When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-04-12 07:00:50

Terraformer wrote:

Lolwut. Why would you be taking the train to go shopping.

Its called the New York City Subway! People use that for getting around Manhattan, where parking spaces are hard to find. Environmentalists want to pack us into cities like that, so we can empty out the suburbs.

Terraformer · 2017-04-12 07:07:53

Why would everyone be packed into Manhattan? The vast majority of cities and towns are nothing like that. They have rowhouses, not apartments, and are typically too small to justify a transit network for the town itself (though big enough for a train station to get between towns and cities).

Is this a typical American attitude? Urban = Manhattan?

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-04-12 07:41:23

Manhattan is the logical outcome of urbanization.

Here are some row houses in Baltimore, Md.
11275ad5e5d0af3-4545204.jpg?preset=lmain
This is the kind of place I'd like to live in rather than those row houses. It gives you privacy, a chance to do some gardening, a yard, a place to park your car. You can build stuff add on to your home, without some neighborhood association telling you that you can't!

Of course the rich people would get to keep their mansions, they always do, Environmentalists don't mind the rich living out there, they just want to move the middle class into those row houses and tell them how great they are as opposed to a more open setting.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2017-04-12 07:51:43)

RobertDyck · 2017-04-12 11:28:58

If you want to talk about community design. Back in the 1980s I came up with an idea. My idea was a more conventional suburban neighbourhood, houses with a yard, but do away with cars. Something similar has been built in Winnipeg, a community called "Wildwood Park" is bays of houses, but the land where normally a street would go is grass. There's a walkway the same size as a sidewalk, but right down the centre of where the street would go. Instead of street lights, there are smaller decorative lamps. And there are park benches every so often. This land is officially park space with the city, rather than a street. And there are so many trees, both in people's front yards and the park space that it feels like you live in a park. There is a back lane, but it's only a single lane, and yards have a 6-foot fence built right up to the pavement of that back lane. But my idea would go further. I wouldn't allow cars in the housing development at all. Instead build a subway beneath that backlane, with computer driven subway car the same size as a car. Not a big train like commuter subways in New York, Toronto, etc. Instead individual cars the size of a car, operating as a taxi. Use your smart phone to order a rail taxi. Your house would have an underground subway station the size of a single car garage, attached to your house. You could take this rail taxi from the grocery store to your home, unpack your groceries, then the automated computer driven rail taxi would go to its next customer. Or pre-order a rail taxi to show up at your house every working day at a certain time, ready to take you to work.

That means no vehicles on the surface at all. This would be safer for children. It would be quiet and clean. The rail taxi could run on electricity, delivered by the rails themselves. A moving truck or construction vehicle could drive down the back lane. But since vehicles in this neighbourhood would be so rare, they would have to drive very slowly. The neighbourhood would have a parkade outside the neighbourhood, with a rail taxi station. For Americans reading this, "parkade" is a Canadian term, it means multi-level parking structure. So if you really insist on owning a vehicle for weekends or whatever, you can park it there.

This could integrate with existing cities. In Toronto, design the rail taxi to drive on the same tracks as existing subway trains. The rail taxi could stop at a subway station downtown, stopping at one end of the platform so a full-size subway train could pull in behind. The number of rail taxis that can stop at existing stations would have to be limited, so they don't interfere with existing trains. But with computer driven rail taxis, the computer can coordinate with trains.

I've posted this on the internet a number of times. I see someone actually built something similar. A suburb outside Dubai built a system with automated taxis, but they have rubber tires on pavement. They built an underground for the automated cars, and the cars are electric, recharging where they park, waiting for their next paying customer. The rest of the suburb is built in the traditional Arab style, with features designed for their climate. Fine, I want a North American suburb with houses. And you don't have to worry about plowing snow when the vehicles run underground.

Cities today have a problem with more and more land consumed by roads. This would move roads underground, so all land is available to people.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-04-12 23:46:26

But Canada has so much land! Canada has ten times as much land per person as does the United States! What I don't get is why you think land is in such short supply when you live in such an enormous country? Why would you want to live in such a regimented one size fits all town? Why would you want your family car in a distant parking garage, where someone may break into it and steal it? And what happens if there is a power outage and the rail system no longer works, and you have to walk all the way to the parking garage on your own two feet during a cold Canadian night? Canada is such a nice big country, If I lived there, I would want a nice big yard, not live in a row house in a small town and pretend the rest of Canada doesn't exist! Would you really want to be stuck in a small town with no car and be dependent on mass transit to get around? Why? Also aren't underground tunnels expensive to dig? I would think that a country like Canada would be full of frontiersmen out in the wilderness living log cabins. Not a bunch of miserable urbanites that never leave town cause they have no cars!

RobertDyck · 2017-04-13 03:38:51

I grew up in Winnipeg, lived here most of my life, and live here now. But from July 1987 to July 1990 I lived in Toronto. And I took a training course in Vancouver for 1 week in 1992. Toronto and Vancouver are not like the rest of Canada, they're crowded. And most of the immigrants coming to Canada are moving to those 2 cities, they're getting worse. They're more crowded than Chicago, Miami, or many cities in the US; only Manhattan is worse. When I lived in Toronto, the impression I got is cars are obsolete.

The vast majority of Canadians live along the southern border of Canada. They aren't trying to be close to the US, that's because it's warm. Canada is cold in winter. Furthermore, that's where crops can grow. You realize the majority of Canada cannot grow traditional crops. Most Canadians live in big cities, not small towns or farms. There is very little good farm land in Canada, and cities are building on what little exists.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-04-13 07:58:40

So you kind of just disproved Global Warming, seems it hasn't helped Canada much, still the area with farmland and boreal forests are much larger than California, and Canada has the population of California. Maybe you ought to elect Arnold Schwarzenegger to be your next Prime Minister, the fact that he was born in Austria shouldn't be too much of a problem. I hear he's into the environment these days!
arnold-schwarzenegger-why-were-killing-gunther.jpg?w=670&h=377&crop=1
Anyway, you don't need to grow your food everywhere you live, there is still mining, oil drilling and forestry as viable careers in Canada, people can earn a living from that and import food from the United States if they must. How much does orange juice cost in Canada? I bet it either comes from Florida or California!

Terraformer · 2017-04-13 08:33:36

Canada could only import food if the Americans don't pave over all their farmland in pursuit of 1 acre lots for everyone...

elderflower · 2017-04-13 10:56:34

why would they elect Schwarzenegger? We like Justin Trudeau.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-04-13 11:08:44

What movies has Justin Trudeau appeared in?

SpaceNut · 2017-04-13 20:19:30

Back to the topic...

The climate while its milder nearer to the borders of the US there is some climate change that is going on in Canada...

Impact of climate change on Canadian agriculture

https://www.federated.ca/blog/loss-prev … riculture/

http://business.financialpost.com/news/ … an-economy

Rising Temperatures
Droughts in Canada are less severe than in balmier climes because the long, cold winters suppress evaporation from the soil. Yet with temperatures as much as 5 degrees Celsius above normal this year, the dryness has been anything but mild, affecting industries from the oilsands to wine makers. Crude producers have less water from the Athabasca River in northern Alberta to mine bitumen after declining flows led the province to impose restrictions. Forest fires halted production in some areas in June. Canadian wheat and canola yields probably will drop to eight-year lows because of the dryness, grain-marketer CWB said in July. Freshwater fishing on Vancouver Island was banned last month as higher water temperatures in salmon streams threaten a $1 billion-a-year sport-fishing industry.

http://www.climateontario.ca/doc/factsh … -final.pdf

RobertDyck · 2017-04-13 22:23:29

I used to be passionate about climate change. Then certain individuals started claiming all fossil fuels must stay in the ground, and all oil wells must be shut down. Cold turkey. Um, no. One problem with the climate issue is most activists fall into one of two camps: (1) climate change denier, (2) the sky is falling. Of course reality is somewhere in the middle.

There has been a lot of hysteria about ocean levels rising. NASA has used Canadian radar satellites to measure ice in Antarctica. Because ice shelves off the coast of Antarctica have broken up, and glaciers around the world are melting, a lot of people got worried. But NASA found the volume of ice on land on Antarctica is increasing. Not shrinking, it's increasing. Ocean levels are still rising, but a lot slower than anyone predicted. The increasing ice on Antarctica is compensating for melting glaciers. And all the floating ice of the north pole or ice shelves off Antarctica could melt, they won't raise ocean levels a single millimetre.

Global climate change is making the climate in Manitoba more tolerable. And corn can now grow here. And traditional crops can grow farther north. Climate change is bad for a lot of people, but it's good for Manitoba. It means more floods, but we increased our flood protection after the flood of 1997.

Some people worry about dwindling polar bear populations around the town of Churchill. But they ignore the fact polar bear population is increasing farther north, along the northern shore of mainland Canada. So as polar bears die out around Hudson's Bay, they increase farther north. The total population is actually increasing. But those who travel to Churchill won't notice, they'll only see what's happening at that one small town.

Some people think any sort of climate change is bad. But the climate is always changing. We've had cycles of ice ages to interglacial periods for hundreds of millions of years. If climate change were to stop entirely, it would be the greatest catastrophe ever. For one thing, the planet is never static. If you stopped global warming, it would start global cooling; the long slide into the next ice age. But humans are causing climate change to go faster. When I was young, I prayed for rapid global warming. We got it. Now it may be time to slow it down. Not stop it, just slow it.

We don't need to stop all carbon emissions. Ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica show the only time our planet has had CO2 at 200 parts per million was in the depths of an ice age. We certainly don't want that. During an interglacial period such as today, it's been 300 parts per million. The problem is today it's 400 parts per million. We don't need to remove carbon dioxide, plants can do that. In fact, green plants are optimized for 10% CO2, so from their perspective they're starved of CO2. But that much CO2 would kill off humans and most animals. So we should reduce CO2 emissions somewhat. Not stop it, just reduce.

Electric vehicles sound nice, but they don't work in a Canadian winter. We have actual cold here. I attended a job fair this winter, hosted by the city. When I told one guy that I used to work in the factory where busses are made, he wanted to recruit me to be a bus mechanic. But when I worked for New Flyer, I was in I.T., the computer department, not the factory floor. The point is he showed me the city's electric bus. It uses lithium ion batteries. Heat to warm the bus for passengers comes from a small furnace that burns diesel fuel. And the batteries have a liquid cooling system to ensure they don't get too hot in summer, but in winter they have to be warmed to ensure the batteries don't freeze. The liquid cooling system is used to warm the batteries. The heat comes from the same diesel furnace. So the electric bus still uses diesel fuel, just a lot less than a hybrid, which in turn uses a lot less than a traditional diesel bus. The point is you can't go cold turkey on fossil fuel, just reduce.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-04-14 01:34:24

Lets suppose I'm a Canadian, and I live in the geographic center of that country, on the western short of the Hudson Bay to be precise, and some environmentalist comes up to me and suggests that I should reduce my carbon footprint to save the planet from global warming. I take a look around the frozen landscape, and see a couple of polar bears frolicking in the distance and I simply ask why?
canada-nunavut-western-shore-of-hudson-bay-kivalliq-region-arviat-df5y89.jpg
This is the image of what the area looks like.

And suppose I live in a place that looks like this. I am standing there next to my eskimo wife asking "why I should care about Global Warming? Isn't it cold enough already?"

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2017-04-14 01:35:14)

SpaceNut · 2017-04-22 17:03:52

18 images of climate change in Arctic....
Birds-eye view shows effects of melting Arctic ice over Greenland and Canada

How a Melting Arctic Changes Everything

Eight countries control land in the Arctic Circle. Five have coastlines to defend. The temperature is rising. The ice is melting. The world as a whole has warmed about 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.7 degrees Fahrenheit) since 1880. Arctic temperatures have risen twice that amount during the same time period. The most recent year analyzed, October 2015 to September 2016, was 3.5C warmer than the early 1900s, according to the 2016 Arctic Report Card. Northern Canada, Svalbard, Norway and Russia’s Kara Sea reached an astounding 14C (25F) higher than normal last fall.

SpaceNut · 2017-04-22 18:38:59

Water streaming across Antarctica surprises, worries scientists

Scientists have found that seasonally flowing streams fringe much of Antarctica’s ice. Here, each “X” represents a separate drainage identified by the researchers. Until now, these drainages were associated mainly with Antarctica’s far north peninsula (on the upper left).

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-04-22 18:58:48

I could probably live on this Earth, assuming the age barrier is cracked, as were probably talking about the mid 22nd century as the soonest this would happen:
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-ear … ion-2017-4

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-04-22 19:05:00

SpaceNut wrote:

18 images of climate change in Arctic....
Birds-eye view shows effects of melting Arctic ice over Greenland and Canada
How a Melting Arctic Changes Everything
Eight countries control land in the Arctic Circle. Five have coastlines to defend. The temperature is rising. The ice is melting. The world as a whole has warmed about 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.7 degrees Fahrenheit) since 1880. Arctic temperatures have risen twice that amount during the same time period. The most recent year analyzed, October 2015 to September 2016, was 3.5C warmer than the early 1900s, according to the 2016 Arctic Report Card. Northern Canada, Svalbard, Norway and Russia’s Kara Sea reached an astounding 14C (25F) higher than normal last fall.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017 … esktop.gif

A linear projection would indicate that the World woukd warm up by another 0.9 degrees Celsius by 2154 AD. As I said in my previous post, it th medical miracles occurred that would allow me to live up to the year 2154 AD, I could probably live in this world. I don't think that would melt all the ice on dry land, I think the technology t live on the ocean surface would exist in 2154 AD, I imagine a world full of robots and no jobs, people would receive a minimum salary from the government as a consequence could live anywhere
No reason to live near submerged cities like New York, no reason to commute to job, and frankly I would like a warmer climate for my retirement years anyway.

SpaceNut · 2017-04-22 20:06:45

Global Mean Sea Level is not a linear thing...
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/mapp … rise-19542

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-04-23 20:21:10

SpaceNut wrote:

Global Mean Sea Level is not a linear thing...
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/mapp … rise-19542

What will the nation's coastlines look like in the future, after global warming has had its inexorable, long-term effect on sea level rise? How many cities could be lost to permanent inundation? And which ones might we spare by cutting carbon emissions now? Explore the interactive.

You ever hear the expression, "You can't push on a string"?

It would be more efficient to take direct action to save a city than to cut carbon emissions in hopes of achieving an indirect effect of global cooling. No climate change is permanent, an increase in ocean level is never permanent.

No doubt you are thinking of this curve, this curve for climate change serves your purpose, but you don't want to use this curve for advancements in computer technology, instead you prefer this curve!

An of curse we are always near the top of the 'S' curve so we can't rely on technology to solve our climate problem, but the climate itself is the first graph to achieve maximum alarm! You want people to make sacrifices, submit to higher taxes so the government has more money to spend, so we have to learn to live in mud huts as a third world people, and that's your solution to the global warming crises, am I right?

GW Johnson · 2017-04-25 10:42:18

I've seen this thread go far astray because of political ideology/belief systems, which are false on both sides, but more so on the conservative side. You must use data and facts to decide if there is a threat, and what to do or not do about it. Ideology WILL lead you astray. It always has, as has many other belief systems. Detouring into pointless discussions about exponential versus logistics curves is nothing but bullshit. You have to face the real truth.

If you want to see a decision-making process that is utterly free of ideology, and you want to see the real data utterly free of ideology, go to http://exrocketman.blogspot.com, and view the article titled "Do We Fight Global Warming or Not?", dated 4-15-17. Be sure to search on the internet for the film indicated in that article, and view at least the last 30 minutes of that film. It will stun you. The guy who made it was a climate change skeptic when he started taking the photography (he says so in the film if you watch the whole thing). Not any more.

Calculated volume-conservation sea level rise potentials (no, it won't ALL melt!!!) are 1 m for the remaining mountain glaciers, 6 m for the that part of the Greenland ice cap above sea level, 7 m for the above-sea level ice in West Antarctica, and 20 m for the vast bulk on top of east Antarctica, all above sea level.

About 1 billion people live with 1 m of sea level, and about 3 billion within something like 3 m. There's "only" 7 billion of us. Maybe a lot less, if something like half of everything except east Antarctica melts.

Do the trade study for yourself. If there's any morality to you whatsoever, you will choose to try to avoid mass death, just like I did.

And note that I did not extremize my recommendations in that article with immediate cessation of fossil fuel use! I said do it as fast as possible without killing or injuring people for lack of energy. The morality taught by all the world's major religions (and most of the disbelievers) is to value lives over money. The choice is moral, not economic. Simple as that.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-04-25 10:44:03)

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-04-27 06:27:40

GW Johnson wrote:

I've seen this thread go far astray because of political ideology/belief systems, which are false on both sides, but more so on the conservative side.

You mean by not hewing the leftist line that "of course science is not being perverted by politics, never mind those scientists that doctored the evidence of climate change in the UK", we must believe the "Pinocchio report" is that it? When someone has lied to you, one tends not to trust that person later. I'll just assume that man caused global climate change is not happening, because the people gathering the evidence are not being honest with us, it is not a matter of questioning the scientific method or not believing in science, it is a matter of not believing those specific individuals who have called themselves scientists and who have lied to us. I don't care how dire the "chicken little" reports are. Scientists are human, they have human failings and agendas, I do not trust someone who has a history of lying telling me about global warming, especially if their career depends on there being global warming caused by humans! I believe in research for alternate energy, but primarily to reduce our dependence on imported oil from countries we cannot trust, rather than for some second order effect of reducing supposed man made global warming. My main concern is not importing oil from the middle east, and for those people not to have monopoly pricing over us, so prices at the pump don't shoot up like they have in the past. If an electric car can deliver that without the taxpayer having to subsidize them, then that's great, but otherwise, I don't want to incur this cost on society as an effort to serve "chicken little" science about "Doomsday" because the world they claim is getting warmer, and how we just can't survive those palm trees spreading north.

You must use data and facts to decide if there is a threat, and what to do or not do about it.

Who's "data," who's "facts?" I am not going to trust "Pinocchio's data," I am not going to trust "the boy who cried wolf!" If someone lied to us, he may be telling us the truth next time, but who can tell when? I'll take my chances that he may be telling the truth, because a warmer global climate doesn't sound so bad to me, a bad economy that comes with following their suggestions on what to do about global warming is what happened over the last 8 years as a result of Barack Obama's policies, I think we need a break from global warming, we gave it a good try over the last 8 years, so lets stop and see if the world has cooled any because of those policies, if the world has not, then what's the point of following them? Can you point to any specific evidence of the suggested remedy for Global Warming actually working? If not, they why incur those costs for following them? 8 years is a long time, they were an expensive 8 years, lets have some economic growth for a change, if our economy gets bigger, we'll have more resources later, or maybe better solutions that don't cost so much if global warming later turns out to be true.

Ideology WILL lead you astray. It always has, as has many other belief systems. Detouring into pointless discussions about exponential versus logistics curves is nothing but bullshit. You have to face the real truth.

Depends on whether the ideology is true or not, the abolitionist movement during Lincoln's days was an ideology, and so was the pro-slavery movement that opposed it, I wouldn't consider both of them to be on an equal footing. Some ideologies work because they deliver the goods, other ideologies work for only some people by getting others to believe in it for long enough for some people to take power at other's expense, this is how I classify the Global Warming claim, there are people who will benefit economically if we follow the proposed remedies of the Global Warming crowd, most people will not benefit however, because the remedy suggested implies higher energy costs because renewables are more expensive, the people selling us the renewables will benefit, but not us the energy consumer, and there is no way to prove that if we buy more expensive renewable energy it is actually helping the environment. I would much rather wait for the technology develops so that renewable energy becomes less expensive. We've already had 8 years of Obama an 4 years of Carter forcing these "not ready for prime time" technologies on us, it I time to take away the crutches and see how these renewables compete with fossil fuels on a level playing field, if they still cannot, then we have been wasting our money subsidizing them and by making fossil fuels more expensive, if they don't achieve the objective of making renewables more competitive after we "take away the crutches" from them, then it has not been worth it. We have had a total of 12 years of these liberal policies, that is enough sacrifice, we have sacrificed economic growth and a growing economy, our standard of living has stagnated, it is time we focused on economic growth for a change.

If you want to see a decision-making process that is utterly free of ideology, and you want to see the real data utterly free of ideology, go to http://exrocketman.blogspot.com, and view the article titled "Do We Fight Global Warming or Not?", dated 4-15-17. Be sure to search on the internet for the film indicated in that article, and view at least the last 30 minutes of that film. It will stun you. The guy who made it was a climate change skeptic when he started taking the photography (he says so in the film if you watch the whole thing). Not any more.

So he says, that is like a plant in a Faith Healing sermon, someone who claims to be blind, or paralyzed and in a wheelchair, and then at a prearranged time the faith healer goes up to him and rubs his eyes to touches his legs, and miraculously the plant says, "I can see, its a miracle!" or he gets up and walks and says, "I can walk, its a miracle!" and all the parishioners dish out the money on the collection plate and later on the Faith Healer meets with the plant and gives him his cut for a good performance. So we have to trust that they guy was a skeptic before and now he isn't, or perhaps he was, but money passed to him "under the table" "convinced" him otherwise.

Calculated volume-conservation sea level rise potentials (no, it won't ALL melt!!!) are 1 m for the remaining mountain glaciers, 6 m for the that part of the Greenland ice cap above sea level, 7 m for the above-sea level ice in West Antarctica, and 20 m for the vast bulk on top of east Antarctica, all above sea level.
About 1 billion people live with 1 m of sea level, and about 3 billion within something like 3 m. There's "only" 7 billion of us. Maybe a lot less, if something like half of everything except east Antarctica melts.

Most of those stand more than 1 meter tall, so a 1 meter rise in the oceans is not going to drown them if their heads are still above water. You know there I technology for floating, they are called boats, and they have legs, they can wade out of the rising water and onto higher dry land, you have not convinced me that they cannot!

Do the trade study for yourself. If there's any morality to you whatsoever, you will choose to try to avoid mass death, just like I did.

Why should they die? Didn't anyone give them swimming lessons? Why can't they wade out of 1 meter of water? You are assuming they act like trees with roots in the ground. Why should we care about people who insist on acting like trees and say their legs are stuck in the ground and cannot move. If we wait long enough, we will all die anyway even if there isn't any global warming. I am almost 50 years old, in another 40 years I will probably die whether there is global warming of not! I would rather spend money on medical technology that can extend my life than on fighting global warming, which will not!

And note that I did not extremize my recommendations in that article with immediate cessation of fossil fuel use! I said do it as fast as possible without killing or injuring people for lack of energy. The morality taught by all the world's major religions (and most of the disbelievers) is to value lives over money. The choice is moral, not economic. Simple as that.
GW

Money is a measure of the resource available to us that keep us alive, if we spend money to fight global warming instead of on medical technology, then more of us will die sooner. I don't think the most likely cause of my future death will be drowning due to a rise in the ocean level, more likely it will be a heart attack or cancer or some other old age ailment. I am hoping for miracles, and if we spend money on that, they will be more likely to occur, but there is a tradeoff between spending money on personal health and global health, that is why money and cost are important!

GW Johnson · 2017-04-27 09:17:04

Once again you reveal yourself for the callous ideologue that you are, Tom.

You tried to take my post apart paragraph by paragraph, but because you cannot really do it, you once again resorted to saying that my meaning was other than what exactly was written, and other than what Balog said in his film. Ascribing the wrong intent and meaning to the statements of others is a very pathetic defense mechanism, and it has little place in these forums.

From that last, I take it you refused to see even the last 30 minutes of the film, because it counters your ideological belief system, and that is simply not allowed in your limited view of the world. I pity you, unable to accept a truth even when spoon-fed, because your idiotic political belief system demands you reject it.

"Let 'em swim" is not an answer to rising sea level-induced mass migration. Migrations on that scale scale dwarf the troubles we have seen in recent years, and will lead to resource wars, probably nuclear ones. That's the mass death I was talking about, not drownings of people who won't move! Because they will move, and the rest of us have no way but war to handle it.

What I have posted over at "exrocketman" is entirely non-political. It is just data, and a logical way to make an informed choice without perfect information. Nothing more, nothing less. And the time lapse photography of glaciers receding is also just data. Nothing more, nothing less.

And I made that point without using any of the data that you claim is doctored, precisely because some of it might have been doctored, while all of it is indirect and processed, even if done honestly. My evidence is way more direct than those proxies for prehistoric global temperatures.

As for ideologies being true, none are. None ever have been. They are all lies. Including the one you so fervently believe in, Tom. That is why I do not believe in any of them.

And I am tired of you painting me as a "liberal" or "leftist" just because I should disagree with the right-wing utter crap you hold to be so true. I don't believe in that left-wing crap any more than I believe in your right-wing crap. All are lies.

At least I see that. You apparently cannot. How sad for you.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-04-27 09:22:55)

louis · 2017-04-27 17:51:03

The UK is an island (plus a bit of another island). We've lost no territory to rising sea level in the last 50 years. Coastal erosion - yes. Rising sea levels, no. And that is despite the fact half of our main island is tipping into the sea. I am v. sceptical about claims of rising sea level. Nearly all land is either rising or falling due to geological factors and short term/medium term climate effects no doubt affect sea level.

I did actually investigate this in some depth a while ago. Worst case scenarios were only 70 cms in a century, which Europe and N America could easily cope with. For poor areas like around the Ganges delta they are well used to land appearing and disappearing. They could absorb that change as well. Plus, as I mentioned half the land is rising and half sinking anyway. So a lot of land area will be counteracting that sea level rise (should it occur and that is at the extreme level of prediction).

GW Johnson · 2017-04-28 11:48:40

Hi Lois:

Two points.

(1) Some places report past trends of sea level rise, other do not. It varies. Past rise rates are quite modest, mm/year scale.

(2) What I am talking about has nothing to do with past trends. It is the risk of sudden future change that is completely out of line with past trends. (The geology supports that this has happened before.) The magnitudes are multiple meters in a few decades.

GW

louis · 2017-04-28 17:06:37

I should have added that I believe in a precautionary approach i.e. we should try and minimise our impact on the environment, particularly the atmosphere. So I do think we should be tackling CO2. It's just I am not sure we know enough about climate to understand all the causal mechanisms. I also suspect that the impact of irrigation schemes is being overlooked.

I think it very unlikely we will putting much CO2 into the atmosphere in 30 years' time. Everything suggests solar plus storage will be the cheapest energy source by then. We should then start taking out some of that CO2.

GW Johnson wrote:

Hi Lois:
Two points.
(1) Some places report past trends of sea level rise, other do not. It varies. Past rise rates are quite modest, mm/year scale.
(2) What I am talking about has nothing to do with past trends. It is the risk of sudden future change that is completely out of line with past trends. (The geology supports that this has happened before.) The magnitudes are multiple meters in a few decades.
GW

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2017-04-12 07:00:50

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#102 2017-04-12 07:07:53

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#103 2017-04-12 07:41:23

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#104 2017-04-12 11:28:58

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#105 2017-04-12 23:46:26

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#106 2017-04-13 03:38:51

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#107 2017-04-13 07:58:40

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#108 2017-04-13 08:33:36

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#109 2017-04-13 10:56:34

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#110 2017-04-13 11:08:44

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#111 2017-04-13 20:19:30

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#112 2017-04-13 22:23:29

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#113 2017-04-14 01:34:24

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#114 2017-04-22 17:03:52

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#115 2017-04-22 18:38:59

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#116 2017-04-22 18:58:48

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#117 2017-04-22 19:05:00

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#118 2017-04-22 20:06:45

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#119 2017-04-23 20:21:10

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#120 2017-04-25 10:42:18

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#121 2017-04-27 06:27:40

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#122 2017-04-27 09:17:04

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#123 2017-04-27 17:51:03

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#124 2017-04-28 11:48:40

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#125 2017-04-28 17:06:37

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

Board footer