Climate change and global cities

Climate change and global cities

There are 265 comments on the The New Zealand Herald story from Oct 8, 2013, titled Climate change and global cities. In it, The New Zealand Herald reports that:

Element takes a look at what authorities in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch are expecting, how they are trying to minimise the damage, and how their plans shape up against those elsewhere.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The New Zealand Herald.

lowprofile

Bedfordale, Australia

#21 Oct 8, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>WRONG. I know you are down under, lowlife... and I'm up over.
hahahahaha
No need to get narky, just because your favorite organisation [IPCC] is on the eve of destruction, they were given enough rope and sure enough the hung themselves. As another poster said, there's no sea level rise ANYWHERE except some islands in the Pacific, wouldn't that tell these IPCC idiots something? Something like the islands must be sinking? But oh no it's because of sea level rise in that area only, the IPCC doesn't even understand basic physics let alone something a bit more complicated like there has been 'no global warming for the last 15 years' Like I said the IPCC is doomed, get over it.
Micky

Bedfordale, Australia

#22 Oct 8, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Spaceblue. You should add another step in the 'stages of denial'. The one where you blame someone else for what you have been doing for at least a century. Sure, the answer must be global but denial is local..
Oh, and it is a non-sequitur anyway. Developing nations, are by their development 'changing'. And mostly they do a better job of changing than we do. They have the advantage of not having massive investments in dirty technology.
<quoted text>
Climate change has been going on for as long as the planet, certainly. But not at this RATE, not from OUR causing it, and not while we are DEPENDENT on a stable climate for food and other resources. Nor while we are vulnerable to changes that affect our infrastructure such as sea level rise and more violent weather events.
<quoted text>
Yah, Yah, We might die tomorrow of ptomain poisoning so why worry? How old ARE you?
I am old enough to remember when they taught us the new theory of Evolution, Not every thing that is in a schools curriculum is true there is a lot of political intervention as to what is allowed to be taught both at all levels of education. I don't agree with the Darwin's theory of evolution either. If two scientific groups cannot agree on a subject and the evidence is contradictory then we will have to agree to disagree. I would suggest that you concern your self with the matter of over population and genetically modified food that the powers that be seem fit for us to consume. They are two clear and visible issues that we need to address in order to survive.
Micky

Bedfordale, Australia

#23 Oct 8, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>blah blah.. you have no idea and no interest in learning the facts.
Stay in the dark.. when your kids are learning what you refuse to accept. I don't like your attitude.
Then you concern yourself with the climate change and others can focus on issues that are relevant to the survival of the planet.

“shirley you cant be serious ”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#24 Oct 8, 2013
Good Aussies wrote:
Ok, we can drop the climate change horsesh!t already, it's a total fraud.
).
proof that man is not smart enough to prevent what he will struggle to survive.
Never will the "we told you line " be more bittersweet
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#25 Oct 8, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you like to read someone like him?
P.S. i don't know where you live.
I agree.

There are bound to be places where the land is rising exactly as fast as the sea, places where it is rising faster, etc. But the sea level IS rising everywhere. I personally am way to high an elevation to be at risk of sea level rise. But I will feel the impacts from those who ARE. And the costs.
trev

Geelong, Australia

#26 Oct 8, 2013
The fact that people have short memories about weather events is what enables this game to be played…

Just 8,000 years ago, there was virtually no summer sea-ice in the Arctic Ocean.

Sea-level rise is natural, and declining in rate.

“shirley you cant be serious ”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#28 Oct 9, 2013
trev wrote:
The fact that people have short memories about weather events is what enables this game to be played…
Just 8,000 years ago, there was virtually no summer sea-ice in the Arctic Ocean.
Sea-level rise is natural, and declining in rate.
trev is an anonymous and has no scientific background - he is a taxidriver with access to the internet - he favors what suits his hippocket - relies on murdoch to give him his marching orders
lowprofile

Bedfordale, Australia

#29 Oct 9, 2013
tinydropthestickgooddog wrote:
<quoted text>
trev is an anonymous and has no scientific background - he is a taxidriver with access to the internet - he favors what suits his hippocket - relies on murdoch to give him his marching orders
Yeah, but what he said is right, the sea has been rising since the end of the last ice age.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#30 Oct 9, 2013
trev wrote:
The fact that people have short memories about weather events is what enables this game to be played…
Just 8,000 years ago, there was virtually no summer sea-ice in the Arctic Ocean.
You must be older than you look..
trev wrote:
Sea-level rise is natural, and declining in rate.
And more ignorant. Calling something 'natural' does not mean anything. You have to understand the cause and effect. Otherwise, it is like the caveman praying to the lightning god. Magic or religion.
NobodyYouKnow

Etobicoke, Canada

#31 Oct 9, 2013
lowprofile wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, but what he said is right, the sea has been rising since the end of the last ice age.
It rose rapidly at the end of the ice age (as the water melted). Then it slowed down and may have gone negative as 'glacial rebound' raised the land and lowered the oceans. By the 20'th century it was about 1 mm a year. Now it is 3 and continuing to accelerate, though it takes sophisticated processing to see the trend though the noise.

So, basically, you are wrong and pulled this out of your ass in my opinion.
lowprofile

Bedfordale, Australia

#32 Oct 9, 2013
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
It rose rapidly at the end of the ice age (as the water melted). Then it slowed down and may have gone negative as 'glacial rebound' raised the land and lowered the oceans. By the 20'th century it was about 1 mm a year. Now it is 3 and continuing to accelerate, though it takes sophisticated processing to see the trend though the noise.
So, basically, you are wrong and pulled this out of your ass in my opinion.
I think the sophisticated processing part of your post is where the problem lies. Multiple results being affected by multiple forces from multiple sources. The jury is still out on sea level rise. What can you pull out of your ass?
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#33 Oct 9, 2013
lowprofile wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the sophisticated processing part of your post is where the problem lies.
You mean knowing some science. I can see where you think that might be a problem.
lowprofile wrote:
<quoted text>
Multiple results being affected by multiple forces from multiple sources.
And there is multivariate analysis to deal with that scenario. That was one complication of attributing causation. They know the physics but it has multiple and bidirectional feedback's. But they can determine the connections to isolate the causation as Solar (200 year cycle of sunspot amplitude), Sulphate Aerosols (cooling from smog) and GHGs (the dominant warming mechanism).
lowprofile wrote:
<quoted text>
The jury is still out on sea level rise.
The jury may be out but the science is in on sea level rise. It has been rising at least 3.2mm per year since 1993 at the least.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Note that sea level is only well defined by satellites because the sea 'sloshes' in a complicated way relative to shoreline based tide gauges. Satellites can measure the entire ocean and find the true level.

And there are few questions left, other than the rate of acceleration (which is hard to quantify due to the noise relative to the curve). But we know that ice sheet mass loss is doubling every decade or so, and we have a lot of research on the processes that accelerate mass loss in Greenland and the Antarctic so the projections of sea level rise (mostly from ice sheets over the next nine decades) is fairly well projected to be one to two meters.
http://tinyurl.com/qfaqnjy

Note. The 'projections' of the IPCC are flawed in that they are, again, very very conservative. Research just in the last five years have shown that the basis for that 'conservatism' is flawed. Actual sea level rise is almost certain to be beyond the highest estimate in their range.
lowprofile wrote:
<quoted text>
What can you pull out of your ass?
I can wait for the bathroom. Unlike you.. and your post here...
Klanzman

New York, NY

#34 Oct 9, 2013
Climate change is a fabricated myth
NobodyYouKnow

Etobicoke, Canada

#35 Oct 9, 2013
Klanzman wrote:
Climate change is a fabricated myth
Nope. Ask the NAS if you are still confused. It is a scientific theory, same as gravity, quantum mechanics, the laws of motion, etc. You know. The stuff we built an enlightened civilization on.

You go back to the dark ages of 'belief' and 'magic' if you want. Just don't expect much company.
NobodyYouKnow

Etobicoke, Canada

#36 Oct 9, 2013
Klanzman wrote:
Climate change is a fabricated myth
Nah. It is scientific theory, aka fact. You know. Science. The stuff we built a modern and 'enlightened' civilization on? You go back to religion and magic if you want, just don't expect me for company.
straa

UK

#37 Oct 9, 2013
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah. It is scientific theory, aka fact. You know. Science. The stuff we built a modern and 'enlightened' civilization on? You go back to religion and magic if you want, just don't expect me for company.
There are scientists far more respected, well known and honored than you who say the field has gone badly wrong. You can say whatever you like, but the fact is that the resent revelation about no warming for fifteen years, has been a massive setback for the climate change body and is now seen as a game changer, if you try and deny the damage that thus has caused to the reputations of the scientists involved, you are just deluding yourself and refusing to except the magnitude of this revelation on the global warming loby's credibility and influence, which has now been smashed
straa

UK

#38 Oct 9, 2013
Recent, typo
NobodyYouKnow

Etobicoke, Canada

#39 Oct 9, 2013
straa wrote:
<quoted text>
There are scientists far more respected, well known and honored than you who say the field has gone badly wrong.
This is a fascinating example of bad reasoning.

1: You don't know who I am. So anything you say about me amounts to ad-hominem.

2: The vast majority of the LEADING scientists don't say that. And they clearly rebut the papers from these lesser lights. For example, one 'scientist'(of three or four total) is Roy Spencer. He has first crack at the MSU data and failed EIGHT TIMES to get it right, each time stopping when it LOOKED like the data was incompatible with AGW. EACH time, a better scientist showed him his mistake and how to properly do it and each time he make another mess. On the last paper, his nineth correction, he finally got exactly what the other researchers go on their FIRST paper.
straa wrote:
<quoted text>
You can say whatever you like, but the fact is that the resent revelation about no warming for fifteen years, has been a massive setback for the climate change body and is now seen as a game changer
By a few denialists who stick to their 'beliefs' while the science, backed by the NAS and 97% of current climate researchers, moves on with AGW still an accepted theory.

One thing you miss. To 'deny' the warming of the surface, based on air temperature (meteorology) you must do TWO things. One is that you must show that the SURFACE as a whole has not warmed, so you must prove no variance of the heat going into the land or oceans.

Second, you must account for the loss of forcing from GHGs, which cannot be wished away.

Scientists know that neither of these things has been shown and therefore there is no 'pause' in AGW (now confirmed by measurements of deep ocean heating) but only a 'noise' in the air temperature trends.
straa wrote:
<quoted text>
if you try and deny the damage that thus has caused to the reputations of the scientists involved, you are just deluding yourself and refusing to except the magnitude of this revelation on the global warming loby's credibility and influence, which has now been smashed
I accept the magntitude of the 'pause'. I can compare it with the 'accelerted warming' in 1998 from El-Nino, and then look at the La-Nina in 2010 and 2012 (double hit). THAT is what is found by a reasoned search. The 'climate oscillations' affect heat transfer from the oceans to the air and back, but do not change the gain in thermal energy. You are fooling yourself if you think that and almost all scientists agree that AGW has not 'paused'. They state it in maybe a confusing way and you are undoubtable not very good at reading science but you should be better informed than you are.

Note: I don't know who you are so I only assume you have no backgound in climate science. If you are, come out of the closet and back up your claims.
SpaceBlues

United States

#40 Oct 9, 2013
straa wrote:
<quoted text>
There are scientists far more respected, well known and honored than you who say the field has gone badly wrong. You can say whatever you like, but the fact is that the resent revelation about no warming for fifteen years, has been a massive setback for the climate change body and is now seen as a game changer, if you try and deny the damage that thus has caused to the reputations of the scientists involved, you are just deluding yourself and refusing to except the magnitude of this revelation on the global warming loby's credibility and influence, which has now been smashed
You must have no science or mathematics to think and repeat such nonsense. Hope springs eternal to a clueless like you.

Ain't gonna happen your way.. Be prepared to eat crow like other deniers who have and now are silent.

Do you know how sad it is for those of us who get that the man-made global warming is raging while you lie about it?
Micky

Bedfordale, Australia

#41 Oct 9, 2013
I have no scientific credentials,but when I was at school they taught us that we were getting closer to the sun. That should cause a few problems for us and a little more heat. I also learnt that the gravity and axis? of the earth will be affected. And guess what a new island has appeared due to a volcanic eruption. Well I would like to meet the human being that is responsible for all of the above.There is a scientific history of changes to the planet since day one, so why are the changes all being put down to mankind that are happening today. I do agree that more trees should be planted. I don't eat sea food anymore due to the nuclear explosion and the fall out into the pacific ocean.So, as uneducated as I may be, I acknowledge that the planet will change,but I still don't believe in this political representation called climate change.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weather Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News As anger over election of Donald Trump erupts, ... 6 hr ima-Ilis Myka Ash... 3,001
News Home sales climb 2% in October (Nov '12) 6 hr redawady 56
News North Dakota officials pledge 'humane' help for... Sun Reason 1
News Get furnace checked or face a fine (Nov '14) Dec 4 silly rabbit 130
News How Northeast Mississippi farmers, scientists a... Dec 4 Short sight 1
News Should men wear pantyhose for warmth? It's not ... (Jan '09) Dec 3 TRUMANS Treason 234
News Michelle Grossman - About NBC 10 News Story - W... (Mar '08) Dec 3 USS LIBERTY 813
More from around the web