In less then 36 years, most of Richmond, YVR, some of Surrey, Langley will be under water. Middle East to become uninhabitable.

[Kragar]

42 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Apologies if my reply sounded flippant, or disrespectful to your views. On a scale of 1~100, perhaps I'd score 70 or 75(?) on the amount of time I've committed to this subject. Perhaps you're 90, 60 or 30..of course, I've no idea. Then there's the diff paths we've walked to get here. Variation in IQ's(perhaps we're identical :^). Different data sources, & varying ability in conveying the message/info we've accumulated. All these variables boil down to why I mostly enjoy discussing issues, as opposed to debate. Nowadays, is any issue more polarizing(whilst the poles boil) than ACD, Arupt Climate Disruption?

 

I'm a slow typist, so I often try to economize thoughts/directions with an overall approach. Mostly I try for humour, though my Missus has suggested having this 'sense' surgically altered. I'm still convinced it's my most direct path to a potential Nobel(they mean so much, y'know?)..but let's not digress.

 

All us humans are debating & ruminating whether to close the barn door, long after the pintos bolted. If a person disagrees with this outlook, that's their perogative, & I'd wish them a nice day.

 

Time is limited.

 

Industrial civ has had a nasty, adverse effect upon the biosphere. The joke's on(all) of us. IC is like an airliner, where it has to keep up to speed, or we're cluching/crying with the flight attendants in a nasty descent.

 

Even issues like Fukushima have a wide, varying degree of interpretation. I don't see 'debate' doin much for that one.

 

The Permian Extinction(The Great Dying) I've heard, bears a lot of striking similarities to the current. 252,000,000 yrs ago is well beyond "thousands" as you've related, in any region. I certainly agree with you that history is a worthy topic of discussion. Lots of  admirable scientists are studying it for signs & clues, as we're well into the 6th mass extinction.

Thanks for checking... despite the ostrich reference, I never took you for being flippant, and I've taken you for one of the more respectful of the AGW supporters on CDC.  And no worries on the time taken.  Sometimes life and work get in the way of posting, and everyone has different priorities, ones which can change daily.  I know mine do... I've been due for a couple slow workdays.  Whether I spent that time wisely remains to be seen.

 

Aside from that, I'm not sure what more we can say to each other here.  If opposing ideas cannot be debated, then all that is left is an impasse.

[Nuxfanabroad]

4 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Thanks for checking... despite the ostrich reference, I never took you for being flippant, and I've taken you for one of the more respectful of the AGW supporters on CDC.  And no worries on the time taken.  Sometimes life and work get in the way of posting, and everyone has different priorities, ones which can change daily.  I know mine do... I've been due for a couple slow workdays.  Whether I spent that time wisely remains to be seen.

 

Aside from that, I'm not sure what more we can say to each other here.  If opposing ideas cannot be debated, then all that is left is an impasse.

& our timings off with 17 hrs difference, being in Asia(all kinds of hurdles!). I appreciate your words, & it'd be better if your analysis/outlook were more accurate than what I see in the proverbial PIPELINE.

 

It's for youth(have kids) that I feel real concern. In my late 40's, content with what I've seen & done.

 

There is an awareness now(a currency of information) that humanity's never had before, to spend at leisure. Time tells if some of it's monopoly money. Currency in my pocket is mostly nostalgia. Most folks tell me it's on par with Zimbabwe's coin, & other's claim it's low-level counterfeit. Opinions.

 

Environmental-spiral, geopolitics, power, resources & war. Economics, productivity, energy-expenditure & footprint, & widening gaps in most of the above. I'm afraid we've become overly focused on 1 or 2 of the above, & people/societies fail to connect the dots. Can we see the wood for the trees? Then there's 'dem nasty pine beetles!

 

Most often what you don't see coming is the real problem. Yet that was yesterday. Today we have more information than we know what to do with...

[inane]

Hey guys it's cool, the province is on this with its latest climate action plan. It takes really forward thinking, bold steps like planting more trees after they cut the old ones down and building a new super bridge. So, you know, they're on it. 

[clam linguine]

1 hour ago, inane said:

Hey guys it's cool, the province is on this with its latest climate action plan. It takes really forward thinking, bold steps like planting more trees after they cut the old ones down and building a new super bridge. So, you know, they're on it. 

haha...never mind

 

[Red Light Racicot]

On 8/18/2016 at 5:56 PM, Kragar said:

The bolded above has been my point for all of my posts here in the last 30 hours or so.  When it comes to AGW, so much of what scientists and politicians claim is so over-the-top. People who believe that AGW is a significant factor may well be right, but when their lobby continually spouts the garbage we see regularly, which is then quickly reiterated by its supporters, it makes it increasingly hard for me to accept it.

 

In my post which you just replied to, the United Nations, through the UNEP, is responsible for that particular hyperbole.  Not just a single scientist, who may or may not be part of the fringe.  I have shown in other posts that Obama and Gore have made similar half-baked claims.  When is enough enough?  Why is it wrong, stupid, or evil to demand better responsibility from our scientists and politicians?  

 

AGW deniers are often called a variety of names, including "moron" in this very thread.  Yet we are the ones more likely to dismiss the nonsensical speculation right away.  

 

Hence my numerous posts on the subject.

For what it is worth I think those kinds of insults are uncalled for and largely antithetical to any kind of discussion, as it only digs trenches.

 

However, I don't know what to tell you about Gore, because it doesn't add up.

 

Here Al Gore is saying that it will take something between 50 to 70 years for the Arctic Ice to disappear: 

 

 

[Mustapha]

As the world's population rises, so does the demand for cheap goods, namely goods that are produced in places like China. China historically has little regard for environmental standards. Adding environmental controls would add increased cost to their goods, making their products less competitive. Thus, there is no incentive to be more environmentally friendly.

 

This problem will become even worse if the TPP is enacted. The only way to actually reduce emissions is to enact mandatory regulatory policies with strict consequences if they are violated.

 

I believe in the capitalist system,  but because it is driven by supply and demand, there isn't a built in mechanism to account for environmental impact. 

 

Government has step in to regulate, and I could see a system that imposes stiff tariffs on countries that do not meet emissions standards on production of their exports. 

 

This system would only work if everyone gets onboard, which it difficult to say the least.

 

 

 

[RWMc1]

There has been air pollution from volcanoes for millions of years. What are these people complaining about?

 

[Kragar]

On 8/20/2016 at 3:18 PM, Red Light Racicot said:

For what it is worth I think those kinds of insults are uncalled for and largely antithetical to any kind of discussion, as it only digs trenches.

 

However, I don't know what to tell you about Gore, because it doesn't add up.

 

Here Al Gore is saying that it will take something between 50 to 70 years for the Arctic Ice to disappear: 

 

 

Yep, it's strange that he would change his tune two years later to something so much sooner.  It would appear that he didn't help his cause at all. I wonder what the reason was for this change in forecast.

[Nucksfollower1983]

On ‎8‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 0:08 AM, Hobble said:

Good luck getting me to fight some war and give my life because oil companies deceived the public to maximize profits, and while more diplomatic solutions are available (economic assistance, relocation, population control, etc.).

unless you are 10 I wouldn't worry about having to fight as you will most likely be too old to fight by that time. wanna suicide pact with me? 

[Nucksfollower1983]

On ‎8‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 11:02 AM, inane said:

It ain't the rich that die in wars! Lol

 

 

that's not true, think French revolution. And stop thinking about the past, the rich will be the first to die in this type of scenario as the masses will be looking for someone to blame.

[inane]

2 hours ago, Nucksfollower1983 said:

that's not true, think French revolution. And stop thinking about the past, the rich will be the first to die in this type of scenario as the masses will be looking for someone to blame.

Stop thinking about the past but your example is the French revolution? 

[Red Light Racicot]

4 hours ago, Kragar said:

Yep, it's strange that he would change his tune two years later to something so much sooner.  It would appear that he didn't help his cause at all. I wonder what the reason was for this change in forecast.

You make a good point, more then anyone we need our leaders to be reliable when it comes to this kind of thing, because they have the potential to do more damage then anyone should they neglect their responsibilities.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

11 hours ago, Kragar said:

Yep, it's strange that he would change his tune two years later to something so much sooner.  It would appear that he didn't help his cause at all. I wonder what the reason was for this change in forecast.

Money... and lots of it.

 

http://dailyheadlines.net/2016/08/george-soros-paid-al-gore-30-million-to-promote-global-warming/

 

[Kragar]

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Money... and lots of it.

 

http://dailyheadlines.net/2016/08/george-soros-paid-al-gore-30-million-to-promote-global-warming/

 

Wouldn't surprise me at all.  My first thought was that 50-70 years wasn't shocking enough, and so the lobby had to re-position their stance to gain more attention.  Of course, that could easily go hand in hand with the Soros bribe, assuming the link is correct.

[RUPERTKBD]

2 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Money... and lots of it.

 

http://dailyheadlines.net/2016/08/george-soros-paid-al-gore-30-million-to-promote-global-warming/

 

Yet another bastion of nonpartisan journalism.

 

The author is Steven H Ahle, who describes himself as the operator of a blog website dedicated to conservative values. The source for this particular story was a site called The Daily Caller.

 

Here's a wiki article I found about the Daily Caller:

 

Quote

 

In March 2013 The Daily Caller posted interviews with two women claiming that New Jersey Democratic Senator Bob Menendez had paid them for sex while he was a guest of a campaign donor.^[28] The allegation came five days before the 2012 New Jersey senate election. News organizations such as ABC News, which had also interviewed the women, the New York Times, and the New York Post declined to publish the allegations, viewing them as unsubstantiated and lacking credibility.^[29][30][31] Subsequently, one of the women who accused Menendez stated that she had been paid to falsely implicate the senator and had never met him.^[29][32] Menendez's office described the allegations as "manufactured" by a right-wing blog as a politically motivated smear.^[33]

A few weeks later, police in the Dominican Republic announced that three women had claimed they were paid $300–425 each to lie about having had sex with Menendez.^[34] Dominican law enforcement also alleged that the women had been paid to lie about Menendez by an individual claiming to work for the Daily Caller. The Daily Caller denied this allegation, stating: "At no point did any money change hands between The Daily Caller and any sources or individuals connected with this investigation".^[35] Describing what it saw as the unraveling of the Daily Caller's "scoop", the Poynter Institute wrote: "The Caller stands by its reports, though apparently doesn't feel the need to prove its allegations right"

 

It's interesting that mainstream media outlets such as the bolded declined to publish the Soros story as well.

 

Also, even if true, the article says the money was given to ACP, not to Gore personally. This is what wikipedia says about ACP:

 

Quote

 

Alliance for Climate Protection[edit]

The Alliance for Climate Protection was founded in 2006 by Al Gore to encourage civic action against climate change.^[2] The organization was founded in Palo Alto, California and later moved to Menlo Park, California before relocating to Washington D.C. in 2009.^[4][14] Originally established as a 501(c)(3), the organization later included an affiliated 501(c)(4), the Climate Protection Action Fund,^[15] which developed advocacy campaigns focused on climate change solutions through grassroots organizing and lobbying.^[16]

The organization was partially funded by proceeds donated from Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth, as well as profits from the book of the same name. Gore also donated his salary from his work for the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers and prize money from his 2007 Nobel Peace prize for a total of more than $2.7 million. The distributor of An Inconvenient Truth, Paramount Classics, also donated 5 percent of the film's box office earnings to the Alliance. The Alliance was also funded by profits from Live Earth concerts in 2007.^[5]

The Alliance encouraged federal policies that limited greenhouse gas emissions and supported low-carbon power sources.^[17] Former campaigns from the Alliance include the bipartisan "We" campaign, launched in 2008.^[18][19] The campaign, which included an advertisement called "We Can Solve It" featuring Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich jointly calling for a response to climate change, was created to prompt public action against climate change on a national and international level.^[18] The "We" campaign included partnerships with the Girl Scouts of the United States of America, the United Steelworkers of America and the National Audubon Society.^[4][14] The same year, the Alliance launched the "Repower America" campaign to support Gore's directive to shift American homes to 100 percent clean energy within 10 years. This campaign supported climate change legislation in the United States^[14][18] and, according to The Washington Post in 2008, was one of the farthest reaching public advocacy initiatives in recent history.^[5]

Also in 2008, the Alliance created the Reality Coalition in partnership with the National Wildlife Federation, the League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club. The Reality Coalition used television, print and online advertisements as well as grassroots events to challenge the idea of clean coal.^[20][21]

 

 

[Heretic]

Apparently, four Studies Find ‘No Observable Sea-Level Effect’ From Man-Made Global Warming:

 

(CNSNews.com) – Ten years after former Vice President Al Gore warned in his 2006 Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth, that if nothing was done to stop man-made global warming, melting Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets could raise sea levels by up to 20 feet, four peer-reviewed scientific studies found “no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming.”

“It is widely assumed that sea levels have been rising in recent decades largely in response to anthropogenic global warming,” Kenneth Richard writes atNoTricksZone. “However, due to the inherently large contribution of natural oscillatory influences on sea level fluctuations, this assumption lacks substantiation….

“Scientists who have recently attempted to detect an anthropogenic signal in regional sea level rise trends have had to admit that there is ‘no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming’,” Richard points out, listing four peer-reviewed studies published this year that have all come to the same conclusion.

In a paper published on May 18, Hindumathi Palanisamy at the Laboratoire d’Etudes en Geophysique et Oceanograhie Spatiales (LEGOS) in Toulouse, France and her co-authors explain that “sea level is an integrated climate parameter that involves interactions of all components of the climate system (oceans, ice sheets, glaciers, atmosphere, and land water reservoirs) on a wide range of spatial and temporal scales….

“Since 1993, sea level variations have been measured precisely by satellite altimetry. They indicated a faster sea level rise of 3.3 mm/yr over 1993-2015. Owing to their global coverage, they also reveal a strong regional seal level variability that sometimes is several times greater than the global mean sea level rise,” the researchers state.

“Considering the highly negative impact of sea level rise for society, monitoring sea level change and understanding its causes are henceforth high priorities.”

Comparing sea level changes between 1950 and 2009 in the Indian Ocean, South China and Caribbean Seas, Palanisamy’s team found that the “tropical Pacific displays the highest magnitude of sea level variations.”

the remaining residual sea level trend pattern does not correspond to externally forced anthropogenic sea level signalHowever, by studying “sea level spatial trend patterns in the tropical Pacific and attempting to eliminate signal corresponding to the main internal climate mode, we show that the remaining residual sea level trend pattern does not correspond to externally forced anthropogenic sea level signal.”

Another group of scientists led by Mohammad Hadi Bordbar from the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany also concluded in a study published in April that the recent sea level trends in the tropical Pacific “are still within the range of long-term internal decadal variability.

“Further, such variability strengthens in response to enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations, which may further hinder detection of anthropogenic climate signals in that region,” the study found.

 

 

 

 

In another study also published in April, a research team led by Sonke Dangendorf of the Research Institute for Water and Environment at the University of Siegen, Germany said that “superimposed on any anthropogenic trend there are also considerable decadal to centennial signals linked to intrinsic natural variability in the climate system… In the Arctic, for instance, the casual uncertainties are even up to 8 times larger than previously thought.

“This result is consistent with recent findings that beside the anthropogenic signature, a non-negligible fraction of the observed 20^th century sea level rise still represents a response to pre-industrial natural climate variations such as the Little Ice Age” – a period of low temperatures which occurred between 1300 and 1850.

In a fourth paper published online in January in the Journal of Coastal Research, lead author Jens Morten Hansen of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland and his co-authors studied sea level patterns from the eastern North Sea to the central Baltic Sea over a 160-year period (1849-2009).

“Identification of oscillators and general trends over 160 years would be of great importance for distinguishing long-term, natural developments from possible, more recent anthropogenic sea-level changes,” the researchers note.

“However, we found that a possible candidate for such anthropogenic development, i.e. the large sea-level rise after 1970, is completely contained by the found small residuals, long-term oscillators, and general trend. Thus, we found that there is (yet) no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming in the world's best recorded region.”

In addition, the Earth’s coasts actually gained land over the past 30 years, according to another study published August 25 in Nature Climate Change.

Researchers led by Gennadii Donchyts from the Deltares Research Institute in the Netherlands found that the Earth’s surface gained a total of 58,000 square kilometers (22,393 square miles) of land over the past 30 years, including 33,700 sq. km. (13,000 sq. mi.) in coastal areas.

“We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” study co-author Fedor Baart told the BBC.

“We were able to create more land than sea level rising was taking.”

 

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/4-peer-reviewed-studies-find-no-observable-sea-level-effect-man

 

 

Earth's surface gained 115,000 km² of water and 173,000 km² of land over the past 30 years, including 20,135 km² of water and 33,700 km² of land in coastal areas. Here, we analyse the gains and losses through the Deltares Aqua Monitor — an open tool that detects land and water changes around the globe.

 

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n9/full/nclimate3111.html

[clam linguine]

  What do you think about this.

[ReggieBush]

On 8/16/2016 at 2:57 AM, milk and honey said:

well if war does happen and this is true then the world won't have a population problem anymore. 

 

I wonder if Canada would force all physically able men and women to go to war in the event of WWIII. 

 

F that. If I wanted to join the armed forces then I would. To send any able-bodied man or women would be horrible. There is so much training involved, that I doubt necessary measures would be taken to ensure that each person is properly trained.

[PhillipBlunt]

On ‎8‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 0:08 AM, Hobble said:

Good luck getting me to fight some war and give my life because oil companies deceived the public to maximize profits, and while more diplomatic solutions are available (economic assistance, relocation, population control, etc.).

Generals gathered in their masses!

[JM_]

On August 15, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Twilight Sparkle said:

 i'm going to neptune

 

 

Want company?