like to repeat ad-nauseum, ignorantly unaware of the mathematical impossibility. Or their constant repetition that storage is getting so cheap it will solve all the other shortcomings. They just can't even begin to grasp the scale, the cost, the physical limits, the design constraints, etc. I might as well go and discuss multivariable calculus with the cows, as bring math into a conversation with Chuck or any of his clones. Reply With Quote
    Jan 23, 2021 | 17:57 28 Chucks graph should have the natural and human factors section colored in fire engine RED rather than blue. That way the fear of spontaneous combustion would be much more dreadful.

    Have a great day.
    Last edited by Chief; Jan 23, 2021 at 18:03.
    Reply With Quote
    Jan 23, 2021 | 20:54 29
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Yes lying it is. If you make statements that are proven to be untrue and provide no evidence to backup your statement, then that is lying.

    Name one credible scientific organization that says human caused climate change is not happening?

    After many many months A5 has been unable to provide anything that even comes close.

    In essence he disputes the overwhelming scientific evidence and is calling 1000s of climate scientists liars.
    WE have to remember a % of the climate scientists are paid directly or indirectly with government dollars, similar to the scenario in Canada with the media. They try to keep their employer happy by adjusting or leaving out facts and picking the right data for their desired outcome. I think if you talked to some after three hours at the bar, the truth may come out as we saw with a minister from Ottawa.

    Most climate scientists have mortgages and kids in college too. Reply With Quote