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

[Red Light Racicot]

I would have to say the most important resource we must have is drinking water, both for our own consumption and agriculture.

 

Apparently Israel has been able to, astonishingly, obtain a surplus of drinking water. I sometimes wonder if desalination is a technology that could make or break us, and it would seem that the Israelis have stuck with it to the point where it is reliably efficient.

 

Now bear in mind this only has worked in Israel as far as I know, and I have no idea if it would be possible to get similar results in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or even California (which has been one of the driest places on Earth the last decade)

 

If we can develop it enough, make it more efficient and affordable, allowing it to fit in as part of the infrastructure of whatever countries need it, I'm thinking it would solve a generous amount of problems.

 

If nothing else, I suppose it's time to put whatever options we can think of on the table.

[Jimayo]

4 hours ago, clam linguine said:

The 97% is a good example of repeating something often enough hoping that it becomes fact.  Here is a no spin graph of sea level rises for the last 136 years.  It shows an average rise of about a sixteenth of an inch per year, a bit more since 1940  Scary eh....lol.

 

I think you spend too much time watching the CBC.

I am utterly shocked that you are a global warming denier(read moron).

[Jimayo]

5 hours ago, Fateless said:

Humans are resilient and we'll find a way to survive

Yeah, but we're sending ourselves back to the stone age.  Human civilization won't survive the pressures of significantly less food and land.

[SamJamIam]

6 hours ago, clam linguine said:

The 97% is a good example of repeating something often enough hoping that it becomes fact.  Here is a no spin graph of sea level rises for the last 136 years.  It shows an average rise of about a sixteenth of an inch per year, a bit more since 1940  Scary eh....lol.

 

I think you spend too much time watching the CBC.

Ah yes, the CBC.  Truly the cornerstone of liberal agenda.

 

This is how sea level rise works in relation to temperature: exponentially not linearly. There is a positive feedback loop here.  CO2 increases temperature which releases methane (a much more potent greenhouse gas) from permafrost. 

The exponential curve doesn't go on forever but because of the feedback mechanism, the stockpile on greenhouse gases in permafrost must be exhausted before the loop ends.  This means sea level rise doesn't stop until about the 2500s, at which point sea level rise (in meters) will be in the mid-double digits.

[Realtor Rod]

Can't was all just admit we don't know what this planet or mother nature has in store for us and saddle up for a bumpy ride.

[Kragar]

10 hours ago, Red Light Racicot said:

I would have to say the most important resource we must have is drinking water, both for our own consumption and agriculture.

 

Apparently Israel has been able to, astonishingly, obtain a surplus of drinking water. I sometimes wonder if desalination is a technology that could make or break us, and it would seem that the Israelis have stuck with it to the point where it is reliably efficient.

 

Now bear in mind this only has worked in Israel as far as I know, and I have no idea if it would be possible to get similar results in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or even California (which has been one of the driest places on Earth the last decade)

 

If we can develop it enough, make it more efficient and affordable, allowing it to fit in as part of the infrastructure of whatever countries need it, I'm thinking it would solve a generous amount of problems.

 

If nothing else, I suppose it's time to put whatever options we can think of on the table.

Huntington Beach is supposed to have their desal plant operational in 2019.  Been a long legal hassle, but there is some hope for us here.  Through the same company as the HB plant, San Diego County had their plant start running in 2015.  Both plants will provide 50M gallons per day.  Not sure how much each area consumes, but it sounds like a decent start.

 

Edit: did more digging, and a site gave an estimate usage of LA households using 365 gallons/day.  Based on that estimate, 50M gallons per day would serve the needs for 137K households.  Seems pretty significant

[Kragar]

17 hours ago, Jimayo said:

Common.  Sense.

 

Yes, it's totally feasible to build a wall along the coasts of every landmass.  Or are we just going back to walled cities everywhere that becomes below sea level?

 

How is either of those ideas remotely common sense?

Netherlands have been doing it for centuries, and seem to be pretty good at it.

 

Shockingly (/s), scientists are already discussing this.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-walls-may-be-cheaper-than-rising-waters/

 

Quote

Every country worldwide will be building walls to defend itself from rising seas within 90 years because the cost of flooding will be more expensive than the price of protective projects, researchers predict in a new study.
The encroaching seawater threatens to flood hundreds of millions of people every year by 2100 as homes that are already below flood heights, or will be, succumb to climbing oceans. If governments fail to take any action, the annual cost of damage stands to reach hundreds of billions of dollars, at best, and as high as $100 trillion under grimmer scenarios, according to the paper, published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

...

If humans build dikes, the annual cost of flooding could drop from as high as $100 trillion, in an unprotected world, to about $80 billion, Hinkel said.

 

[Nuxfanabroad]

Raging fires in California, simultaneous with epic floods in Louisiana(just following Texas, & parts of east coast).

 

D'ya think many folks forecast THIS kinda mayhem in 1980?!

 

Hard to believe the persistent existence of denialist, ostrich-analysis!

[Dittohead]

Everything is always 30 or 50 years away.....never happens

[taxi]

11 hours ago, Red Light Racicot said:

I would have to say the most important resource we must have is drinking water, both for our own consumption and agriculture.

 

Apparently Israel has been able to, astonishingly, obtain a surplus of drinking water. I sometimes wonder if desalination is a technology that could make or break us, and it would seem that the Israelis have stuck with it to the point where it is reliably efficient.

 

Now bear in mind this only has worked in Israel as far as I know, and I have no idea if it would be possible to get similar results in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or even California (which has been one of the driest places on Earth the last decade)

 

If we can develop it enough, make it more efficient and affordable, allowing it to fit in as part of the infrastructure of whatever countries need it, I'm thinking it would solve a generous amount of problems.

 

If nothing else, I suppose it's time to put whatever options we can think of on the table.

Israel has launched major projects in California:

 

http://www.jpost.com/Business-and-Innovation/Israeli-company-launches-Western-Hemispheres-largest-desalination-plant-437398

 

And Jordan:

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-economy-water-idUSKBN0LU23Z20150226

 

Neither project is complete, but both are quite large and there's no reason why they shouldn't work like they have in Israel. And it's already affordable and efficient. The technology can produce 1000 litres of drinking water for 58 cents:

 

http://ensia.com/features/how-a-new-source-of-water-is-helping-reduce-conflict-in-the-middle-east/

 

 

[RUPERTKBD]

On 8/16/2016 at 11:50 AM, 6YPE said:

Yep, pretty much... I just think its funny that people are still going on about something thats been happening for so long, and how so many people think humans are the sole reason for this change.... 

Almost no-one thinks we are the sole reason. Most understand that we are accelerating the process.

 

4 hours ago, Realtor Rod said:

Can't was all just admit we don't know what this planet or mother nature has in store for us and saddle up for a bumpy ride.

The problem with that idea is that there is a significant portion of the population who believe there is no reason to "saddle up". in fact, some (including a certain orange POTUS candidate) are in favor of ignoring the warning signs altogether and increase coal production.

 

Climate change denial is not only ignorant, it's dangerous.

[Kragar]

1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Almost no-one thinks we are the sole reason. Most understand that we are accelerating the process.

 

The problem with that idea is that there is a significant portion of the population who believe there is no reason to "saddle up". in fact, some (including a certain orange POTUS candidate) are in favor of ignoring the warning signs altogether and increase coal production.

 

Climate change denial is not only stupid, it's dangerous.

The problem is, while I can give credit to people for understanding that people aren't the sole reason, that is not the message that is communicated by the leaders of the movement.  The fingers are consistently pointed at the masses.

 

Considering what we know of our world's climate history, and the expectation that warming/cooling is cyclical even without any acceleration caused by humans, isn't it just a little more worthwhile into researching how to soften the cycles and/or what to do about it when it inevitable change occurs, rather than put so much focus onto softening the acceleration?  

 

All too often, the hysteria generated by some people makes the whole lobby look like one of those supermarket tabloids.  There have been numerous claims made in the last few decades about some devastating event happening by such and such a date.  When those dates pass with no noticeable difference, someone comes up with another similar claim and pushes the date out.  The more reckless forecasts that fail to come through, the more people will start to tune it out.  Sooner or later, more and more people will begin to question the message.

[Nuxfanabroad]

56 minutes ago, Dittohead said:

Everything is always 30 or 50 years away.....never happens

We'll still get the proverbial, hearty boot in de arse, from said mukluk..only with heating temps, it's no longer frozen.

[RUPERTKBD]

8 minutes ago, Kragar said:

The problem is, while I can give credit to people for understanding that people aren't the sole reason, that is not the message that is communicated by the leaders of the movement.  The fingers are consistently pointed at the masses.

 

Considering what we know of our world's climate history, and the expectation that warming/cooling is cyclical even without any acceleration caused by humans, isn't it just a little more worthwhile into researching how to soften the cycles and/or what to do about it when it inevitable change occurs, rather than put so much focus onto softening the acceleration?  

 

All too often, the hysteria generated by some people makes the whole lobby look like one of those supermarket tabloids.  There have been numerous claims made in the last few decades about some devastating event happening by such and such a date.  When those dates pass with no noticeable difference, someone comes up with another similar claim and pushes the date out.  The more reckless forecasts that fail to come through, the more people will start to tune it out.  Sooner or later, more and more people will begin to question the message.

Have there? Maybe you could post one. The only thing I remember off the top of my head was that silly 2012, Mayan calendar thing.

 

BTW: There have been plenty of devastating weather events in the past decade. What exactly are you waiting for? Something apocalyptic?

[6YPE]

1 hour ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Almost no-one thinks we are the sole reason. Most understand that we are accelerating the process.

 

The problem with that idea is that there is a significant portion of the population who believe there is no reason to "saddle up". in fact, some (including a certain orange POTUS candidate) are in favor of ignoring the warning signs altogether and increase coal production.

 

Climate change denial is not only ignorant, it's dangerous.

I never said I dont believe its happening, I simply meant that far too many people who ARE NOT PROFESSIONALS on the subject seem to thinks its MOSTLY human created. People look at "facts" and interpret it their way, just like you and I both have through reading, TV, and various media outlets. Until you or I have actually done the research ourselves we will never really know exactly whats happening because we are trying to decipher other peoples opinions and views on the subject.... There have been many scientists who agree that accelerated climate change has been mostly human created and I have read others who say cow farts are actually a much bigger problem than vehicle emissions and other contributing factors provided by Joe Average. We could debate the subject over and over and we would still be left with our own opinions, because we are all just using others data anyways. 

[RUPERTKBD]

3 minutes ago, 6YPE said:

I never said I dont believe its happening, I simply meant that far too many people who ARE NOT PROFESSIONALS on the subject seem to thinks its MOSTLY human created. People look at "facts" and interpret it their way, just like you and I both have through reading, TV, and various media outlets. Until you or I have actually done the research ourselves we will never really know exactly whats happening because we are trying to decipher other peoples opinions and views on the subject.... There have been many scientists who agree that accelerated climate change has been mostly human created and I have read others who say cow farts are actually a much bigger problem than vehicle emissions and other contributing factors provided by Joe Average. We could debate the subject over and over and we would still be left with our own opinions, because we are all just using others data anyways. 

To be clear, I wasn't referring to you. In this case I was referring to The Donald and others of his ilk who are pushing for increased coal output in the US.

[6YPE]

Just now, RUPERTKBD said:

To be clear, I wasn't referring to you. In this case I was referring to The Donald and others of his ilk who are pushing for increased coal output in the US.

But when you quote me and say what you did I guess you could see how I would assume you meant me? 

[Kragar]

4 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Have there? Maybe you could post one. The only thing I remember off the top of my head was that silly 2012, Mayan calendar thing.

 

BTW: There have been plenty of devastating weather events in the past decade. What exactly are you waiting for? Something apocalyptic?

I quoted a couple from this link (http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry)

Quote

United Nations “Climate Refugees”

In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) warned that imminent sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by “man-made global warming” would lead to massive population disruptions. In a handy map, the organization highlighted areas that were supposed to be particularly vulnerable in terms of producing “climate refugees.” Especially at risk were regions such as the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands, along with coastal areas.

 

The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be frantically fleeing from those regions of the globe. However, not only did the areas in question fail to produce a single “climate refugee,” by 2010, population levels for those regions were actually still soaring. In many cases, the areas that were supposed to be producing waves of “climate refugees” and becoming uninhabitable turned out to be some of the fastest-growing places on Earth.

Quote

In his second-term inaugural address, Obama also made some climate claims, saying: “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and powerful storms.” Ironically, all three of the examples he provided of what he called the “threat of climate change” actually discredit his argument.

 

As Forbes magazine pointed out last year, the number of wildfires has plummeted 15 percent since 1950, and according the National Academy of Sciences, that trend is likely to continue for decades. On “droughts,” a 2012 study published in the alarmist journal Nature noted that there has been “little change in global drought over the past 60 years.” The UN’s own climate alarmists were even forced to conclude last year that in many regions of the world, “droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter.”

Guess what?  We've had worse events long before this decade (droughts, hurricanes, fires).  Does that mean we're making things better instead?  No... it just means s#!t happens.  If these claims started to reflect reality, they would be easier to accept.  But so far, the links between the human portion of climate change and what would happen naturally are not as strong as people like you claim, or the scientific models need significant work.  Whichever of these is true, the scientists need to do better work on this theory, IMO.

 

[RUPERTKBD]

10 minutes ago, 6YPE said:

But when you quote me and say what you did I guess you could see how I would assume you meant me? 

Go back and look again. I quoted two posts.

 

Regarding yours, I said that most people don't think we are solely responsible for CC. We are accelerating the process.

 

The final line of my post was in reference to a post made by Rod.

[RUPERTKBD]

7 minutes ago, Kragar said:

I quoted a couple from this link (http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry)

Guess what?  We've had worse events long before this decade (droughts, hurricanes, fires).  Does that mean we're making things better instead?  No... it just means s#!t happens.  If these claims started to reflect reality, they would be easier to accept.  But so far, the links between the human portion of climate change and what would happen naturally are not as strong as people like you claim, or the scientific models need significant work.  Whichever of these is true, the scientists need to do better work on this theory, IMO.

 

It's interesting, because even though I searched for the original article from UNEP, it doesn't seem to exist, even though there are dozens of right wing online "sources" similar to yours that claim it does.

 

What I did find was this:

Quote

 

The claim from the original Asian Correspondent article: “In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010.” This is supposedly refuted by claiming that four islands – the Bahamas, St. Lucia, Seychelles and the Solomon Islands – have seen their populations increase. To spare the suspense: (1) based on the references the article is pointing to, no, UNEP did not predict that at all. (2) Census data from four tropical islands is not a good way to check, especially when you haven't checked what it is you're checking.

Let's start with the original source. The Asian Correspondent doesn't have any. There's a map but, as we'll see, it's not relevant. Watts, however, does respond to a commenter by giving a reference. He doesn’t actually link to it – here’s the original PDF report. There are some links provided, but none point to any page making the “fifty million climate refugees by 2050” claim. All I’ve managed to find is what appears to be a graphic screendump by Probe International, one of the many organisations devoted to revealing the terrible environmental damage being inflicted by foreign aid. (I promised myself I’d get through this post without snark. Fail #1.)

Perhaps that’s a genuine screendump, and someone at UNEP did make that headline claim – I don’t know. But on reading the report, you quickly find the first major blunder: the subject is environmental refugees, not climate refugees. I’ll spare paraphrasing and go straight to the source, Professor Norman Myers:

As far back as 1995 (latest date for a comprehensive assessment), these environmental refugees totalled at least 25 million people, compared with 27 million traditional refugees (people fleeing political oppression, religious persecution and ethnic troubles). The environmental refugees total could well double between 1995 and 2010. Moreover, it could increase steadily for a good while thereafter as growing numbers of impoverished people press ever harder on over-loaded environments. When global warming takes hold, there could be as many as 200 million people overtaken by disruptions of monsoon systems and other rainfall regimes, by droughts of unprecedented severity and duration, and by sea-level rise and coastal flooding. [1]

 

There's more if you care to read it: http://www.coveredinbees.org/node/346

 

BTW: I disagree with your claim that we've had "worse" long before this decade, outside of possibly isolated occurrences. How many Hurricanes did New York state endure in past decades?