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

[Hamloc]

Tell me Hamloc, if you put a large pot of water on your stove to boil and turn the burner on, does the water instantly boil? So if you do not expect instant boiling when heating a pot of water, why do you think it is a valid argument that the earth must instantly heat to the level of 20 million years ago as CO2 increases to that level over just the few decades.

Let me get this straight, I reread your earlier post, paraphrased you said that the last time the earth was over 400 ppm was 20 million years ago. I misquoted you because you actually said ocean levels were 250 feet higher and average temps 3 to 6 degrees higher. From your above response you obviously believe that similar levels are in our future. Even if all the nations who signed on to the Paris accord achieve the agreed to reductions, C02 levels will continue to rise. Therefore it would seem to me that the 2 most important things that governments around the world should be doing are first identifying coastal populations most at risk from the rise in sea levels and relocating them and second is adaptation to the higher temperatures, looking at our food sources, water sources, housing and public infrastructure and how they will need to change to cope with this different climate. Let's compare that to what the present progressive message is. You have said over 400 pm 3-6 degree temp rise, what the progressive's say, we must get to 0 C02 emissions by 2050 to limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. According to your historical data we already have enough C02 in the atmosphere to far exceed 1.5 degrees. Do you see the contradiction? According to you historical data we are already to the point where planning for adaption is what we should be doing!

[farming101]

exactly Hamloc, exactly....

[jazz]

Don't fall for dml psudo stats whipped up by ivory tower research boys working with your money. These are the guys that will watch lab mice run through mazes for a decade. The science community exists 100% on the public dime and they needed a steady flow of research money so they can do more mouse experiments. What better thing to cook up than a bogus climate emergency based on the most thin unverifiable science there is.

Thee were times when the earth had 4000 ppm CO2 and here it still is. Somehow ice ages happened after those levels. Where did the CO2 go. Right, the earth is not a closed system, it is non linear and chaotic at the same time. It CAN NEVER be modelled accurately. 1.5deg is well within the natural variation of such system.

If it were a dire emergency then we would be evacuating those coasts and encouraging people to move inland even paying them to do so. Not happening because its not real. Its just a shame tax grab and wealth distribution all rolled into one.

[blackpowder]

Reminds me of my last girlfriend.

[dmlfarmer]

...Therefore it would seem to me that the 2 most important things that governments around the world should be doing are first identifying coastal populations most at risk from the rise in sea levels and relocating them and second is adaptation to the higher temperatures, looking at our food sources, water sources, housing and public infrastructure and how they will need to change to cope with this different climate...

If sea levels rise just 6 feet, 650 million people will be displaced globablly. Who is going to pay for all this relocation and the costs of adaptation? We know for sure no one is willing to see an increase in taxes to deal with climate change so where does the money come from Hamlock and Jazz if that is what we should be doing? Who funds research into adaptation you call for? You don't trust governments to do it, reading the posts it sounds like many feel all scientists are l on the take and fake the research, and big business are stealing all your profits so how are we know how to adapt. You think illegal immigration is bad today, wait until hundreds of millions of people lose their homes due to flooding and they have no where to go.

Are we at the point of no return as you claim I am stating? I don't know, that it why I have asked numerous times what the effect of our current CO2 levels will have on temperature, precipitation, and human society and not a single person has responded. You demand facts, well the fact is ever since man has walked the earth we have never had over 300ppm of CO2; a fact that is either lost on you or you choose to ignore. Jazz claims no problem because prehistoric levels were even higher, but what would society today look like on a world that has lost most of the current coastline? The prairies were a shallow inland sea that that time to. Another point lost on Jazz.

My greatest fear is if we continue to ignore and deny a very real problem, society is going to impose solutions that are possibly even worse than the problem.

[jazz]

My greatest fear is if we continue to ignore and deny a very real problem, society is going to impose solutions that are possibly even worse than the problem.

You are talking about conditions that existed almost 100 million years ago. The inland sea was as much due to tectonic forces as it was sea levels. If all the ice on the planet melted it would never flood that corridor again. This is alarmism beyond all reason.

If there is a sea level rise, its mm per yr right now which is offset by rising crust levels. If all the ice started melting rapidly it would still take hundreds of years to be gone. We would need a global temp rise in the double digits to start that event. With the tilt on the axis in the winter months, there is really no way the northern or southern poles could ever be ice free. They just don't get enough sunlight. That's a simple geometry fact. Try seeing what a greenhouse (the climate alarmists favourite metaphor) does when you turn off the external energy source.

What will happen, if it is even a threat at all, is incremental adaptation by people. Just like Venice, the Netherlands, LA we will adapt slowly over time. We have LOTS of time and LOTS of land. In 100 yrs there will be a lot less people on the planet to worry about just from natural decline in birth rates. There are lots bigger problems to go after like real pollution, food security, water, and arable land being eaten up by mega cities.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

If sea levels rise just 6 feet, 650 million people will be displaced globablly. Who is going to pay for all this relocation and the costs of adaptation? We know for sure no one is willing to see an increase in taxes to deal with climate change so where does the money come from Hamlock and Jazz if that is what we should be doing? Who funds research into adaptation you call for? You don't trust governments to do it, reading the posts it sounds like many feel all scientists are l on the take and fake the research, and big business are stealing all your profits so how are we know how to adapt. You think illegal immigration is bad today, wait until hundreds of millions of people lose their homes due to flooding and they have no where to go.

Are we at the point of no return as you claim I am stating? I don't know, that it why I have asked numerous times what the effect of our current CO2 levels will have on temperature, precipitation, and human society and not a single person has responded. You demand facts, well the fact is ever since man has walked the earth we have never had over 300ppm of CO2; a fact that is either lost on you or you choose to ignore. Jazz claims no problem because prehistoric levels were even higher, but what would society today look like on a world that has lost most of the current coastline? The prairies were a shallow inland sea that that time to. Another point lost on Jazz.

My greatest fear is if we continue to ignore and deny a very real problem, society is going to impose solutions that are possibly even worse than the problem.

What are the confidence levels to be able to differentiate the human caused sea level rise, with the natural ongoing sea level rise? All of the scary scenarios you present are going to happen sooner or later with or without humans emitting CO2, can you tell us exactly how much sooner they will occur due to 410 ppm vs. pre-industrial levels? We will need to vacate all of the low lying coastal areas eventually, as has been happening for millenia thanks to natural SLR. Doggerland is a perfect example. The alarmists love to confuse sea level rise with SLR acceleration( which can be positive or negative depending on the era), all the while ignoring the fact that SLR is natural and unavoidable during an interglacial period, which, thankfully we are still in last I checked.

[dmlfarmer]

...But as for providing facts to support the null hypothesis, that is not a requirement of the scientific process, it is the responsibility of the party presenting the radical proposition that is not supported by all observed evidence to prove their theory, and disprove the null hypothesis. Science doesn't have to prove that the solar system isn't earth centric every time a crackpot claims the sun revolves around the earth.

When your side starts presenting some actual evidence of catastrophic warming, then I will concern myself with the cause.

If real world, real time observations aren't permissible evidence in your circles, then I guess you will have to stick with your models, and keep trying to make the data fit the models.

PURE BS. Science is much more than just the scientific method. Science is observing, identifying, investigation through experimentation and presenting theoretical explanation of natural phenomena. Science is seeking knowledge and truth and not just denying what is false.

There are plenty of real world, real time observations of man made climate change. CO2 levels, Sea level rise, global temperature data, changes in weather patterns (wind, rain, frost free days) that are sourced and peer reviewed and I have presented those when asked.

Your refusal to back any of your claims with verifiable facts or sources reminds me of the denial that smoking causes cancer. I wonder how many lives would have been saved if tobacco companies and special interest lobbyists had to support their view that smoking was not unhealthy instead of demanding science proves without a doubt that smoking is harmful.

Science gave us vaccinations. Yet Dr. Wakefield, with a now discredited study linking vaccinations to autism has resulted in an anti vax movement that is resulting is the return of controlled diseases like measles.

Science gave us GMOs and gene editing, which have scientifically been shown to result in food products no different than non GMO products. However, persons like the food babe, have been able to put a fear in consumers of these food products, by simply implying these are bad for you. Same arguments you use: It has to be proven with 100% certainty that GMOs will not harm consumers and until you can do that they must be considered bad for you and I do not have to prove GMOs are bad, you have to prove they are not bad.

Science gave us Roundup, one of the safest and best herbicides available. Yet the declaration of ONE non science body that it may cause cancer may cost us this wonderful product for the same reasons you give re climate change. glyphosate opponents claim it has to be proven without a doubt glyphosate does not cause cancer instead of having to prove that it does. Most on here despite Austranada demonization of glyphosate yet use the same arguments Austranada uses to deny climate change.

Science should not be political, yet it seems most arguments against the science of climate change are. You either believe in science and the search for knowledge and truth and that means supporting your position not just demanding proof of the other side.

[sumdumguy]

REAL scientists demand proof . Just concocting data and declaring that the ice is melting when proof exists that ice has actually extended to join continents, not seen before and animals are using the new passages to travel between continents. Sorry, your “scientists” are so blatantly lying and spewing propaganda daily to support a bought and paid for agenda for their own end that only the very foolish would believe the fable. When I see the “believers” halt their travel and take to devoting their lives to planting trees instead, I might even think that they believe the “statistics” they are pontificating.

[jazz]

PURE BS. Science is much more than just the scientific method. Science is observing, identifying, investigation through experimentation and presenting theoretical explanation of natural phenomena. Science is seeking knowledge and truth and not just denying what is false.

There are plenty of real world, real time observations of man made climate change. CO2 levels, Sea level rise, global temperature data, changes in weather patterns (wind, rain, frost free days) that are sourced and peer reviewed and I have presented those when asked.

Your refusal to back any of your claims with verifiable facts or sources reminds me of the denial that smoking causes cancer. I wonder how many lives would have been saved if tobacco companies and special interest lobbyists had to support their view that smoking was not unhealthy instead of demanding science proves without a doubt that smoking is harmful.

Science gave us vaccinations. Yet Dr. Wakefield, with a now discredited study linking vaccinations to autism has resulted in an anti vax movement that is resulting is the return of controlled diseases like measles.

Science gave us GMOs and gene editing, which have scientifically been shown to result in food products no different than non GMO products. However, persons like the food babe, have been able to put a fear in consumers of these food products, by simply implying these are bad for you. Same arguments you use: It has to be proven with 100% certainty that GMOs will not harm consumers and until you can do that they must be considered bad for you and I do not have to prove GMOs are bad, you have to prove they are not bad.

Science gave us Roundup, one of the safest and best herbicides available. Yet the declaration of ONE non science body that it may cause cancer may cost us this wonderful product for the same reasons you give re climate change. glyphosate opponents claim it has to be proven without a doubt glyphosate does not cause cancer instead of having to prove that it does. Most on here despite Austranada demonization of glyphosate yet use the same arguments Austranada uses to deny climate change.

Science should not be political, yet it seems most arguments against the science of climate change are. You either believe in science and the search for knowledge and truth and that means supporting your position not just demanding proof of the other side.

You forget the main tenant of science, it has to be testable, reproducible and verifiable and match theory with ground truthing. None of those apply to climate change modelling do they? Buts that's the whole point of a scam like that. IPCC has stated many times glaciers would be gone and poles ice free. That doesn't really agree with whats happening in Glacier Park and the 30% increase in Arctic ice. That would cause a reputable scientist to go relook at the data and model and tweak it because it didn't jive. Is that what these scientists do? Nope, they write a bunch of scary articles and double down with the compliant MSM and politicians in their pocket. Climate change is basically a perpetual research money stream. It never ends.

And science should never overrule democracy. Those example you gave all involve personal choice. I can choose not to use glyphosate if I think its dangerous. I can choose not to eat GMOs and I can choose what vaccines I want to take. I cannot choose to not contribute to a carbon tax that has no real end purpose. Your pseudo science should not override my free choice.

[furrowtickler]

Good discussion, I will just sit back and watch the debate 👍👍👍

[blackpowder]

Niels Bohr said: “Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.”

[Guest]

well , the nice thing is that the horseshit is being revealed , thanks to mr trump, and the internet
very soon we will not be allowed to debunk glowbullshit warming horseshit online

[flea beetle]

If sea levels rise just 6 feet, 650 million people will be displaced globablly. Who is going to pay for all this relocation and the costs of adaptation? We know for sure no one is willing to see an increase in taxes to deal with climate change so where does the money come from Hamlock and Jazz if that is what we should be doing? Who funds research into adaptation you call for? You don't trust governments to do it, reading the posts it sounds like many feel all scientists are l on the take and fake the research, and big business are stealing all your profits so how are we know how to adapt. You think illegal immigration is bad today, wait until hundreds of millions of people lose their homes due to flooding and they have no where to go.

Are we at the point of no return as you claim I am stating? I don't know, that it why I have asked numerous times what the effect of our current CO2 levels will have on temperature, precipitation, and human society and not a single person has responded. You demand facts, well the fact is ever since man has walked the earth we have never had over 300ppm of CO2; a fact that is either lost on you or you choose to ignore. Jazz claims no problem because prehistoric levels were even higher, but what would society today look like on a world that has lost most of the current coastline? The prairies were a shallow inland sea that that time to. Another point lost on Jazz.

My greatest fear is if we continue to ignore and deny a very real problem, society is going to impose solutions that are possibly even worse than the problem.

You obviously never watched the links I provided

[furrowtickler]

You obviously never watched the links I provided

No most likely not . He is a confirmed climate scientist , so just here to preach and not look at two sides . Much like a few others lol