hot enough for ya?

[Sangoma]

sangoma,

did you miss my post by a climate scientist refuting the bates stuff about data manipulation?

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-m ... ature-rise

there are others who establish the unreliability of the assertion. i get the point. apparently you don't.

also, vast sections of your great barrier reef are dying as ocean temperatures rise. why would the ocean be heating up? who's doing that manipulation?

I give up. Your handwriting is better than mine.

For those who understand what the argument is about, this is from the Committee on Science, Space and Technology at science.house.gov.

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas): “I thank Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion. In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference. Since then, the Committee has attempted to obtain information that would shed further light on these allegations, but was obstructed at every turn by the previous administration’s officials. I repeatedly asked, ‘What does NOAA have to hide?’

“Now that Dr. Bates has confirmed that there were heated disagreements within NOAA about the quality and transparency of the data before publication, we know why NOAA fought transparency and oversight at every turn. Dr. Bates’ revelations and NOAA’s obstruction certainly lend credence to what I’ve expected all along – that the Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the president’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study. The Committee thanks Dr. Bates, a Department of Commerce Gold Medal winner for creating and implementing a standard to produce and preserve climate data, for exposing the previous administration’s efforts to push their costly climate agenda at the expense of scientific integrity.”

[dead man walking]

lamar smith is a partisan hack. his "investigation" of this proved zero re the allegations.

you're citing all the dunces.

[dead man walking]

p.s. this might be helpful to you:

http://climatefeedback.org/sensational- ... overblown/

note this:

Dr. Bates (the “whistleblower”) contradicted the statements in the Daily Mail in a pair of new interviews on Tuesday. Bates told EENews, “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.” And in an interview with the Associated Press, Bates said there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.”

[Sangoma]

Again, selective quotes and diversion from the topic. In the very interview to the Associated Press that you quoted it says:

Bates said in an interview Monday with The Associated Press that he was most concerned about the way data was handled, documented and stored, raising issues of transparency and availability. He said Karl didn't follow the more than 20 crucial data storage and handling steps that Bates created for NOAA. He said it looked like the June 2015 study was pushed out to influence the December 2015 climate treaty negotiations in Paris.

And then it says what Climatefeedback chose to quote:

However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious."

[dead man walking]

the world meteorological organization has released its annual report:

The year 2016 made history, with a record global temperature, exceptionally low sea ice, and unabated sea level rise and ocean heat, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Extreme weather and climate conditions have continued into 2017.

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-r ... al-impacts

[DrDonkeyLove]

the world meteorological organization has released its annual report:

The year 2016 made history, with a record global temperature, exceptionally low sea ice, and unabated sea level rise and ocean heat, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Extreme weather and climate conditions have continued into 2017.

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-r ... al-impacts

I've been pondering why the ultra rich haven't been unloading their beachside mansions and coastal elite liberal enclaves aren't doing anything practical to mitigate the local consequences of our inevitable Noah levels of flooding.

It's almost like they don't really believe their own propaganda.

[dead man walking]

that's a fair point.

i think sea level rise (approx 1/10 inch/year) is slow enough that today's owners don't face huge immediate risk, except from big storms. they also probably expect mitigation efforts will buy them time--breakwaters, beach replenishment--and being people who are rich, influential and spoiled, they'll expect the government to protect their property.

one example: flooding during high tide is common in miami--a 400 percent increase in the past 10 years, according to one report. as a result the city is spending 10s of millions to raise roads and install pumps.

if the glacial melt in greenland accelerates, it could be fun times along the coast. mar a lago will be in diapers.

[JimZipCode]

I've been pondering why the ultra rich haven't been unloading their beachside mansions and coastal elite liberal enclaves aren't doing anything practical to mitigate the local consequences of our inevitable Noah levels of flooding.
It's almost like they don't really believe their own propaganda.

Why? Who gives a shit what ultra-rich people "believe"? Of more interest to me is what practical people are doing.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/sus ... te]October 25, 2016
"Norfolk is at risk over the next few decades if we don't do something to slow down sea level rise," Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told a gathering in Washington, D.C., on Monday.
Naval Station Norfolk, the largest naval complex in the world, is located in southeastern Virginia.
"All our bases are in some way or other at risk," Mabus said.
...
"As the Arctic begins to be ice-free, Russia's already said the waters to its north are an internal waterway. They're not. "Part of our responsibilities is keeping the sea lanes open, making sure that international law is followed, making sure that peaceful trade at sea can go where international law says it can. And so climate change and things like that are -- it's a risk in the future for things like Norfolk and our bases, but it's here today in terms of increasing our responsibility in terms of what we've got to respond to, in terms of how we have to position ourselves and how we have to think about our roles."[/quote]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017 ... e]February 7, 2017
Sea level at Norfolk has risen 14.5 inches in the century since World War I, when the naval station was built. ... This visibly changing geography made Norfolk the natural poster child for the climate challenges confronting the Defense Department
...
“We don’t talk about climate change,” Capt. Dean VanderLey told visiting journalists in a tour of the base before the election. “We talk about sea-level rise. You can measure it.”
...
GAO auditors surveyed the military’s holdings in 2014 to assess the climate impacts. Their report, which drew little notice at the time, focused on 15 unidentified sites where sea-level rise and severe weather are damaging runways, roads, seawalls, and buildings.
In the Arctic, the region warming faster than anywhere else on Earth, the combination of melting sea ice, thawing permafrost and sea-level rise is eroding the Alaska shoreline enough to damage several Air Force radar early warning and communication installations. At one base, half a runway has given way to erosion, preventing large planes from using it. Damage to a seawall has allowed waves to wash onto the runway at another base. Thawing permafrost has also affected access to training areas.
n the West, drought has amplified the threat of wildfires and deluge has damaged roads, runways, and buildings at bases there. Wildfire in Alaska has interrupted training. Last year in California, fires threatened Camp Pendleton, the Marine Corps’ major West Coast base, which lies 48 miles north of San Diego, as well as Vandenberg Air Force Base, 65 miles north of Santa Barbara. A year’s worth of rain fell in 80 minutes at Fort Irwin in the Mojave Desert in California, causing $64 million in damage to 160 buildings, including barracks, roads, a bridge, and 11,000 feet of fencing.[/quote]

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/scie ... quote]Sept 3 2016
The sea has crept up to the point that a high tide and a brisk wind are all it takes to send water pouring into streets and homes.
Federal scientists have documented a sharp jump in this nuisance flooding — often called “sunny-day flooding” — along both the East Coast and the Gulf Coast in recent years. The sea is now so near the brim in many places that they believe the problem is likely to worsen quickly. Shifts in the Pacific Ocean mean that the West Coast, partly spared over the past two decades, may be hit hard, too.
These tidal floods are often just a foot or two deep, but they can stop traffic, swamp basements, damage cars, kill lawns and forests, and poison wells with salt. Moreover, the high seas interfere with the drainage of storm water.[/quote]

[nafod]

the world meteorological organization has released its annual report:

The year 2016 made history, with a record global temperature, exceptionally low sea ice, and unabated sea level rise and ocean heat, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Extreme weather and climate conditions have continued into 2017.

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-r ... al-impacts

I've been pondering why the ultra rich haven't been unloading their beachside mansions and coastal elite liberal enclaves aren't doing anything practical to mitigate the local consequences of our inevitable Noah levels of flooding.

It's almost like they don't really believe their own propaganda.

I grew up in VA Beach, and it has been a running battle of the beachfront owners demanding the coast be shored up to protect their property. This predates the current climate stuff too. They will unload them when the taxpayers stop bailing them out.

[DrDonkeyLove]

I've been pondering why the ultra rich haven't been unloading their beachside mansions and coastal elite liberal enclaves aren't doing anything practical to mitigate the local consequences of our inevitable Noah levels of flooding.
It's almost like they don't really believe their own propaganda.

Why? Who gives a shit what ultra-rich people "believe"? Of more interest to me is what practical people are doing.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/sus ... te]October 25, 2016
"Norfolk is at risk over the next few decades if we don't do something to slow down sea level rise," Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told a gathering in Washington, D.C., on Monday.
Naval Station Norfolk, the largest naval complex in the world, is located in southeastern Virginia.
"All our bases are in some way or other at risk," Mabus said.
...
"As the Arctic begins to be ice-free, Russia's already said the waters to its north are an internal waterway. They're not. "Part of our responsibilities is keeping the sea lanes open, making sure that international law is followed, making sure that peaceful trade at sea can go where international law says it can. And so climate change and things like that are -- it's a risk in the future for things like Norfolk and our bases, but it's here today in terms of increasing our responsibility in terms of what we've got to respond to, in terms of how we have to position ourselves and how we have to think about our roles."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017 ... e]February 7, 2017
Sea level at Norfolk has risen 14.5 inches in the century since World War I, when the naval station was built. ... This visibly changing geography made Norfolk the natural poster child for the climate challenges confronting the Defense Department
...
“We don’t talk about climate change,” Capt. Dean VanderLey told visiting journalists in a tour of the base before the election. “We talk about sea-level rise. You can measure it.”
...
GAO auditors surveyed the military’s holdings in 2014 to assess the climate impacts. Their report, which drew little notice at the time, focused on 15 unidentified sites where sea-level rise and severe weather are damaging runways, roads, seawalls, and buildings.
In the Arctic, the region warming faster than anywhere else on Earth, the combination of melting sea ice, thawing permafrost and sea-level rise is eroding the Alaska shoreline enough to damage several Air Force radar early warning and communication installations. At one base, half a runway has given way to erosion, preventing large planes from using it. Damage to a seawall has allowed waves to wash onto the runway at another base. Thawing permafrost has also affected access to training areas.
n the West, drought has amplified the threat of wildfires and deluge has damaged roads, runways, and buildings at bases there. Wildfire in Alaska has interrupted training. Last year in California, fires threatened Camp Pendleton, the Marine Corps’ major West Coast base, which lies 48 miles north of San Diego, as well as Vandenberg Air Force Base, 65 miles north of Santa Barbara. A year’s worth of rain fell in 80 minutes at Fort Irwin in the Mojave Desert in California, causing $64 million in damage to 160 buildings, including barracks, roads, a bridge, and 11,000 feet of fencing.[/quote]

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/scie ... quote]Sept 3 2016
The sea has crept up to the point that a high tide and a brisk wind are all it takes to send water pouring into streets and homes.
Federal scientists have documented a sharp jump in this nuisance flooding — often called “sunny-day flooding” — along both the East Coast and the Gulf Coast in recent years. The sea is now so near the brim in many places that they believe the problem is likely to worsen quickly. Shifts in the Pacific Ocean mean that the West Coast, partly spared over the past two decades, may be hit hard, too.
These tidal floods are often just a foot or two deep, but they can stop traffic, swamp basements, damage cars, kill lawns and forests, and poison wells with salt. Moreover, the high seas interfere with the drainage of storm water.[/quote][/quote]

Seems like warmers are focused on national and global "solutions" that can't gain necessary political traction and will, at best, only mitigate climate related flooding.

Why aren't key political interests such as the rich who live on the beaches, real estate developers, and very powerful politicians in extremely wealthy Democrat warmerist run states such as NY & CA screaming for local solutions that will protect some of our most essential coastal cities? Denialists are preventing them from saving the world, but who's stopping Andrew Cuomo, Jerry Brown & their exceptionally powerful Democrat representatives in the federal government from helping some of their most vulnerable constituents.

At the very least they'd be showing the rest of America how serious they are about climate related flooding and be driving the national conversation. Unless, of course, issues are more important to them than solutions.

[nafod]

I've been pondering why the ultra rich haven't been unloading their beachside mansions and coastal elite liberal enclaves aren't doing anything practical to mitigate the local consequences of our inevitable Noah levels of flooding.
It's almost like they don't really believe their own propaganda.

Why? Who gives a shit what ultra-rich people "believe"? Of more interest to me is what practical people are doing.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/sus ... te]October 25, 2016
"Norfolk is at risk over the next few decades if we don't do something to slow down sea level rise," Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told a gathering in Washington, D.C., on Monday.
Naval Station Norfolk, the largest naval complex in the world, is located in southeastern Virginia.
"All our bases are in some way or other at risk," Mabus said.
...
"As the Arctic begins to be ice-free, Russia's already said the waters to its north are an internal waterway. They're not. "Part of our responsibilities is keeping the sea lanes open, making sure that international law is followed, making sure that peaceful trade at sea can go where international law says it can. And so climate change and things like that are -- it's a risk in the future for things like Norfolk and our bases, but it's here today in terms of increasing our responsibility in terms of what we've got to respond to, in terms of how we have to position ourselves and how we have to think about our roles."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017 ... e]February 7, 2017
Sea level at Norfolk has risen 14.5 inches in the century since World War I, when the naval station was built. ... This visibly changing geography made Norfolk the natural poster child for the climate challenges confronting the Defense Department
...
“We don’t talk about climate change,” Capt. Dean VanderLey told visiting journalists in a tour of the base before the election. “We talk about sea-level rise. You can measure it.”
...
GAO auditors surveyed the military’s holdings in 2014 to assess the climate impacts. Their report, which drew little notice at the time, focused on 15 unidentified sites where sea-level rise and severe weather are damaging runways, roads, seawalls, and buildings.
In the Arctic, the region warming faster than anywhere else on Earth, the combination of melting sea ice, thawing permafrost and sea-level rise is eroding the Alaska shoreline enough to damage several Air Force radar early warning and communication installations. At one base, half a runway has given way to erosion, preventing large planes from using it. Damage to a seawall has allowed waves to wash onto the runway at another base. Thawing permafrost has also affected access to training areas.
n the West, drought has amplified the threat of wildfires and deluge has damaged roads, runways, and buildings at bases there. Wildfire in Alaska has interrupted training. Last year in California, fires threatened Camp Pendleton, the Marine Corps’ major West Coast base, which lies 48 miles north of San Diego, as well as Vandenberg Air Force Base, 65 miles north of Santa Barbara. A year’s worth of rain fell in 80 minutes at Fort Irwin in the Mojave Desert in California, causing $64 million in damage to 160 buildings, including barracks, roads, a bridge, and 11,000 feet of fencing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/scie ... quote]Sept 3 2016
The sea has crept up to the point that a high tide and a brisk wind are all it takes to send water pouring into streets and homes.
Federal scientists have documented a sharp jump in this nuisance flooding — often called “sunny-day flooding” — along both the East Coast and the Gulf Coast in recent years. The sea is now so near the brim in many places that they believe the problem is likely to worsen quickly. Shifts in the Pacific Ocean mean that the West Coast, partly spared over the past two decades, may be hit hard, too.
These tidal floods are often just a foot or two deep, but they can stop traffic, swamp basements, damage cars, kill lawns and forests, and poison wells with salt. Moreover, the high seas interfere with the drainage of storm water.[/quote][/quote]

Seems like warmers are focused on national and global "solutions" that can't gain necessary political traction and will, at best, only mitigate climate related flooding.

Why aren't key political interests such as the rich who live on the beaches, real estate developers, and very powerful politicians in extremely wealthy Democrat warmerist run states such as NY & CA screaming for local solutions that will protect some of our most essential coastal cities? Denialists are preventing them from saving the world, but who's stopping Andrew Cuomo, Jerry Brown & their exceptionally powerful Democrat representatives in the federal government from helping some of their most vulnerable constituents.

At the very least they'd be showing the rest of America how serious they are about climate related flooding and be driving the national conversation. Unless, of course, issues are more important to them than solutions.[/quote]
You mean like this, Donk? Took me seconds to google it.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/102559.html

[DrDonkeyLove]

I've been pondering why the ultra rich haven't been unloading their beachside mansions and coastal elite liberal enclaves aren't doing anything practical to mitigate the local consequences of our inevitable Noah levels of flooding.
It's almost like they don't really believe their own propaganda.

Why? Who gives a shit what ultra-rich people "believe"? Of more interest to me is what practical people are doing.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/sus ... te]October 25, 2016
"Norfolk is at risk over the next few decades if we don't do something to slow down sea level rise," Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told a gathering in Washington, D.C., on Monday.
Naval Station Norfolk, the largest naval complex in the world, is located in southeastern Virginia.
"All our bases are in some way or other at risk," Mabus said.
...
"As the Arctic begins to be ice-free, Russia's already said the waters to its north are an internal waterway. They're not. "Part of our responsibilities is keeping the sea lanes open, making sure that international law is followed, making sure that peaceful trade at sea can go where international law says it can. And so climate change and things like that are -- it's a risk in the future for things like Norfolk and our bases, but it's here today in terms of increasing our responsibility in terms of what we've got to respond to, in terms of how we have to position ourselves and how we have to think about our roles."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017 ... e]February 7, 2017
Sea level at Norfolk has risen 14.5 inches in the century since World War I, when the naval station was built. ... This visibly changing geography made Norfolk the natural poster child for the climate challenges confronting the Defense Department
...
“We don’t talk about climate change,” Capt. Dean VanderLey told visiting journalists in a tour of the base before the election. “We talk about sea-level rise. You can measure it.”
...
GAO auditors surveyed the military’s holdings in 2014 to assess the climate impacts. Their report, which drew little notice at the time, focused on 15 unidentified sites where sea-level rise and severe weather are damaging runways, roads, seawalls, and buildings.
In the Arctic, the region warming faster than anywhere else on Earth, the combination of melting sea ice, thawing permafrost and sea-level rise is eroding the Alaska shoreline enough to damage several Air Force radar early warning and communication installations. At one base, half a runway has given way to erosion, preventing large planes from using it. Damage to a seawall has allowed waves to wash onto the runway at another base. Thawing permafrost has also affected access to training areas.
n the West, drought has amplified the threat of wildfires and deluge has damaged roads, runways, and buildings at bases there. Wildfire in Alaska has interrupted training. Last year in California, fires threatened Camp Pendleton, the Marine Corps’ major West Coast base, which lies 48 miles north of San Diego, as well as Vandenberg Air Force Base, 65 miles north of Santa Barbara. A year’s worth of rain fell in 80 minutes at Fort Irwin in the Mojave Desert in California, causing $64 million in damage to 160 buildings, including barracks, roads, a bridge, and 11,000 feet of fencing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/scie ... quote]Sept 3 2016
The sea has crept up to the point that a high tide and a brisk wind are all it takes to send water pouring into streets and homes.
Federal scientists have documented a sharp jump in this nuisance flooding — often called “sunny-day flooding” — along both the East Coast and the Gulf Coast in recent years. The sea is now so near the brim in many places that they believe the problem is likely to worsen quickly. Shifts in the Pacific Ocean mean that the West Coast, partly spared over the past two decades, may be hit hard, too.
These tidal floods are often just a foot or two deep, but they can stop traffic, swamp basements, damage cars, kill lawns and forests, and poison wells with salt. Moreover, the high seas interfere with the drainage of storm water.

[/quote]

Seems like warmers are focused on national and global "solutions" that can't gain necessary political traction and will, at best, only mitigate climate related flooding.

Why aren't key political interests such as the rich who live on the beaches, real estate developers, and very powerful politicians in extremely wealthy Democrat warmerist run states such as NY & CA screaming for local solutions that will protect some of our most essential coastal cities? Denialists are preventing them from saving the world, but who's stopping Andrew Cuomo, Jerry Brown & their exceptionally powerful Democrat representatives in the federal government from helping some of their most vulnerable constituents.

At the very least they'd be showing the rest of America how serious they are about climate related flooding and be driving the national conversation. Unless, of course, issues are more important to them than solutions.[/quote]
You mean like this, Donk? Took me seconds to google it.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/102559.html[/quote]

That seems a sensible and prudent approach by a gov't agency. It also indicates that the NY DEC isn't overly concerned with apocalyptic scenarios.

This article from The Daily Beast references Dr. James Hansen. Note the seriousness of the danger. The article also offers hope via massive conservation and attaching an environmental cost to fossil fuels (taxes). CA is a one party state and there's nothing in the world stopping Jerry Brown and his green Democrat allies from upping state fuel taxes by a factor of 10 which is rebated back to the citizenry. They could finagle a $1,000 local airport surcharge on all first class tickets and private jet flights out of CA airports. They could offer massive tax rebates to real estate developments that cut energy use by 50%. They could tax the shit out of events that cause people to drive thousands of cars to entertainment events such as Coachella or Dodgers games. All of these fees and taxes could be set aside for climate change management programs.

Yet they don't. It makes me wonder if they're more serious about increasing their party's power via the global warming issue than attacking what they claim is a potentially civilization ending global warming problem.

This roughly ten feet of sea level rise—well beyond previous estimates—would render coastal cities such as New York, London and Shanghai uninhabitable. “Parts of [our coastal cities] would still be sticking above the water,” Hansen says, “but you couldn’t live there.”...

...This apocalyptic scenario illustrates why the goal of limiting temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius is not the safe “guardrail” most politicians and media coverage imply it is, argue Hansen and 16 colleagues in a blockbuster study they are publishing this week in the peer-reviewed journal Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry. On the contrary, a 2 C future would be “highly dangerous.”...More troubling, honoring even the conventional 2 degrees C target has so far proven extremely challenging on political and economic grounds. Current emission trajectories put the world on track towards a staggering 4 degrees of warming before the end of the century, an amount almost certainly beyond civilization’s coping capacity.

[nafod]

CA is a one party state and there's nothing in the world stopping Jerry Brown and his green Democrat allies from upping state fuel taxes by a factor of 10 which is rebated back to the citizenry. They could finagle a $1,000 local airport surcharge on all first class tickets and private jet flights out of CA airports. They could offer massive tax rebates to real estate developments that cut energy use by 50%. They could tax the shit out of events that cause people to drive thousands of cars to entertainment events such as Coachella or Dodgers games. All of these fees and taxes could be set aside for climate change management programs.

Yet they don't.

Have you been to California? I remember going there years ago, and wondering what those things are at the pump. They were (to my knowledge) the first state to force gas stations to use those devices at pumps to capture fumes. They have a legislatively mandated target of 40% reduction of carbon emissions from 1998 to 2030. They actually run a cap & trade program! (https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm). Etc.

They also have to be competitive with the other states, which puts a damper on actions. Ignoring pollution is near-term cheaper.

That you make up some actions that they could take, and then argue that they are not serious because they aren't doing the things you thought up, is an unserious argument. Why don't you google on what they are in fact doing? Move beyond Hannity, Rush, and Breitbart and do some fact-gathering.

[DrDonkeyLove]

CA is a one party state and there's nothing in the world stopping Jerry Brown and his green Democrat allies from upping state fuel taxes by a factor of 10 which is rebated back to the citizenry. They could finagle a $1,000 local airport surcharge on all first class tickets and private jet flights out of CA airports. They could offer massive tax rebates to real estate developments that cut energy use by 50%. They could tax the shit out of events that cause people to drive thousands of cars to entertainment events such as Coachella or Dodgers games. All of these fees and taxes could be set aside for climate change management programs.

Yet they don't.

Have you been to California? I remember going there years ago, and wondering what those things are at the pump. They were (to my knowledge) the first state to force gas stations to use those devices at pumps to capture fumes. They have a legislatively mandated target of 40% reduction of carbon emissions from 1998 to 2030. They actually run a cap & trade program! (https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm). Etc.

They also have to be competitive with the other states, which puts a damper on actions. Ignoring pollution is near-term cheaper.

That you make up some actions that they could take, and then argue that they are not serious because they aren't doing the things you thought up, is an unserious argument. Why don't you google on what they are in fact doing? Move beyond Hannity, Rush, and Breitbart and do some fact-gathering.

I'm not denying warming or that mankind may have a role in it. Nor do I think that all CA environmental efforts are without merit.

I go there regularly and the coastal counties are a paradise for the wealthy. CA is doing a lot of environmental things (including a $64,000,000,000 - $98,000,000,000) high speed train to nowhere). Much of what they're doing is rather regressive and disproportionately affects the 99% with minimal negative economic impact on the rich.

Set aside my off the cuff thought experiments.
Q: Are CA policies representative of a government that takes Hansen's (and others') apocalyptic warnings seriously and are the costs of their remediation efforts apportioned progressively?
A: Doesn't look like it.

[nafod]

CA is a one party state and there's nothing in the world stopping Jerry Brown and his green Democrat allies from upping state fuel taxes by a factor of 10 which is rebated back to the citizenry. They could finagle a $1,000 local airport surcharge on all first class tickets and private jet flights out of CA airports. They could offer massive tax rebates to real estate developments that cut energy use by 50%. They could tax the shit out of events that cause people to drive thousands of cars to entertainment events such as Coachella or Dodgers games. All of these fees and taxes could be set aside for climate change management programs.

Yet they don't.

Have you been to California? I remember going there years ago, and wondering what those things are at the pump. They were (to my knowledge) the first state to force gas stations to use those devices at pumps to capture fumes. They have a legislatively mandated target of 40% reduction of carbon emissions from 1998 to 2030. They actually run a cap & trade program! (https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm). Etc.

They also have to be competitive with the other states, which puts a damper on actions. Ignoring pollution is near-term cheaper.

That you make up some actions that they could take, and then argue that they are not serious because they aren't doing the things you thought up, is an unserious argument. Why don't you google on what they are in fact doing? Move beyond Hannity, Rush, and Breitbart and do some fact-gathering.

I'm not denying warming or that mankind may have a role in it. Nor do I think that all CA environmental efforts are without merit.

I go there regularly and the coastal counties are a paradise for the wealthy. CA is doing a lot of environmental things (including a $64,000,000,000 - $98,000,000,000) high speed train to nowhere). Much of what they're doing is rather regressive and disproportionately affects the 99% with minimal negative economic impact on the rich.

Set aside my off the cuff thought experiments.
Q: Are CA policies representative of a government that takes Hansen's (and others') apocalyptic warnings seriously and are the costs of their remediation efforts apportioned progressively?
A: Doesn't look like it.

OK, I got your argument now.

Haven't seen Hansen's apocalyptic report enter the real discussion as accepted science. It's still the IPCC results that are metric. When the IPCC adopts the more apocalyptic outcomes, then I expect we'll see proportional attempts to act.

Not sure about the regressive argument. But is it possible to have a real "negative" impact on the rich? Won't they still be rich?

If it makes you feel better, you can watch rich Malibu residents spend their own nickel trying to hold back the inexorable creep of the Pacific Ocean.
http://www.malibutimes.com/news/article ... 7922e.html

My parents live on the Outer Banks of NC, and I've been going there for 50 years. You can watch the ocean eat away at the land, there is no burying your head in the sand or trying to find an alternate cause. The sea's coming in. So many tell-tales.

[Sangoma]

Four Studies Find ‘No Observable Sea-Level Effect’ From Man-Made Global Warming

In a paper published on May 18, Hindumathi Palanisamy at the Laboratoire d’Etudes en Geophysique et Oceanograhie Spatiales (LEGOS) in Toulouse, France and her co-authors explain that “sea level is an integrated climate parameter that involves interactions of all components of the climate system (oceans, ice sheets, glaciers, atmosphere, and land water reservoirs) on a wide range of spatial and temporal scales….

“Since 1993, sea level variations have been measured precisely by satellite altimetry. They indicated a faster sea level rise of 3.3 mm/yr over 1993-2015. Owing to their global coverage, they also reveal a strong regional seal level variability that sometimes is several times greater than the global mean sea level rise,” the researchers state.

Another group of scientists led by Mohammad Hadi Bordbar from the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany also concluded in a study published in April that the recent sea level trends in the tropical Pacific “are still within the range of long-term internal decadal variability.

In another study also published in April, a research team led by Sonke Dangendorf of the Research Institute for Water and Environment at the University of Siegen, Germany said that “superimposed on any anthropogenic trend there are also considerable decadal to centennial signals linked to intrinsic natural variability in the climate system… In the Arctic, for instance, the casual uncertainties are even up to 8 times larger than previously thought.

In a fourth paper published online in January in the Journal of Coastal Research, lead author Jens Morten Hansen of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland and his co-authors studied sea level patterns from the eastern North Sea to the central Baltic Sea over a 160-year period (1849-2009)...

“However, we found that a possible candidate for such anthropogenic development, i.e. the large sea-level rise after 1970, is completely contained by the found small residuals, long-term oscillators, and general trend. Thus, we found that there is (yet) no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming in the world's best recorded region.”

In addition, the Earth’s coasts actually gained land over the past 30 years, according to another study published August 25 in Nature Climate Change.

Researchers led by Gennadii Donchyts from the Deltares Research Institute in the Netherlands found that the Earth’s surface gained a total of 58,000 square kilometers (22,393 square miles) of land over the past 30 years, including 33,700 sq. km. (13,000 sq. mi.) in coastal areas.

“We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” study co-author Fedor Baart told the BBC.

[Sangoma]

Climate change has less impact on drought than previously expected

A new study from the University of California, Irvine and the University of Washington shows that water conserved by plants under high CO2 conditions compensates for much of the effect of warmer temperatures, retaining more water on land than predicted in commonly used drought assessments.

According to the study published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the implications of plants needing less water with more CO2 in the environment changes assumptions of climate change impacts on agriculture, water resources, wildfire risk, and plant growth.

[nafod]

Researchers led by Gennadii Donchyts from the Deltares Research Institute in the Netherlands found that the Earth’s surface gained a total of 58,000 square kilometers (22,393 square miles) of land over the past 30 years, including 33,700 sq. km. (13,000 sq. mi.) in coastal areas.

“We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” study co-author Fedor Baart told the BBC.

[/quote]
I went to the article. The first sentence...

Earth's surface gained 115,000 km2 of water and 173,000 km2 of land over the past 30 years...

Did the Earth swell?

There's a map showing where the gains were occurring. Most of it is well inland (Amazon, for example).

[Sangoma]

It means the shift.

Surface water shifting around the Earth

The team found that vast areas that were once land are now submerged beneath water, with the largest change occurring in the Tibetan Plateau, where melting glaciers are creating huge new lakes.

Conversely, the researchers also found that even larger areas of water have now become land.

Coastal areas were also analysed, and to the scientists surprise, coastlines had gained more land - 33,700 sq km (13,000 sq miles) - than they had been lost to water (20,100 sq km or 7,800 sq miles).
"We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world," said Dr Baart.

And, by the way:

Some areas, such as the Amazon, saw almost equal amounts of conversion of land to water and vice versa because of the natural movements of the river system.

The lead author Gennadii Donchyts from Deltares said: "This analysis was done to understand the extent of these changes. The next step is to understand their impact on nature."

[TerryB]

Obviously those scientists are biased.

Global warming is the greatest threat mankind has ever faced, governments are the solution, and anyone who disagrees is an enemy of mankind!

[nafod]

Obviously those scientists are biased.

Global warming is the greatest threat mankind has ever faced...

I'm pretty sure mankind is the greatest threat mankind has ever faced.

Don't have access to the full paper, Sangoma.

[Sangoma]

I don't unfortunately.

[DrDonkeyLove]

This article includes some charts I've never seen. I'm not a scientist but it looks like science to me.

[Sangoma]

DMW, I suppose you cannot take seriously anything from someone by the name Bastardi, can you?

[dead man walking]

mr. bastard's graphs show a correlation between the growth in co2 emissions and increased prosperity. that's accurate. fossil fuels powered the industrial revolution which brought longevity, wealth, and leisure.

we unknowingly made a bargain with the devil, though.

ask the people in miami, fl; wilmington, nc; virginia beach, va who today regularly experience flooding. or ask people who are now coping with disease vectors (like deer ticks) that have significantly expanded their range as temperatures have warmed.

coal and oil seemed cheap, but we'e only made the down payment on their long-term costs.