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

[sumdumguy]

I can just imagine how hard it is for a scientist to refute the work that he has been part of for a good part of his working career. He most likely has signed a gag order-non disclosure agreement. Add to that the likelihood that his social order has included the “ scientific” community. Likely that would be the last time he would get invited to the annual Xmas party and every other social function that he was included in prior to his refutation. Remember this hoax is a major part of every source of funding to the scientists and the economic impact on society would be noticed. What would happen if people ignore the fear mongers and everyone quits wasting money on “the carbon hoax”?

[dmlfarmer]

[QUOTE=AlbertaFarmer5;418616]Yes, there is absolute certainty that sea levels are rising, that certainty comes from the fact that they started rising long before anthropogenic CO2 was an issue..... Even DML was smart enough to abandon ship when he knew the answer wouldn't suit the agenda [QUOTE]

BS. I have not abandoned ship in any way! I simply refuse to waste my time responding if no one is willing to critically exam their own beliefs. I still follow the posts because it provides me with the questions I use to question my belief that climate change is real and in large part a result of human actions.

Yes, climate has always changed and always will because of natural factors. But to claim man has no impact on climate is head in the sand thinking. In a large part fossil fuels are simply stored solar energy, captured by plants (and indirectly by animals) chemically converted into matter and then over long periods the decaying matter becomes fossil fuels. In the last hundred years man has inefficiently released millions of years of a huge amount of that stored energy releasing the chemical bonds and carbon back into the environment, both as waste heat and greenhouse gasses. Even the cities and roadways we build using that stored energy capture more solar energy, which over the long term impacts climate.

Is it possible to give with 100% certainty what portion of the observable impacts of climate change is attributable to man and what part to nature - of course not; so to demand such proof is unreasonable. But I do get a laugh out of the people making such demands are the same ones who unable or refuse to provide measurable data and criteria on the impact the current CO2 levels of over 400ppm will have on the climate (after discounting for all other factors).

This is not to say science has not tried and I will refer you to 10peer reviewed studies and papers which all claim man's impact on climate is much more than the natural causes.
Tett et al. 2000
Meehl et al. 2004
Stone et al. 2007
Lean and Rind 2008
Huber and Knutti 2011
Gillett et al. 2012
Wigley and Santer 2012
Jones et al. 2013
IPCC AR5
Ribes et al. 2016
In fact some of these studies agree with AF5 that we are naturally entering a global cooling period, but mans impact is so large it is negating the cooling expected. (As an aside - interesting that while we are seeing the highest Arctic temps ever recorded, Europe and other parts of the world are setting temp records we are also at the bottom of the 11 year sunspot cycle Hummmmm)

But rather critically read such studies and come to your own conclusions, guys like Jazz post propaganda like the 3 pictures of Fort Denison to prove sea levels are not rising. Take note there is no reference as to tide levels at the time of photos, atmospheric pressure, ocean temps, time of year, ocean currents, all of which impact sea level. Tide alone at Fort Denison change sea levels by about 2 meters between high and low tide each and every day. And I should point out, in the last decade Australia has done an impact study on the effect rising sea levels will have on Fort Denison. Funny they did this if sea levels are not rising as Jazz claims.

Climate change has become way to politized. The funny part is if you read both the Liberal policy and Conservative policy, they both have the same CO2 targets. The pathway for the Liberals is based on a visible but much hated carbon tax which is to be used to fund green initiatives and reduce demand. On the other hand the Conservative policy calls for penalties for emissions and incentives for reduction. But as farmers we should be well aware that any costs placed on the corporate Canada are priced in and passed on to consumers. Just like tariffs, the bottom line is the consumer pays either way for any attempts to mitigate climate change. So do you prefer a visible tax or hidden tax?

But the point that everyone is missing, is agriculture could be a huge part of the solution and as farmers we should be demanding our share of funds for mitigating climate change. Instead we are still caught up in the argument if man made climate change is real. WE are fighting amongst ourselves rather than milking the climate change cow for all it is worth. Too many are demanding proof of climate change instead of payment for farming practices that reduce climate change.

[dmlfarmer]

Interestingly, a main argument against doing anything is the amount of CO2 Canada contributes is so little any thing we do will not stop climate change. I wonder how much CO2 Ethiopia contributes, yet in one day this week the country's citizen set a world record for planting 350,000,000 trees in 12 hours in an effort to mitigate climate change.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-49151523

[dmlfarmer]

And if it climate change did not prose real economic risk, why did Moody's just buy a climate data firm and warn cities it would be introducing a climate change risk consideration for credit ratings for cities and counties?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/climate/moodys-ratings-climate-change-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/climate/moodys-ratings-climate-change-data.html

[farmaholic]

I would like to response to dml's post in a positive way.

Release of stored energy, whether fossil fuels or Earth's own core "condensates"...... there is some truth to that. I don't believe deep oil has anything to do with organic life, shallow coal beds are another story.....I can buy that. But anything "burned" releases energy in the form of heat and other gases.

Cities are always warmer than the countryside, pavement and concrete and too many vehicles and seasonal heating/cooling of buildings. There are some vast heavily populated areas. Do they outweigh the huge sparsely populated areas in comparison?

Then there's the natural cycles of the sun and it's affects on our weather.


How delicate is the balance? I don't know.

Are things changing at a quicker pace than the inevitable changes seen in the past, from the beginning of time? I don't know.....we are only looking at a minute fragment in time, I think it's hard to ascertain anything from it.

If reducing some "fuel" use helps reduce pollution.....that would be a good thing, but to say it will have an affect on the weather/climate.....I don't know.

I don't know how anyone can come in on only one side of the debate. I believe there will always be change but how much of an effect human activity is having on that change is whats up for debate.

I think it possible to have a foot on both sides of the line in the sand.

Is the human race smug enough to believe it can affect climate? Or are we?

How do you explain an environment that supported both dinosaur life and glaciation at the same spot on the earth?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Well, thankfully DML came to perform some damage control after Chuck wouldn't quit digging himself deeper into the hole. Might need to keep Chuck on a shorter leash, to avoid having such inconvenient figures publicized.

I don't have the ability to review the papers from my tractor seat today, DML, could you possibly provide the confidence those authors offer for their calculations?

But, more importantly, Thanks to Chuck's persistence and hard work we have already established a range of human vs natural input into SLR, and we're now moving on to gauging what the appropriate solution shoud be, given that we now know that a significant portion of SLR is inevitable, regardless how much or little CO2 we release from now on. Do you think that devoting all of our resources, capital, political capital, and best and brightest minds to CO2 in the face on inevitable SLR, is the best use of those finite resources?

Can you elaborate on that please?

[jazz]

And if it climate change did not prose real economic risk, why did Moody's just buy a climate data firm and warn cities it would be introducing a climate change risk consideration for credit ratings for cities and counties?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/climate/moodys-ratings-climate-change-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/climate/moodys-ratings-climate-change-data.html

dml if you are the poster child for critical thinking and challenging your beliefs they we are doomed and it wont be climate change that does us in.

FFS Moodys just jumped onto the entire carbon tax climate change scam and hope to ride the profits coming in. Its as plain as day. Remember Moodys are the ones who listed the US sub prime housing market as AAA back in 2008. Good god we have some sheep at the wheel.

If climate change was real, there would be a crash program like atom bomb put together and it would include mitigating our runaway populations, advancing fusion tech by leaps and bounds instead of playing with it, scientist that come up with solutions instead of submitting funding requests called the impacts of climate change on mice on a wheel type research and a program to move all liberals from the coasts to the interior of the country. Until I hear anything like that I will relentlessly attack this boondoggle.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

A5 glad to see you have accepted that human caused climate change and global warming is accelerating sea level rise. We have made progress!

How about if you leave the patronizing comments to me, and you stick with the insults, name calling and denier labelling, OK?

That was my shtick first, and it just isn't becoming of you.

[jazz]

Don't worry about climate change, our climate crusaders are on top of it right chuck, dml?

https://pagesix.com/2019/07/30/a-listers-flock-to-google-summit-in-private-jets-mega-yachts-to-talk-climate-change/ A-listers flock to Google summit in private jets, mega yachts to talk climate change

Strangely Leo owns a property about 20 ft from the ocean in malibu. Wonder if he has heard about the rapidly rising sea levels. fn hypocrite.

[fjlip]

Remember this hoax is a major part of every source of funding to the scientists and the economic impact on society would be noticed. What would happen if people ignore the fear mongers and everyone quits wasting money on “the carbon hoax”?

Perfectly said...
Heard a good comment on Fox today, If the Climate Emergency is not a giant scam, every scaremonger should STOP THE F*CK flying in planes! Till that happens we know it's all BULLSHIT!

Perfectly said...Many of the guests, including Obama and DiCaprio — who has his own climate change foundation — have described global warming as the biggest threat to future generations.

But according to Italian press reports, the attendees were expected to show up in 114 private jets, and 40 had arrived by Sunday.

The Post crunched the numbers and found that 114 first class seats from Los Angeles to Palermo, Italy, where Camp guests landed, would spew an estimated 784,000 kilograms of CO2 into the air.

Lying two faced bastards