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.

Muslim Mom

Australia

#84 Oct 10, 2013
Yesterday too hot in Sydney at 39 degrees, when still inside of early October! So this climate change very real is not fake.
Muslim Mom

Australia

#86 Oct 10, 2013
John Kenney is a knob wrote:
Leaded fishing sinkers are great stuff
Please making fishing sinkers in gold so as for less polluting.
John Kenney is a knob wrote:
petrol cars are here to stay
+1 Also Australian government please need giving more free cars at Refugees.
John Kenney is a knob wrote:
music in night clubs is too quiet
Night clubs music this haram!!
John Kenney is a knob wrote:
there needs to be more burning in Australia
If this meaning bushfires, I disagree at idea to lighting of bushfires when very close inside of cities.
John Kenney is a knob wrote:
fishing laws are too strict
Also trolling laws this one not good ideas.
John Kenney is a knob wrote:
Electric cars are also crap
+1 Oil from Middle East this best for car fuel.
lowprofile

Bedfordale, Australia

#87 Oct 10, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
So you appear to be saying you insist that we have "NO points of agreement".
Hummm. This seems inconsistent with your position on Climate Change (CC) as it has been made quite clear that I do not deny the facts of CC. Thus, does not logic dictates that since I do not deny the facts... and you claim we do not agree on any non- delusional points you therefore take the opposite position?
Or perhaps you mis-spoke...and we do agree on some basic facts.
So... Do you accept the facts as articulated in this post that concerns CC?:
I understand that:
The climate Changes.
Co2 is a GHG.
Man puts CO2 in the air when burning fossil fuels.
The Earth has warmed.
I gotta say, it appears we do agree on the facts.
Sorry to say it but you are wasting your time on this individual, he appears to be a genuine dyed in the wool climate change freak. He's done a lot of reading and can regurgitate huge amounts of useless information at will, none of it relating to anything useful and the icing on the cake is he agrees with a carbon tax, it's almost as though his message is being typed in a government office somewhere on a taxpayer funded computer.

The main thing is all of this CC /AGW garbage is on it's last legs. The IPCC is close to being finished and most sane governments are starting to turn their backs on this stupidity, which will put our friend here on the losing team.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#88 Oct 10, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
So you appear to be saying you insist that we have "NO points of agreement".
Not in any post so far. I'll let you know if that changes.
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
Hummm. This seems inconsistent with your position on Climate Change (CC) as it has been made quite clear that I do not deny the facts of CC.
Obviously you are still deluded. And too dim to know it. I do not claim any facts about 'climate change'. The science supports AGW.

And note that it is 'climate change caused by AGW' that is at issue in the debates. The 'caused by AGW' is silent and some people might think it isn't there..
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
Thus, does not logic dictates that since I do not deny the facts... and you claim we do not agree on any non- delusional points you therefore take the opposite position?
The climate Changes.
An example of your falsity. You claim that 'climate changes' and by implication 'without cause' as if by magic. MY claim is that AGW is driving some climate change. So we are NOT in agreement.
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you accept the facts as articulated in this post that concerns CC?:
I understand that:
The climate Changes.
Wrong. The climate has a 'phase space' of normal weather conditions. This phase space is being shifted BY AGW. It doesn't modify itself or change by magic.
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
Or perhaps you mis-spoke...and we do agree on some basic facts.
So... Do you accept the facts as articulated in this post that concerns CC?:
I understand that:
Co2 is a GHG.
There we agree. And note that it is a 'permanent GHG' not subject to quick removal as with water vapor. Also that the Greenhouse effect from CO2 still has some 'room' to grow.
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
Or perhaps you mis-spoke...and we do agree on some basic facts.
So... Do you accept the facts as articulated in this post that concerns CC?:
I understand that:
Man puts CO2 in the air when burning fossil fuels.
We agree again. Note that the level of CO2 put into the air is much much larger than, for example, average volcanic emissions. About half or more is absorbed by increasing carbonate ions in the oceans, and the rest builds up year by year. From 280ppm to 400ppm so far.
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
Or perhaps you mis-spoke...and we do agree on some basic facts.
So... Do you accept the facts as articulated in this post that concerns CC?:
I understand that:
The Earth has warmed.
By about 0.9C or so based on the anomaly from 1900 and discounting 'noise'.
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
I gotta say, it appears we do agree on the facts.
With you, I have to first see if the 'facts' we agree upon have the same definition.
lowprofile

Bedfordale, Australia

#89 Oct 10, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Can tell you have no science or mathematics degrees or science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for your poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
I never said I had any science or maths degrees, what I did say was we are being fed bullshit from all sides on this subject,and as far as your other stupid comment about using a carbon tax to fix roads goes, are you serious, governments are using this CC / AGW circus to raise as much revenue as they can because they are all broke, it's a free lunch for all of them, surely you can't be that stupid that you can't see through this.
Cut n Paste

Eden Prairie, MN

#90 Oct 10, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/29/11790.full
The answer may be right or at least reasonable. A combination of factors is actually likely.
1: Ocean heating due to the LA-NINA ENSO cycles of 2010 and 2012
2: Increased sulphate aerosols from expansion of coal energy in the developing world, particularly China
3: The 'down' leg of the 200 year cycle of sunspot cycle amplitude.
A combination of these three factors could be involved.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/29/11790.full
The answer may be right or at least reasonable. A combination of factors is actually likely.
1: Ocean heating due to the LA-NINA ENSO cycles of 2010 and 2012
2: Increased sulphate aerosols from expansion of coal energy in the developing world, particularly China
3: The 'down' leg of the 200 year cycle of sunspot cycle amplitude.
A combination of these three factors could be involved.
Thanks again for saying something we can agree upon.
The answer to the pause in warming is due to the same variables that most likely caused warming... Makes perfect sense:
1: Ocean heating due to the LA-NINA ENSO cycles of 2010 and 2012
2: Increased sulphate aerosols from expansion of coal energy in the developing world, particularly China
3: The 'down' leg of the 200 year cycle of sunspot cycle amplitude.
A combination of these three factors could be involved.
It is refreshing to discuss this issue rationally and without the disfunctional insults that seem to be the foundational basis of fellow true believers. Again, I look forward to additional dialog with someone who agrees with me about the facts of TACDDGCDO.
Sincerely,
Cut n Paste
Cut n Paste

Eden Prairie, MN

#91 Oct 10, 2013
lowprofile wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry to say it but you are wasting your time on this individual, he appears to be a genuine dyed in the wool climate change freak. He's done a lot of reading and can regurgitate huge amounts of useless information at will, none of it relating to anything useful and the icing on the cake is he agrees with a carbon tax, it's almost as though his message is being typed in a government office somewhere on a taxpayer funded computer.
The main thing is all of this CC /AGW garbage is on it's last legs. The IPCC is close to being finished and most sane governments are starting to turn their backs on this stupidity, which will put our friend here on the losing team.
yup.
Well put.
The faithful will not be influenced by reason.
No Warming

Athens, OH

#92 Oct 10, 2013
Less fact is good for a few laughs, nudge him along and he'll be running himself in circles in no time.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#93 Oct 10, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Thanks again for saying something we can agree upon.
Again. I must be very careful to check that the 'agreement' you are declaring is valid. You tend to misread a lot and not pick up on the details.
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
The answer to the pause in warming is due to the same variables that most likely caused warming... Makes perfect sense:
No. You don't make sense. I was speaking of the conditions that slowed the warming of the AIR, not AGW.
Cut n Paste wrote:
1: Ocean heating due to the LA-NINA ENSO cycles of 2010 and 2012
Moving more of AGW's thermal energy gain into the oceans and exposing cooler water to moderate the air temperatures. Remember that AIR is only about 2% of the thermal mass of the 'surface' so it can change a LOT with very little difference to the ocean.
Cut n Paste wrote:
2: Increased sulphate aerosols from expansion of coal energy in the developing world, particularly China
This is a new factor in the analysis and may actually be reducing the warming trend. Remember the first 'pause' between 1945 and 1975 or so? But that was the whole world and 'killer smogs'. This factor seems to be a smaller one because much less of the planets area is affected. Remember that smog has an effect only within a short distance from the origin so the area that is affected has a major influence on the total cooling involved.
Cut n Paste wrote:
3: The 'down' leg of the 200 year cycle of sunspot cycle amplitude.
I had expected a slight moderation from this but it is only an amplitude of about 0.2C so it cannot be more than a contributing factors here.
Cut n Paste wrote:
A combination of these three factors could be involved.
It adds two factors to the major one of ENSO warming the oceans more. We KNOW that this is a major factor that can explain the 'pause' by itself, but the other factors are probably significant to a lower order.
Cut n Paste wrote:
It is refreshing to discuss this issue rationally and without the disfunctional insults that seem to be the foundational basis of fellow true believers.
Believing in denial as you do, I find your tactics to be more of sowing confusion and missing details rather than insults. And my own criticisms seem to be taken very poorly.

Now that we have thrown random facts around, when do we 'discuss this rationally'? Are you ready?
Cut n Paste wrote:
Again, I look forward to additional dialog with someone who agrees with me about the facts of TACDDGCDO.
Again insulting my intelligence and claiming a state that is not apparent. I will not respond with further criticisms because you already have them all in previous posts.
Anti Christ

Eden Prairie, MN

#94 Oct 10, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>Again insulting my intelligence and claiming a state that is not apparent. I will not respond with further criticisms....
Really... I do not claim to be capable of insulting that which does not exist.(You do make stooping to your level child's play :-)
No Warming

Athens, OH

#95 Oct 10, 2013
Perfect example, long bloger style rambling. No mention of the main component, CO2.
Anti Christ

Eden Prairie, MN

#96 Oct 10, 2013
My God ... The world is full of mindless idiots who blindly bestow their faith in the authority of "science".
Anti Christ

Eden Prairie, MN

#97 Oct 10, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Again. I must be very careful to check that the 'agreement' you are declaring is valid. You tend to misread a lot and not pick up on the details..
Deny the facts to avoid an admission of error.
After all... It is what you do!
I SAY THE CLIMATE CHANGES.
You deny that?
You claim the climate changes... You deny that???

Of course not. WE AGREE!
You can not deny that!!!
You must be feeling sick having to agree with me... Or perhaps you are the true denier!
May you find peace in your faith
Cut n Paste

Eden Prairie, MN

#98 Oct 11, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Again. I must be very careful to check that the 'agreement' you are declaring is valid. You tend to misread a lot and not pick up on the details.
<quoted text>
No. You don't make sense. I was speaking of the conditions that slowed the warming of the AIR, not AGW.
<quoted text>
Moving more of AGW's thermal energy gain into the oceans and exposing cooler water to moderate the air temperatures. Remember that AIR is only about 2% of the thermal mass of the 'surface' so it can change a LOT with very little difference to the ocean.
<quoted text>
This is a new factor in the analysis and may actually be reducing the warming trend. Remember the first 'pause' between 1945 and 1975 or so? But that was the whole world and 'killer smogs'. This factor seems to be a smaller one because much less of the planets area is affected. Remember that smog has an effect only within a short distance from the origin so the area that is affected has a major influence on the total cooling involved.
<quoted text>
I had expected a slight moderation from this but it is only an amplitude of about 0.2C so it cannot be more than a contributing factors here.
<quoted text>
It adds two factors to the major one of ENSO warming the oceans more. We KNOW that this is a major factor that can explain the 'pause' by itself, but the other factors are probably significant to a lower order.
<quoted text>
Believing in denial as you do, I find your tactics to be more of sowing confusion and missing details rather than insults. And my own criticisms seem to be taken very poorly.
Now that we have thrown random facts around, when do we 'discuss this rationally'? Are you ready?
<quoted text>
Again insulting my intelligence and claiming a state that is not apparent. I will not respond with further criticisms because you already have them all in previous posts.
I find it amazing that you are arguing against yourself.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#100 Oct 11, 2013
Anti Christ wrote:
My God ... The world is full of mindless idiots who blindly bestow their faith in the authority of "science".
It takes a special kind of idiot not to recognize the credibility and worth of science. What do you do, Mr. Idiot. Read goat entrails?
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#102 Oct 11, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it amazing that you are arguing against yourself.
You see? That kind of clueless non-sequitur is why I don't find your posts very useful. I have made no 'arguing against myself'. You must be misreading one part and thinking it is contradictory. The problem is with YOU.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#103 Oct 11, 2013
Anti Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Deny the facts to avoid an admission of error.
After all... It is what you do!
I state the questions and answers clearly. You mangle them (I assume that this is another alias for Cut 'n Paste).
Anti Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
I SAY THE CLIMATE CHANGES.
You deny that?
I deny that there is ever a static climate. But there are TWO factors here. One is the movement WITHIN a climate. The other is the movement of climate itself. To understand this point, you need to stop making stupid claims and start understanding what climate IS.
Anti Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You claim the climate changes... You deny that???
Of course not. WE AGREE!
NO we don't, since you will not define what YOU mean by 'climate changes'. This sort of intellectual dishonesty characterizes your posts.
Anti Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You can not deny that!!!
I can deny that what YOU mean by 'climate changes' is the same as what I mean by 'climate changes'. That is the point. You don't understand the subject and made stupid statements that need 'interpretation' so I must ask what you mean before I can tell if we are talking about the same thing.
Anti Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be feeling sick having to agree with me... Or perhaps you are the true denier!
May you find peace in your faith
I find peace by finding agreement. I will probably never have peace with someone as slippery as you. Who knows if we agree on anything. And I never deny the science. The problem is that I UNDERSTAND the science and I cannot claim that for you. Your sort of confused mumblings are worse than denial. They are misleading and often wrong in substance.
Muslim Mom

Australia

#104 Oct 11, 2013
I think man too much pride if think can warm up climate as this up to Allah.
White Cnuts

Auckland, New Zealand

#105 Oct 11, 2013
Theres too many white people. Even in NZ theres 3 million of these magotts. Each of them do 5 farts a day that equates to 3million x 5farts = 15million gases x 365 (year)= 5475,000,000 gases a year!(that could be used as a nuclear bomb!)

So in NZ alone we've had a climate change because of their farts! Can't tell me that's not contributing to global warming worldwide either!
Micky

Bedfordale, Australia

#106 Oct 11, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
"very specific programs designed to facilitate, or to force, the transition to Sustainable Development."
Do it now, or do it after you have lost most of the world to the ravages of destructive practices and exploitation.
What exactly is your problem with this?
Do it How? When you sit at your computer or devise that allows you to post, it must be powered by some means. All of this would have to stop and we would need to go back to the Dark ages. Try telling this to the masses. There is no practical solution to bring about the changes that would be required to change back or to stop this climate change syndrome. So we need to look at reality. Try population growth,food, water and technology as factors that are the issues that will present itself before climate change.Do you honestly believe that we will give up the way that we live and voluntarily go back?

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, ... 2 hr berklee 2,806
News Get furnace checked or face a fine (Nov '14) 5 hr silly rabbit 129
News Should men wear pantyhose for warmth? It's not ... (Jan '09) Thu Troup54 233
News Rainfall creates no significant problems on Col... Thu Booger T 2
News Gatlinburg fires: 4 dead; crews search for missing Thu Sad 1
News Despite rainfall, Muscogee Co. remains under bu... Wed George Johnson 1
News Rain welcomed: Precipitation leads to wrecks, d... Nov 30 Code Enforcement 2
More from around the web