Screw climate change

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Sydney's northern beaches lost up to 40 meters of coastline in the massive storms that pounded the NSW coast on the weekend, and it's not over yet.

...after the breakwater gave way. I see it in the far right of your pic, still intact.

Storms do that.

The worst in recent history was Sandy, the largest hurricane (on record) coupled with a high tide and a full moon. Thats not so much "global agenda" politics as it is a juxtaposition of events.

And clearly, I would advise anyone with their front yard on the beach to move.

a reply to: intrptr

Thats called erosion.

Yes, it is.
But in the 15 years that I've been in this house prior, there was no such erosion. Nor did the tide encroach on my seawall as much as it as increasingly done so in the past 5. This is not storm damage. I see it when the tide is high. This is an increase in sea level.

None of the beaches look the same as I remember them when I was a kid. They are gone.

My yard is not a beach. I was raised in the same area in which I now live. I grew up playing on this bay. I have always paid close attention to its waters because, with boats, it matters. The high tides now are higher than they were then. I can see it and the tide station data shows it.

Are you saying that sea levels are not rising? Are you also saying that climates are not changing?

Ocean vents spew note #e out of them in an hour then humans will do in a lifetime !

And I'm all for climate change as I'm from the uk and the weather is #e anyway .

The earth will just put our lights out if it wants anyway ! It will just throw a few volcanos out , wipe all life out then just start again .

Maybe it's happened a few times already ?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

As if we could change the sun, which is THE biggest factor in global temps.

Do you have some evidence which shows that changes in the Sun have occurred which can account for rising temperatures? There are many who would like to see it. Because, you know, a lot of people have been saying that but no one seems to have any evidence to support it.

There is a very good program about the topic. British, I believe, fellow did a long study, looking back as far as the data goes, and showed a clear correlation between solar activity and global temperatures. More activity, hotter weather, and the reverse. I'll have to search and see if I can find the title. Not sure if I saw it on Netflix or a cable channel.

However, a quick search located some sources, that support the theory.

Solar Activity Influences Climate Change

Solar Activity and Climate

Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warming

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate

There is much debate, of course, because of all the money involved, but the data is there.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Your memories are the exact same as mine. I totally support cleaning up garbage at the park or making sure we kept our outdoor areas clean, but this stuff they worry about now a days isn't the same.

Keeping our water clean and safe to drink and our air safe to breathe I am totally down for, but they can stuff their greenhouse gasses and climate change.

Agreed! They want money for grants and research, and they want control through fear. I have no intention of playing that sort of game. When they do the very things they tell us are wrong, too, to promote their cause, they lose all credibility. Not that there was much to begin with!

a reply to: Phage

Do you have some evidence which shows that changes in the Sun have occurred which can account for rising temperatures? There are many who would like to see it. Because, you know, a lot of people have been saying that but no one seems to have any evidence to support it.

Yeah. Because if you can't see it, it's not happening. Right?

right back at you

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly
I think you missed the point.

We can't see greenhouses gasses but we can measure them. And when we do so we see that they (CO2 in particular) are increasing.

We can't see changes in the Sun but we can measure them. And when we do we see that those changes are very small and cannot account for the observed increase in temperatures.

Don't worry guys we'll be alright, we will dig huge underground city's, and use the natural above surface heat evaporation to distill our water, and we will come above ground at night like vampires, hey, the mother of invention, right?

a reply to: Phage

We can't see greenhouses gasses but we can measure them. And when we do so we see that they (CO2 in particular) are increasing.

Nobody is disputing that CO is rising.

We can't see changes in the Sun but we can measure them. And when we do we see that those changes are very small and cannot account for the observed increase in temperatures.

That's presupposing that we understand the entire process completely, and that there are no unknown variables in the chain.

It is also a presumption that increase in CO2 is driving Climate change. You also stated as much by stopping at "are increasing"...without concluding what it means.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
In a nutshell, your sources talk about solar activity in the form of sunspots and what effect that may have on the climate in the future. In particular, if reduced solar activity could result in a cooling trend (similar to the "Little Ice Age"). The thing is, sunspot activity has been declining, while temperatures have been rising.



Your first source, the most recent of your lot:

The study concludes that although the temperature changes expected from future solar activity are much smaller than the warming from human carbon dioxide emissions, regional climate variability associated with the effects of solar output on the ocean and atmosphere should be taken into account when making future climate projections.

www.astrobio.net...

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Nobody is disputing that CO is rising.

There certainly are some who claim that increasing CO2 levels are not the result of human activity.

That's presupposing that we understand the entire process completely, and that there are no unknown variables in the chain.

Ah. So you're in the, "Well, maybe it isn't the CO2 so never mind trying to cut back on how much we are dumping into the atmosphere" camp.

It is also a presumption that increase in CO2 is driving Climate change.

Yeah. A presumption sort of like Stanley in Africa, "Dr. Livingstone, I presume." This presumption is based on solid physics and a lot of data.

The study concludes that although the temperature changes expected from future solar activity are much smaller than the warming from human carbon dioxide emissions, regional climate variability associated with the effects of solar output on the ocean and atmosphere should be taken into account when making future climate projections.

expected from future solar activity

O shiny crystal ball...tell me the future...

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

You could, of course, read the whole article (and even the study) it's talking about.

Predictions suggest a prolonged period of low sun activity over the next few decades

In any case it's not really relevant as to the cause of the current warming trend, is it?

a reply to: Phage

There certainly are some who claim that increasing CO2 levels are not the result of human activity.

among other things.

Ah. So you're in the, "Well, maybe it isn't the CO2 so never mind trying to cut back on how much we are dumping into the atmosphere" camp.

No. I'm all for green tech. Where do I donate ?

This presumption is based on solid physics and a lot of data.

And a lot of adjusting of numbers and interpreting them back again.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

among other things.

That seems to be a non sequitor.

No. I'm all for green tech. Where do I donate ?

Why donate when you can invest? There are any number of publicly traded companies.

And a lot of adjusting of numbers and interpreting them back again.

Are you saying that temperatures are not rising? You're not just skeptical about AGW, you're skeptical about warming?

a reply to: Phage

Why donate when you can invest? There are any number of publicly traded companies.

hahahhaha

I dont do Wall Street man. I'm just a regular nobody doing 9-5. I do buy solar powered gimmicks. I like solar.

You're not just skeptical about AGW, you're skeptical about warming?

I'm skeptical about means of collecting data, their adjustments, reasonings for adjustments. I'm skeptical that we can predict or prevent Earth climate changes.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Metallicus

but they can stuff their greenhouse gasses and climate change.

Yeah. Because if you can't see it, it's not happening. Right?

I just don't see it as a threat or a practical use of our time and resources.

I realize I am insulting your Religion of Climate Change, but frankly, I just don't care anymore because I think you all are missing the point. The OP is on the right track. We can all agree on pollution so lets embrace our common ground and work from their. You climate zealots are being counterproductive at this point.

a reply to: Phage

Are you saying that sea levels are not rising? Are you also saying that climates are not changing?

Every day.

The high tides now are higher than they were then. I can see it and the tide station data shows it.

What data...

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

That's presupposing that we understand the entire process completely, and that there are no unknown variables in the chain.

I'll second that. As far as unknowns theres the resulting change of ever increasing hi altitude air traffic, how the exhaust from that will block the suns light and how the chemistry of the upper atmosphere will be affected, like the ozone layer.

Theres also the increasing deforestation, and the soot and particulates from slash and burn as well as mega agro like the ever growing Palm Oil industry. Wild fires alone should increase given that things are heating up, vegetation becoming dryer and becoming more susceptible to more intense wild fires.

The biggest question I have is the earths own system to counter the warming. If the ice is melting, raising inland sea levels that much, then there should be more water surface area, more surface evaporation and therefore more clouds overall, countering the heating up with a blanket of precipitation. Iv'e never heard that addressed.

a reply to: Phage

I am sure people back in 1921 were concerned with erosion also.

The planet has always been in flux.

Anyone ever building on a coast will be a victim of change. It is what the earth does.

It is simply the hubris of man to believe he is causing it or that he will stop it now.

300 years from now things will be different that is a given.

It being bad is a matter of opinion.