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.

Big Bum

Chisinau, Moldova

#170 Dec 1, 2013
Tim Flannery wrote:
<quoted text>All good mate, I just want the world to know Im full of shit before anyone else rushes out and builds desalination plants around their country
get out of here flanno
Tim Flannery

Adelaide, Australia

#171 Dec 1, 2013
Big Bum wrote:
<quoted text>get out of here flanno
I would but the searing heat out side caused by a generation length drought has made it near impossible. Did I mention Queensland dams would never fill again, just before Brisbane flooded the first time
Big Bum

Megion, Russia

#172 Dec 1, 2013
Tim Flannery wrote:
<quoted text>I would but the searing heat out side caused by a generation length drought has made it near impossible. Did I mention Queensland dams would never fill again, just before Brisbane flooded the first time
To tell you the truth I dont car at all, I just wanted to call you flanno.
trev

Geelong, Australia

#173 Dec 1, 2013
Tim,
I hear on the grapevine that you are soon to be awarded the inaugural most hypocritical person on earth award.....congratulations and please fill us in on how you not only have maintained such a high level of hypocrisy for so long but also managed to get paid for it by us taxpayers?
Tim Flannery wrote:
<quoted text>I would but the searing heat out side caused by a generation length drought has made it near impossible. Did I mention Queensland dams would never fill again, just before Brisbane flooded the first time

“Fair & Balanced”

Since: Jul 12

wherever there's a mine

#174 Dec 1, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe the tens of thousands of papers and thousands of scientists that the IPCC draw their fact FROM. I do so because I have read the material and checked it against the data and the facts that I know from having two university degrees.
By contrast, there are only two or three climate denialists of any scientific credibility and those have yet to write any papers that are peer reviewed, accepted by a significant science journal and with no immediate rebuttal due to glaring errors.
And I accept the 'review' by the National Academy of Science, which approved of the IPCC WG1 (the scientific basis). National scientific academies are the basic source of 'authority' in science. THEY are the ones that say when a hypothesis is 'validated' and accepted as science. And only when THEY accepted the AGW thesis did it become science fact and thus teachable in schools.
That is the fact. The rest of your rant is bullshit.
The main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). One of the aims of the IPCC is to show human induced climate change.

It is not part of the IPCC principles to be objective or factual. If it isn't relevant to their objective it is discarded for example the earth hasn't warmed for 15 years they don't print it. You can agree with me that you'll only ever report on research that supports your theory/objective.

The 1st IPCC report was accepted & passed by 322 delegates of which 279 were gov't officials. Credible scientists I think not. In fact only 43 were what you'd consider climate scientists. It was meant to be 71 but 28 invited scientist got a conscious & didn't sign the report. That is what all this is based on - 43 scientist & their selective interpretation of others work to arrive at the required conclusion.

In 2010 one of those IPCC scientist Dr Tripp said we aren't quite there yet to agree on man made climate change & we may not know for another 150 years. Dr Hume of the IPCC in 2010 said there is no scientific consensus on global warming & the current scientific case was decided by "a small gaggle of people". What if that small gaggle are wrong? They haven't considered that.

IPCC through 4 reports state that it is 90% probable temperatures will rise between 1980 & 2100. Yet we are 100% certain global temperatures haven't risen for the last 15 years. Even the IPCC agree to this as noted in AR5. AR4 they predict only a 0.7 degree increase - vastly different to 3.4 degree rise they were touting 20 years earlier. AR5 they blame man for only 50% of temperature rises - or 0.35 degrees based on the AR4 report. What causes the rest? Well that isn't for the IPCC to report on is it.

I don't need sceptics to tell me there is a big pile of horsesh1t being sold by the UN on global warming. I can see the crap in their own reports.

And why isn't the IPCC using CO2 data from atmospheric NF3 samples? Because the readings aren't high enough.

And if the IPCC published reading from Syowa rather than Manua Loa CO2 readings would be 8% lower. IPCC use only data from stations that give constant high readings like Cap fergusan in QLD which is near zinc & copper refineries, sugar mills & several mines.
Tim Flannery

Adelaide, Australia

#175 Dec 1, 2013
Big Bum wrote:
<quoted text>To tell you the truth I dont car at all, I just wanted to call you flanno.
Oh ok, but Im used to being called fark off if you dont mind
Tim Flannery

Adelaide, Australia

#176 Dec 1, 2013
trev wrote:
Tim,
I hear on the grapevine that you are soon to be awarded the inaugural most hypocritical person on earth award.....congratulations and please fill us in on how you not only have maintained such a high level of hypocrisy for so long but also managed to get paid for it by us taxpayers?
<quoted text>
Thats why Im the scientist and you're not
Goats Milk Australia

Netherlands

#177 Dec 1, 2013
I don't use my microwave to make popcorn anymore, I just put the bag outside and the global warming pops it under 45 seconds. But then I have to dress up as a bear and run outside and go DING so that I know its done or else it gets burnt.

My nissan leaf is stuck at the end of my street. It go stuck because it could not make it over a speed bump. I had to push it the rest of the way home and I had diarrhea from drinking 2 gallons of goat milk yesterday.
Goats milk Australia

Kenthurst, Australia

#178 Dec 1, 2013
Western countries have a clean record with nuclear, I think if non western countries had nuclear there would be accidents like in Japan and the Ukraine, but France, Sweden, UK and America all have clean records when it comes to nuclear and a very responsible track record.

I think it's worth considering nuclear as a carbon free means of energy.

Solar is an obvious choice to be expanded, the sun will not run out, and panels are very convenient, portable and safe.

Electric cars are also an obvious choice.

I think if we took these steps we could be well on the way to clean energy security.

The problem would then become the non western world. If they took up electric transportation, than that would be a start.

At the present time I think much more investment needs to occur in solar. We must get all we can from this technology. The sun essentially is free, and the potential for an energy source is huge, but we need nuclear or another significant non polluting source.

It's a balance, clean air or nuclear. I think the benefits outweigh the risks, and I'm someone who is very sceptical about nuclear.

If you can guarantee the safety of nuclear, than you are going to save a lot of pollution.

Solar power is great for homes, electric car charging all that sort of thing, but nuclear is also carbon free. I think it's something to have a closer look at.
beatlesinthebog

New Zealand

#179 Dec 2, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
I have wondered this myself. You are in a perfect position to tell me. By the way, have you read the science at all or is your 'personal thesis' drawn from whole cloth?
The basic difference between us is that I don't have a 'personal thesis' but read and understand the relevant scientific literature. And I have noticed that those with a 'personal agenda' are usually motivated by money or political ideology and avoid talking about facts entirely. In fact, they seem to take facts as 'insulting' to their 'personal views' instead of what they are. Corrections of delusional claims by the ignorant.
So the inference would have to be drawn that anyone who doesn't agree with your self acknowledged brilliance is deluded?...hmmm....interesting . I'm very happy for you that you have this exceptional talent over others to be able to read and understand what fits your own beliefs! Onya!!! With a little transposition,John Fogerty's words ".....it must be true cos I seen it on TV" would tend to fit your good self like a glove.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#180 Dec 2, 2013
chefboy812 wrote:
<quoted text>
The main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). One of the aims of the IPCC is to show human induced climate change.
Which includes that there might not be any. It reports on what the science knows. Nothing more. You are trying to IMPLY a biased objective which is pure spam and spin.
chefboy812 wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not part of the IPCC principles to be objective or factual.
A claim without merit. Science is, by nature, objective and factual. The IPCC, basing it's report on the science, has to be the same (at least in WG1). Some motivation or biase MAY be part of WG2 and WG3 but there is no evidence to date of such.
chefboy812 wrote:
<quoted text>
If it isn't relevant to their objective it is discarded for example the earth hasn't warmed for 15 years they don't print it.
Their concern is AGW (i.e. warming of the global average surface temperature) and it's affect on climate globally. The 'pause' as you call it is NOT in AGW (it affects only air temperatures which is 2% of the 'surface' while the TOTAL thermal energy increases as expected). This was part of their report. They did not ignore it.
chefboy812 wrote:
<quoted text>
You can agree with me that you'll only ever report on research that supports your theory/objective.
To prove bias you FIRST have to identify any serious papers that contradict the report. I know of none that have passed peer review and rebuttal from other scientists. The report has to say the 'state of the science' which is AGW theory and that is confirmed by review by the highest scientific reviews including the NAS.

Claiming bias or an 'agenda' is pure hyperbole and rhetoric. And it is without any merit that I can find.
chefboy812 wrote:
<quoted text>
The 1st IPCC report was accepted & passed by 322 delegates of which 279 were gov't officials. Credible scientists I think not.
Their is a split in the IPCC between the WG1 and the WG2,WG3. The WG1 is purely based on the science. It is approved by leading scientists of all stripes.

WG2 (the effect of AGW) is based on the WG1 factual basis but has to extend it to the future and therefore is 'modelling' and 'trending' which is less deterministic.

WG2 (what to do about it) HAS to be political in some ways since it is support for the political decisions necessary to deal with AGW. You cannot criticize it for doing it's job.

However, I have not found any basis for bias in WG3. It is based on reasoned and rational responses to WG2.
chefboy812 wrote:
<quoted text>
In fact only 43 were what you'd consider climate scientists.
Those would be the chief architects of WG1 which is a review of the science papers. Each of the climate scientist is a leader in the particular area of research that goes into the theory. And as leading research scientists they are intimately familiar with the current scientific papers.
chefboy812 wrote:
<quoted text>
It was meant to be 71 but 28 invited scientist got a conscious & didn't sign the report.
Only the 'lead authors' sign the report while ALL delegates are part of the consensus meetings. Give some examples or references to any of them that 'refused to sign'. I doubt that you can.

and the hyperbole about 'grew a conscience' is evidence only of your biases.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#181 Dec 2, 2013
chefboy812 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is what all this is based on - 43 scientist & their selective interpretation of others work to arrive at the required conclusion.
False. The report is BASED on the tens of thousands of reports published in the main science journals. And the thousands of scientists that wrote them. That it is assembled by a smaller group is irrelevant.

Nor have you given ANY evidence of bias or distortion.
chefboy812 wrote:
<quoted text>
In 2010 one of those IPCC scientist Dr Tripp said we aren't quite there yet to agree on man made climate change & we may not know for another 150 years.
The statement was made in response to the 2007 report, not the 2013 report. And it was that he didn't agree that we had it nailed down at the time. He made no assessment of how long it would take. Nor did he claim to have the expertise to evaluate all the science. Science has 'skeptics' and nobody will be 100% in agreement with 100% of the conclusions. You are making a mountain out of a ant hill.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#182 Dec 2, 2013
chefboy812 wrote:
<quoted text>
Dr Hume of the IPCC in 2010 said there is no scientific consensus on global warming & the current scientific case was decided by "a small gaggle of people". What if that small gaggle are wrong? They haven't considered that.
http://biasedbbc.org/blog/2013/09/30/ipcc-nuk...
You are right that Mr. Hulme has an agenda which is at odds with good science.

"He tells us that the emphasis on science distracts from resolving political challenges arising from different interests, values and attitudes to risk."

Which led him to make statements that are more political than scientific. But then they were distorted by the politics of denial. He set the record straight in

Charges of a “phony UN IPCC consensus” are already reverberating on contrarian blogs around the world, thanks to the quick efforts of climate science disinformation specialist Marc Morano.

http://tinyurl.com/28sudcn
"Now Mike Hulme, a professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia, has set the record straight. His “correcting and clarifying” statement is unambiguous in its disavowal of Solomon’s and Morano’s misinterpretation:"

"I did not say the ‘IPCC misleads’ anyone – it is claims that are made by other commentators, such as the caricatured claim I offer in the paper, that have the potential to mislead."
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#183 Dec 2, 2013
chefboy812 wrote:
<quoted text>
IPCC through 4 reports state that it is 90% probable temperatures will rise between 1980 & 2100. Yet we are 100% certain global temperatures haven't risen for the last 15 years.
A repeated lie. Wrong on two accounts. One is that the AIR temperatures HAVE warmed, just not as much as expected. In fact, if you take the CRU data (the one with the least warming) and correct it for the lack of polar coverage (a known flaw) you get about the same rate of warming over the last 17 years as the other studies.

The second distortion is that it is about AIR temperature at two meters. We use the meteorology data because it is convenient and has a large coverage. But it is NOT a perfect measure of the 'average surface temperature' and every climate scientists keeps making the point that ONLY in the LONG term (over 30 years) can you distinguish the underlying SIGNAL of warming. Variations in climate processes can make for a cooler air temperature which has NO SIGNIFICANCE.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#184 Dec 2, 2013
chefboy812 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even the IPCC agree to this as noted in AR5. AR4 they predict only a 0.7 degree increase - vastly different to 3.4 degree rise they were touting 20 years earlier.
More bullshit. The IPCC specifies it (Climate sensitivity) in terms of the temperature rise for a doubling of GHGs. The range of this is still exactly what it was except for a slight lowering in the lower limit based on rejection of previous, now determined to be flawed, research. The mean projection for a doubling of CO2e is still 3C or so.

And no discussion of temperature rise can be made without first defining the 'scenario' of emissions.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#185 Dec 2, 2013
chefboy812 wrote:
<quoted text>
AR5 they blame man for only 50% of temperature rises - or 0.35 degrees based on the AR4 report. What causes the rest? Well that isn't for the IPCC to report on is it.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...

"It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. "

And yes. It is the mission of the IPCC to report it, while it seems to be your mission to excrete unfounded bullshit.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#186 Dec 2, 2013
Good article Merging of Capitalism and Communism. http://endalltyranny.wordpress.com/2013/07/27...
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#187 Dec 2, 2013
chefboy812 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need sceptics to tell me there is a big pile of horsesh1t being sold by the UN on global warming. I can see the crap in their own reports.
Idiots and fools need NO help in being idiots and fools. You prove this much at least.
chefboy812 wrote:
<quoted text>
And why isn't the IPCC using CO2 data from atmospheric NF3 samples? Because the readings aren't high enough.
No. Because Nitrogen Trifluoride is not a measure of CO2.
http://www.livescience.com/2994-potent-greenh...
chefboy812 wrote:
<quoted text>
And if the IPCC published reading from Syowa rather than Manua Loa CO2 readings would be 8% lower.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-measureme...

It is true that there is a geographical disparity in CO2 measures since sources and sinks are relatively localized. This is why Mauna Loa is the 'gold standard' being so isolated from both sources and sinks that it gets a good view of the 'average'. A minor point even if conceded. Cherry picking that station because it has a lower value than the average globally is junk science.
chefboy812 wrote:
<quoted text>
IPCC use only data from stations that give constant high readings like Cap fergusan in QLD which is near zinc & copper refineries, sugar mills & several mines.
No. It uses Mauna Loa mostly which tracks global averages from ALL stations within 1%(see Figure 2).

Ok. You have has your excretions scooped up and put where they belong. I am ready for a new round if you need to go again..
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#188 Dec 2, 2013
Dishant wrote:
Good article Merging of Capitalism and Communism. http://endalltyranny.wordpress.com/2013/07/27...
Some truth and some lies.

Capitalists (the aristocracy of money) has NO need for science to push it's agenda which is basically Fascist totalitarianism, not communist. It is like the 'endgame' in Monopoly. Those with just a little more money and property have so many advantages over the other players it is virtually game over half way through.

And it is Fascism, not Communism. Communism is defined by the LACK of an elite. So it cannot be PART of an elitist sytems. Do not confuse it with the party oligarchies that the West ahs LABELLED as 'Communist'.

www.activistpost.com/2012/03/14-defining-char...
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#189 Dec 2, 2013
Note: Capitalism is also a distorted label. The current 'elitism of wealth' is NOT what was defined by the philosophers as Capitalism. Capitalism as originally defined was the collection of INDIVIDUAL wealth from working classes under a 'manager' that provided the funding for business expansion. It was an experiment in a 'meritocracy' very similar in principle to communism as originally defined. But power from merit has failed as those who INHERIT power have clung to it and twisted the system (and the philosphies) to their own benefit.

Capitalist ideology did NOT provide for the fact that those with CONTROL of money would inevitably put it in their OWN pocket and become an moneyed elite.

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 Congress ponders Harvey relief, resentment l... 3 min Ted Haggard s Mas... 34
News In hurricanes' wake, experts warn of flood-dama... 13 hr Nope 1
News How San Pedro schools came through for Texas hu... 16 hr Laredo 1
News Inside The Herald - If a community is only wort... (Jan '08) Mon why Herald MIA 56
News Hurricanes are not a liberal conspiracy, trust ... Sun Talkin To DaHypoc... 7
News Bridgeport to experience rain, wind from Jose Sun BPT 1
News Global warming made Paris floods far more likel... (Jun '16) Sat Fuggleton 154
More from around the web