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

#42 Oct 9, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>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?
Spaceballs, you seem to be grasping at straws again, your little global warming house of cards is finally starting to collapse and will pretty soon amount to nothing. I've tried to direct you to some REAL info but you still refuse to see the writing on the wall, you are indeed a sad little unit.
Jim

Katy, TX

#43 Oct 9, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Hey lowlife, you need to catch up with reality.
The IPCC have just released their fifth assessment report.
Ah yes. Their fifth propaganda bible, which goes right along with their five year plan.
SpaceBlues

United States

#44 Oct 9, 2013
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah yes. Their fifth propaganda bible, which goes right along with their five year plan.
http://www.nature.com/news/spe cials/ipcc2013/index.html
SpaceBlues

United States

#45 Oct 9, 2013
lowprofile wrote:
<quoted text>
.. house of cards is finally starting to collapse and will pretty soon amount to nothing. I've tried to direct you to some REAL info but you still refuse to see the writing on the wall, you are indeed a sad little unit.
Wake up, lowlife:

“Very soon, extreme events will become the norm,” says lead author Camilo Mora, an environmental researcher at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Because temperatures in the tropics vary little between seasons, even a slight increase in the average temperature could lead to unprecedented conditions — with negative consequences for ecosystems that are home to much of the world's biodiversity. Many tropical nations also have limited economic capacity to adapt or otherwise respond to such threats.

“The rules of the climate — those governing everything from species interactions to frequency of large storm events — are changing,” says Jack Williams, a palaeoclimatologist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who was not involved in the study.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#46 Oct 9, 2013
Micky wrote:
I have no scientific credentials,but when I was at school they taught us that we were getting closer to the sun.
Over billions of years, sure. Read about the 'weak sun' back 2 billion years ago.
Micky wrote:
That should cause a few problems for us and a little more heat.
Over shorter periods like 100 million years, you wouldn't notice it. And over AGW, it is meaningless.
Micky wrote:
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.
I have no idea where you got these nuggets of dung. Volcanic islands form every so often. They don't affect AGW. And the 'drag' from the solar wind on the orbit will not affect gravity or the axial tilt.
Micky wrote:
Well I would like to meet the human being that is responsible for all of the above.
Nobody that I know of claims that EVERYTHING that happens is 'mans fault'.
Micky wrote:
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.
Only AGW is being 'blamed' on human industry and that because we have the fossil fuel receipts and a knowledge of physics. Oh, and we took several decades of serious science to 'nail it down'.
Micky wrote:
I do agree that more trees should be planted.
And logging should be selective, not clear cut. For many reasons, such as water retention, flood prevention, increased moisture into the interior (drawn by transpiration), etc. A health environment needs a LOT of trees.
Micky wrote:
I don't eat sea food anymore due to the nuclear explosion and the fall out into the pacific ocean.
That may be overdoing it. Sea food is very heart healthy and lean meat. Of course, the wasteful way we go about it leads to higher prices and declining stocks but a realistic plan of allocating at least 60% and all the 'nursery areas' to 'no fish zones' would fix that.
Micky wrote:
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.
Well don't then. Read up on the SCIENCE instead. As long as you consider it a political issue, instead of one of pollution and it's consequences as defined by DATA, you will not understand it.
lowprofile

Bedfordale, Australia

#47 Oct 9, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Wake up, lowlife:
“Very soon, extreme events will become the norm,” says lead author Camilo Mora, an environmental researcher at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Because temperatures in the tropics vary little between seasons, even a slight increase in the average temperature could lead to unprecedented conditions — with negative consequences for ecosystems that are home to much of the world's biodiversity. Many tropical nations also have limited economic capacity to adapt or otherwise respond to such threats.
“The rules of the climate — those governing everything from species interactions to frequency of large storm events — are changing,” says Jack Williams, a palaeoclimatologist at the University of
Wisconsin–Madison, who was not involved in the study.
Then how do you explain the fact that the planet has been hotter in the past than it is now with none of the ill effects that you subscribe to, please explain. Maybe you can go to one of the alarmist websites you so often reference and find some answers there.
lowprofile

Bedfordale, Australia

#48 Oct 9, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Over billions of years, sure. Read about the 'weak sun' back 2 billion years ago.
<quoted text>
Over shorter periods like 100 million years, you wouldn't notice it. And over AGW, it is meaningless.
<quoted text>
I have no idea where you got these nuggets of dung. Volcanic islands form every so often. They don't affect AGW. And the 'drag' from the solar wind on the orbit will not affect gravity or the axial tilt.
<quoted text>
Nobody that I know of claims that EVERYTHING that happens is 'mans fault'.
<quoted text>
Only AGW is being 'blamed' on human industry and that because we have the fossil fuel receipts and a knowledge of physics. Oh, and we took several decades of serious science to 'nail it down'.
<quoted text>
And logging should be selective, not clear cut. For many reasons, such as water retention, flood prevention, increased moisture into the interior (drawn by transpiration), etc. A health environment needs a LOT of trees.
<quoted text>
That may be overdoing it. Sea food is very heart healthy and lean meat. Of course, the wasteful way we go about it leads to higher prices and declining stocks but a realistic plan of allocating at least 60% and all the 'nursery areas' to 'no fish zones' would fix that.
<quoted text>
Well don't then. Read up on the SCIENCE instead. As long as you consider it a political issue, instead of one of pollution and it's consequences as defined by DATA, you will not understand it.
You seem to have absolutely unlimited knowledge on absolutely EVERYTHING, why are you wasting your talents on our little Australian forum here, you should be on the world stage as the globe's new climate change guru, easily surpassing the ravings and rantings of the last idiot AL Gore. We can all be eternally grateful that you have decided to grace us with your prescence.

I suppose the next pearl of wisdom you are going to enlighten us with will be if we all pay more carbon taxes then everything will return to 'normal' and the planet will cool down LOL.
Micky

Bedfordale, Australia

#49 Oct 9, 2013
Micky wrote:
I don't eat sea food anymore due to the nuclear explosion and the fall out into the pacific ocean.

That may be overdoing it. Sea food is very heart healthy and lean meat. Of course, the wasteful way we go about it leads to higher prices and declining stocks but a realistic plan of allocating at least 60% and all the 'nursery areas' to 'no fish zones' would fix that.

Micky wrote:So the pacific ocean doesn't flow into the fish farms.
And guess what a new island has appeared due to a volcanic eruption.
I have no idea where you got these nuggets of dung. Volcanic islands form every so often. They don't affect AGW. And the 'drag' from the solar wind on the orbit will not affect gravity or the axial tilt.
So the development of new Islands doesn't increase the sea levels as it displaces the water.
Which papers should I read,there are two views on the topic that do not concur with each other. As a lay person I see the manipulation to detract us from looking at what is globally changing, the issue of climatic change is not my major concern for the destruction of mankind, it is the movement of the people and the change to societies themselves.
SpaceBlues

United States

#50 Oct 9, 2013
lowprofile wrote:
<quoted text>
Then how do you explain the fact that the planet has been hotter in the past than it is now with none of the ill effects that you subscribe to, please explain. Maybe you can go to one of the alarmist websites you so often reference and find some answers there.
Simple. Humans were not around just yet.

Then there was never an artificial climate change before the humans but since the industrial revolution man-made emissions have risen such that now the atmospheric CO2 concentration is 400 ppm. Daily man-made heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions are 90 million tons, with energy equivalent to 400,000 hiroshimas.

When will you quit being a science denier?
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#51 Oct 9, 2013
lowprofile wrote:
<quoted text>
Then how do you explain the fact that the planet has been hotter in the past than it is now with none of the ill effects that you subscribe to, please explain.
The answer is very simple. You are very stupid. During the PETM for example, there were catastrophic die offs. And the oceans were 200 feet higher, swamping most of our coastal cities. Their was no problem because we didn't HAVE coastal cities back then, not because the warming will be different.
lowprofile wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you can go to one of the alarmist websites you so often reference and find some answers there.
Better to find the answers in the science journals. Better to avoid any blogs and propaganda spin websites of any stripe. Not that you do.. of course.. without them to craft your 'arguments' you would be as unthinking as a blob. Even with them you cannot be termed 'educated'.
trev

Geelong, Australia

#52 Oct 9, 2013
the proof that climate change has more in common with religion than science is given away by the need to use terms like "denialists" and the need to claim 'consensus', rather than simply deal in FACTS.
What sort of person becomes a 'climate researcher' that you hold in such high esteem anyway? the truth is that environmentalist types are drawn to this field who are pre disposed to certain outcomes. The 'climate science' field is still in its infancy compared to traditional fields of science - it beggars belief that you CANNOT question these people...... or immediatley be compared to holocaust deniers!- the religious overtones with this whole thing are frightening.

Most "denialists" as you refer to them, do not deny climate change.what they do question is the ipcc politically biased drivel, their manipulation of incomplete scientific data, their pathetic attempts at modelling the scenarios then blaming every man and his dog,when their modelling is proven to be inept.the climate changed before man was here and will do long after man has gone. For thousands of years man moved from continent to continent either chasing a better climate or running from inclement climate.

by the way, the 97% figure is utter b.s.- you might want to check how that figure was derrived before trying to use it as some sort of moral high ground which you so desperately seek
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#53 Oct 9, 2013
lowprofile wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to have absolutely unlimited knowledge on absolutely EVERYTHING..
Not everything but certainly above average. I wouldn't want to compete on Jeopardy for example.
lowprofile wrote:
<quoted text>
why are you wasting your talents on our little Australian forum here
I am not posting on a 'little Auzzie forum'. I am posting to Topix.net .
lowprofile

Bedfordale, Australia

#54 Oct 9, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Not everything but certainly above average. I wouldn't want to compete on Jeopardy for example.
<quoted text>
I am not posting on a 'little Auzzie forum'. I am posting to Topix.net .
And so modest too!
lowprofile

Bedfordale, Australia

#55 Oct 9, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Simple. Humans were not around just yet.
Then there was never an artificial climate change before the humans but since the industrial revolution man-made emissions have risen such that now the atmospheric CO2 concentration is 400 ppm. Daily man-made heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions are 90 million tons, with energy equivalent to 400,000 hiroshimas.
When will you quit being a science denier?
I'm not a science denier, I'm just sick of bad science and bullshit being presented by the IPCC and others as fact, but by the look of it we won't have to put up with it for much longer, as I have previously stated the IPCC is doomed.
Micky

Bedfordale, Australia

#56 Oct 9, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Not everything but certainly above average. I wouldn't want to compete on Jeopardy for example.
<quoted text>
I am not posting on a 'little Auzzie forum'. I am posting to Topix.net .
Is this a self proclamation of your level of intelligence. Or is it the just the fact that you can regurgitate information that you have read. Here in Aussy we call this "up your own arse".
lowprofile

Bedfordale, Australia

#57 Oct 9, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
The answer is very simple. You are very stupid. During the PETM for example, there were catastrophic die offs. And the oceans were 200 feet higher, swamping most of our coastal cities. Their was no problem because we didn't HAVE coastal cities back then, not because the warming will be different.
<quoted text>
Better to find the answers in the science journals. Better to avoid any blogs and propaganda spin websites of any stripe. Not that you do.. of course.. without them to craft your 'arguments' you would be as unthinking as a blob. Even with them you cannot be termed 'educated'.
I was referring to the medieval warm period, idiot. It mat not have been hotter than present times but it was a least as hot, hot enough in fact for a good part of the greenland ice sheet to have melted and allowed the Vikings to live there, grow grapes and make wine, seen the greenland ice sheet melt lately?

Although you may think you have a huge brain with above average intelligence, you seem to have sadly lost the ability to actually think, I think you have been reading too many of those science journals you refer to, science journals hold information from the past, the situation we have now is not something you are going to be able to refer to in any publication, hence the need to be able to think.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#58 Oct 9, 2013
lowprofile wrote:
<quoted text>
I was referring to the medieval warm period, idiot.
What has a short term warming of the northern atlantic and Western Europe got to do with GLOBAL temperatures? Analysis of temperature averages by latitude shows that the MWP is a change in the 'rossby waves' that keep Europe warmer than normal for that latitude. It has nothing to do with global temperatures.

In fact, the MWP doesn't show up on global warming trends from paleoclimatology because it didn't change the total thermal energy of the planet. You have heard of the first law of thermodynamics, right?

Take your time. NO rush for a quick answer. You might even use the time to think a bit, if you are capable of it.
Micky

Bedfordale, Australia

#59 Oct 10, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
What has a short term warming of the northern atlantic and Western Europe got to do with GLOBAL temperatures? Analysis of temperature averages by latitude shows that the MWP is a change in the 'rossby waves' that keep Europe warmer than normal for that latitude. It has nothing to do with global temperatures.
In fact, the MWP doesn't show up on global warming trends from paleoclimatology because it didn't change the total thermal energy of the planet. You have heard of the first law of thermodynamics, right?
Take your time. NO rush for a quick answer. You might even use the time to think a bit, if you are capable of it.
What period do you consider to be Short term?
lowprofile

Bedfordale, Australia

#60 Oct 10, 2013
I hardly think hundreds of years is a 'short term warming' and I couldn't care less about the first law of thermodynamics.

All I know is we are all being fed bullshit from many different sources. There is probably some middle ground in it somewhere, but at this stage no-one including yourself knows exactly where and what that is, so don't try and present yourself as having ALL the answers.

“shirley you cant be serious ”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#61 Oct 10, 2013
37 in Sydney today - hottest in 70 odd years .
No there is nothing going on lol

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 Duquesne team stuck in snow on PA Turnpike 11 hr amry 4
News Eating Out: Mason Jar Cafe offers brunch items ... (Jul '12) 16 hr G-Spot 6
News Remember the Climate 18 hr Earthling-1 90
News Get furnace checked or face a fine (Nov '14) Mon silly rabbit 68
News The abandoned Bel Air Drive In movie theatre. C... (Jan '08) Apr 30 Babs 21
News Michelle Grossman - About NBC 10 News Story - W... (Mar '08) Apr 30 Mreveryday 761
News El Ni o ending and La Ni a watch issued: Big im... Apr 28 Paul 1
More from around the web