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

[AlbertaFarmer5]

very high confidence (greater than 90% chance) that global mean sea level will rise at least 8 inches (0.2 meter) but no more than 6.6 feet (2.0 meters) by 2100.

And once again this is the type of prediction which is being passed off as science, and governments are making policy based on. Please read it carefully.

They are very confident that sea level rise will be equal to what it has been for the past few centuries, or 20 times higher than that, or anywhere inbetween. And they are ONLY 90% confident of that range. I would give a range that broad a full 100% chance.

Chuck, If I come and look at your canola crop in August, and I state that I am 90% sure it will yield between 20 and 400 bushels per acre, will that 90% number give you the confidence to forward sell at least 200 bushels per acre, after all, that is only half of my 90% confidence interval?

Likewise, how much taxpayer money should we be willing to spend based on a prediction so broad it is beyond meaningless. This stuff would be hilarious if we didn't have gullible, incompetent and corrupt government leaders wasting billions based on predictions so vague they are worthless.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

In 2017, global sea level was 3 inches (77 mm) above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present).

Gee, that sounds really ominously scary doesn't it, highest ever in the satellite Era. Now refer back to your long term graph from NASA, how many years since 1870 have been record high sea levels? If you answered almost every one, you would be correct, and if you went back to the height of the little ice age, or the last glaciation, you would find the same thing. Almost every year is higher than the previous. Doesn't sound quite as scary now, does it. The fact that it is record high tells us nothing about the cause. All ittells us is that the millenia long, relentless, uptrend in sea level continues unabated.

No, if we are going to make responsible and practical public policy decisions regarding SLR, First we need to quantify how much is natural and inevitable, How much is human caused and therefore preventable possibly even reversible. Should we be focusing our efforts and money on prevention or adaptation ? If the Natural and inevitable portion is the more significant, and we spend our scarce resources on prevention for the next 50 years, we will be woefully unprepared and unable to adapt when the inevitable occurs. Likewise, it would be a shame to spend all our resources adapting if it could have been prevented. Or some balance between the two.

It is now painfully apparent that Chuck and DML, and all of their propaganda sources do not know the answer, and will make no effort to find out.

[Guest]

The scam is quickly coming to an end
The schysters know they have lost, we know it , they know it , trump certainly knows it , but they refuse to give up
Most people that are die hards now are simply in it for the money
And no doubt ,solar, wind , hydro , NG generation , clean coal and even nuclear all have their place but none is a one size fits all ?
Certainly solar would work much better for mallee than in this god foresaken frozen place
But quit the bullshit , they will all get their moment in the sun when theyre ready and in the right locale

[AlbertaFarmer5]

The scam is quickly coming to an end
The schysters know they have lost, we know it , they know it , trump certainly knows it , but they refuse to give up
Most people that are die hards now are simply in it for the money

It is certainly indicative of their desperation and how many have fled the cause when after scraping the bottom of the barrel, the best spokesperson tgey could send us is Chuck, who can't even figure out if sea levels would be rising, falling, or constant without human influences, but still doesn't let that stop him from being the foremost authority he knows on the subject.

[jazz]

I for one have to credit chuck for his devotion to his delusion. Not many people with that kind if dedication. But math always seems to get in the way.

So its a climate emergency. Canada has to get down to 2000 levels or whatever to save the planet in 12 years. Best place to start would be home electricity. There are 10M house holds in Canada. each would need about 4000w in panels to go off FF based generation. Panels costs about $2.50 a watt.

10M homes x 4000 watts x $2.50 per watt = $100,000,000B

That's exactly what Trudeau spent in 4 years into thin air and supporting climate change in other countries. Yeah its serious alright. Seriously scary anyone falls for this.

[fjlip]

So its a climate emergency. Canada has to get down to 2000 levels or whatever to save the planet in 12 years.

1.6% of world's CO2 contribution, if we TOTALLY disappeared the planet would NOT notice! Who gives a SHIT even if it is true, but I also am totally unconvinced a clueless denier.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I for one have to credit chuck for his devotion to his delusion. Not many people with that kind if dedication. But math always seems to get in the way.

Yes, I too really admire Chucks dedication to a cause which he obviously feels very strongly about. It is just very puzzling how someone with such strong opinions and beliefs in a cause would put so little effort into understanding and learning everything possible about it. This is not the typical fanatisism when the adherents are so enamoured with something that they live and breath it, and lap up every tidbit of information that is available.

[chuckChuck]

From the Smithsonian
https://ocean.si.edu/through-time/ancient-seas/sea-level-rise
Over the past 20,000 years or so, sea level has climbed some 400 feet (120 meters). As the climate warmed as part of a natural cycle, ice melted and glaciers retreated until ice sheets remained only at the poles and at the peaks of mountains. Early on, the sea rose rapidly, sometimes at rates greater than 10 feet (3 meters) per century, and then continued to grow in spurts of rapid sea level rise until about 7,000 years ago. Then, the climate stabilized and sea level rise slowed, holding largely steady for most of the last 2,000 years, based on records from corals and sediment cores. Now, however, sea level is on the rise again, rising faster now than it has in the past 6,000 years. The oldest tide gauges and coastal sediment preserved beneath swamps and marshes show that sea level began to rise around 1850, which is right around the time people started burning coal to propel steam engine trains, and it hasn't stopped since. The climate likely started warming as a part of a natural cycle, but the accelerated warming in the last two hundred years or so is due to a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The resulting rise in sea level is likely twice what we would have seen without the increase in greenhouse gasses due to human activities.

[pgluca]

Yes, I too really admire Chucks dedication to a cause which he obviously feels very strongly about. It is just very puzzling how someone with such strong opinions and beliefs in a cause would put so little effort into understanding and learning everything possible about it. This is not the typical fanatisism when the adherents are so enamoured with something that they live and breath it, and lap up every tidbit of information that is available.

AlbertaFarmer5 I am obviously persona non grata on this web site Chuck wasn't open minded enough to watch this maybe you will. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ&feature=youtu.be

[chuckChuck]

You guys are looking so far up your own asses for answers that you don't realize how out of touch you are with the climate science.

You spent most of the last few posts discussing me instead of presenting any evidence from a credible scientific source to prove your point.

Not one Conservative political leader in Canada disagrees with the current climate science, but you eggheads persist in your flat earth views. LOL