Obama says 'no greater threat to planet than climate change'

Rising Seas Imperiled Cities Harvard University Center for the Environment

Cities at Risk


Getting ready for sea-level rise is every city’s problem. Without action, in fact, rising seas will sooner or later alter most of civilization’s urban footprint. Coastal floodplains worldwide are crowded with cities often built no more than 3 feet above sea level. More than 2 billion people—an estimated 37 percent of the world’s population—live within 60 miles of the coast and would be affected, directly or indirectly, by incursions of the sea.

In sheer economic terms, the stakes of sea-level rise in urban areas are particularly high. An added 0.5 meters (20 inches) of ocean water by the year 2050 would put $28 trillion in assets at risk in the world’s 136 port megacities, according to a 2009 report of scientists and insurance experts assembled by World Wide Fund/Allianz, a global investment and insurance company. On the Northeastern coast of the United States, the expected maximum rise in sea level of 26 inches by 2050 would threaten in five cities alone—Baltimore, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Providence—assets worth about $7.4 trillion. In Boston, losses could reach $460 billion, or the equivalent of 20 Big Digs.

To understand what is at risk, one cannot just look at the current coastline; it’s the highest tide during a storm surge that you worry about. In Boston, storm surges can temporarily raise sea levels as much as 8 feet, depending on tides, wave action, and the duration and speed of winds. History testifies to the city’s vulnerability: in 1978, Boston’s then brand new Charles River dam was barely in place when a three-day blizzard struck on Feb. 5. The resulting storm tide rise came within 0.4 meters (16 inches) of overtopping the dam. (The Charles River dam was designed to protect against a storm surge of 3.8 meters — about 12 and a half feet — above mean sea level.) What is more, said Wilson in his thesis, the dramatic floods of March and April 2010, which inundated parts of Rhode Island, could also have been catastrophic. Boston’s salvation was the Charles River dam’s six 2,700-hp diesel pumps, which ran 24 hours a day for several days.

This is a short article, the definatively outlines what the world's port cities are facing in this century.
 
The planet will survive, humans on the coastal regions may not...

Im' sure they can move....but coming out of an ice age means all of the ice melts...it has happened before and in fact, for most of earth's history, there has been no ice at all at one, or both of the earth's poles. In historical terms, ice being at the poles is what is unusual, not ice melting.
 
Obama says 'no greater threat to planet than climate change'
15 hours ago

"Today, there's no greater threat to our planet than climate change," Obama said in his weekly address, which had an environmental theme to mark Earth Day on April 22.

"Climate change can no longer be denied, or ignored," he added, noting that 2014 was the hottest year on record.

The United States is the second largest greenhouse gas emitter after China, and Obama has pledged to reduce US climate pollution by 26-28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.

"This is an issue that's bigger and longer-lasting than my presidency," Obama said.



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-04-obama-greater-threat-planet-climate.html#jCp

I'd say Asteroids are very close! If he was serious he'd double fusion funding with a new manhatten project for fusion!

We need to mandate solar installions on all new homes also as we should be taking advantage of all this solar energy.
Obama plans on making his Climate Change scam an issue till at least 2025....he means.
 
Obama says 'no greater threat to planet than climate change'
15 hours ago

"Today, there's no greater threat to our planet than climate change," Obama said in his weekly address, which had an environmental theme to mark Earth Day on April 22.

"Climate change can no longer be denied, or ignored," he added, noting that 2014 was the hottest year on record.

The United States is the second largest greenhouse gas emitter after China, and Obama has pledged to reduce US climate pollution by 26-28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.

"This is an issue that's bigger and longer-lasting than my presidency," Obama said.



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-04-obama-greater-threat-planet-climate.html#jCp

I'd say Asteroids are very close! If he was serious he'd double fusion funding with a new manhatten project for fusion!

We need to mandate solar installions on all new homes also as we should be taking advantage of all this solar energy.
Obama plans on making his Climate Change scam an issue till at least 2025....he means.

Obama plans to us this as another way to bring our country and us down to OUR KNEES

He hates us that much
 
But you'd rather spend that money on hunting asteroids. Wow...
my gawd are you one st00pid fool. You don't get it in the least. You are truly flipped out and unaware aren't you?

BTW, recently an asteroid oops injured 1500 people. How many people have been injured as a result of CO2?
 
The world has been much warmer in the not too distant past (within written history)

When was that?






The MWP was 1.2 degrees C warmer. The RWP was 2.5 degrees C warmer. The Minoan Warming Period (the furthest sort of written records we have) was 2.7-2.9 degrees C warmer. If you want to go back 8,000 years the Holocene Thermal Maximum was 5.5 degrees C warmer (based on several lines of research) and not one bad thing that you silly people bleat about, ever happened.
 
The planet will survive, humans on the coastal regions may not...






Why not? When the last ice age ended the majority of the human population lived in areas that are now hundreds of feet under water. If stone age people could survive it, why on earth do you think modern man can't?

You global warming alarmists are truly out of touch with reality. History says you're wrong. Geology says you're wrong. Paleoclimatology says you're wrong. Archaeology says you're wrong. Basically, in every scientific filed save climatology, the warming of the world has always been a good thing.

You folks bleat about the end of the world but the only end I see coming is your easy gravy train of money.
Because during the Stone age we did not have cities on the water with millions in each of them, with high rises and government offices and homes, and bridges and electricity and water plants, and so and and so forth....

it will take a major catastrophe for these goons in gvt to think ahead and adapt.

Start the "move" 50 years ahead of time on whatever the solution may be, whether the city needs dikes, or if spending to build a new highway, or road, build it up higher instead of just repaving it at the same level, and if rebuilding a bridge, build it higher than you need now, and if you need a sea wall replaced, replace it with a higher one or whatever it takes for whatever particular city that can foresee a problem with higher water...if any of these solutions would even work...even moving the city, little by little inland, and don't allow new buildings to go up right on the water's edge anymore....

By no means am I an expert on any of this, but I do know they can ADAPT, it's just whether they do so in a timely manner and before half of them are destined to get killed. Some big cities probably need to hire a few Dutch engineers as consultants to learn about the problems they went through...







No, we didn't. Conversely the water level is only going to rise a few feet....not hundreds. And, we have technology the ancients couldn't even dream of. I do agree with you that mitigation is smarter, and cheaper to accomplish. These wild claims that the warmists make are simply ridiculous. The world has been much warmer in the not too distant past (within written history) and at no time have any of the disasters the warmists whine about ever occurred. They simply didn't occur.
Only a few feet. And how far would that 'few' feet be? 5? 20? 50?

At no time in history, period, have we had 7 billion + humans on this planet. At no time in history have we had the kind of infrastructure we presently have in out port cities. You simply do not just move water and sewage systems. Same for the docks and machinery attendent to the docks. And you also have the farms and aquifers that would be rendered unusable by that rise of a 'few' feet.

Your claim that we had significantly warmer climate within the period of written history worldwide needs some credible sourcing. Link? Now there was a warmer period than at present about 7000 or 8000 years ago, but that was not within written history.






BFD. You can take all the people on the planet and place them within the physical boundaries of the state of Rhode Island. You have been presented with links ad infinitum showing the MWP and the RWP were warmer and global. Go look them up here on this site, you lazy bum. The CO2 levels have normally been much higher throughout Earths history. This is a low period. Further (as has likewise been shown to you many times) the CO2 level has been high and low when the global temps have been both high and low showing beyond doubt that CO2 has nothing to do with global temp.
 
400000yearslarge1.gif
 
The planet will survive, humans on the coastal regions may not...






Why not? When the last ice age ended the majority of the human population lived in areas that are now hundreds of feet under water. If stone age people could survive it, why on earth do you think modern man can't?

You global warming alarmists are truly out of touch with reality. History says you're wrong. Geology says you're wrong. Paleoclimatology says you're wrong. Archaeology says you're wrong. Basically, in every scientific filed save climatology, the warming of the world has always been a good thing.

You folks bleat about the end of the world but the only end I see coming is your easy gravy train of money.
Because during the Stone age we did not have cities on the water with millions in each of them, with high rises and government offices and homes, and bridges and electricity and water plants, and so and and so forth....

it will take a major catastrophe for these goons in gvt to think ahead and adapt.

Start the "move" 50 years ahead of time on whatever the solution may be, whether the city needs dikes, or if spending to build a new highway, or road, build it up higher instead of just repaving it at the same level, and if rebuilding a bridge, build it higher than you need now, and if you need a sea wall replaced, replace it with a higher one or whatever it takes for whatever particular city that can foresee a problem with higher water...if any of these solutions would even work...even moving the city, little by little inland, and don't allow new buildings to go up right on the water's edge anymore....

By no means am I an expert on any of this, but I do know they can ADAPT, it's just whether they do so in a timely manner and before half of them are destined to get killed. Some big cities probably need to hire a few Dutch engineers as consultants to learn about the problems they went through...







No, we didn't. Conversely the water level is only going to rise a few feet....not hundreds. And, we have technology the ancients couldn't even dream of. I do agree with you that mitigation is smarter, and cheaper to accomplish. These wild claims that the warmists make are simply ridiculous. The world has been much warmer in the not too distant past (within written history) and at no time have any of the disasters the warmists whine about ever occurred. They simply didn't occur.
Only a few feet. And how far would that 'few' feet be? 5? 20? 50?

At no time in history, period, have we had 7 billion + humans on this planet. At no time in history have we had the kind of infrastructure we presently have in out port cities. You simply do not just move water and sewage systems. Same for the docks and machinery attendent to the docks. And you also have the farms and aquifers that would be rendered unusable by that rise of a 'few' feet.

Your claim that we had significantly warmer climate within the period of written history worldwide needs some credible sourcing. Link? Now there was a warmer period than at present about 7000 or 8000 years ago, but that was not within written history.






BFD. You can take all the people on the planet and place them within the physical boundaries of the state of Rhode Island. You have been presented with links ad infinitum showing the MWP and the RWP were warmer and global. Go look them up here on this site, you lazy bum. The CO2 levels have normally been much higher throughout Earths history. This is a low period. Further (as has likewise been shown to you many times) the CO2 level has been high and low when the global temps have been both high and low showing beyond doubt that CO2 has nothing to do with global temp.
Bullshit. Many of your links were fraudulent. And many, like the Indian Ocean sediment cores stated just the opposite, that the MWP was no more than a global increase of 0.2 C, while we are at 0.8 C at present, and still rising.

I have seen no evidence that the MWP or the RWP were warmer than today, worldwide. 8000 years ago, yes, it was warmer. Peak of the interglacial. Now we should be headed the other way. But instead, we are rapidly warming.

Your statements concerning CO2 are just plain shit. No backing from physics at all. In fact, the physics state just the opposite. By the way, where the hell is the cooling you have predicted? 2014, warmest year on record, 2015 already shaping up to exceed that. 9 of the 10 warmest years recorded have happened since 2000. So, where the hell is your predicted cooling?
 
Obama says 'no greater threat to planet than climate change'
15 hours ago

"Today, there's no greater threat to our planet than climate change," Obama said in his weekly address, which had an environmental theme to mark Earth Day on April 22.

"Climate change can no longer be denied, or ignored," he added, noting that 2014 was the hottest year on record.

The United States is the second largest greenhouse gas emitter after China, and Obama has pledged to reduce US climate pollution by 26-28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.

"This is an issue that's bigger and longer-lasting than my presidency," Obama said.



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-04-obama-greater-threat-planet-climate.html#jCp

I'd say Asteroids are very close! If he was serious he'd double fusion funding with a new manhatten project for fusion!

We need to mandate solar installions on all new homes also as we should be taking advantage of all this solar energy.
Obama plans on making his Climate Change scam an issue till at least 2025....he means.

Obama plans to us this as another way to bring our country and us down to OUR KNEES

He hates us that much
Oh my, 20Jan17, President Obama will hand the baton off, and you can find another focus for your irrational hatred, you old witch.
 
Why not? When the last ice age ended the majority of the human population lived in areas that are now hundreds of feet under water. If stone age people could survive it, why on earth do you think modern man can't?

You global warming alarmists are truly out of touch with reality. History says you're wrong. Geology says you're wrong. Paleoclimatology says you're wrong. Archaeology says you're wrong. Basically, in every scientific filed save climatology, the warming of the world has always been a good thing.

You folks bleat about the end of the world but the only end I see coming is your easy gravy train of money.
Because during the Stone age we did not have cities on the water with millions in each of them, with high rises and government offices and homes, and bridges and electricity and water plants, and so and and so forth....

it will take a major catastrophe for these goons in gvt to think ahead and adapt.

Start the "move" 50 years ahead of time on whatever the solution may be, whether the city needs dikes, or if spending to build a new highway, or road, build it up higher instead of just repaving it at the same level, and if rebuilding a bridge, build it higher than you need now, and if you need a sea wall replaced, replace it with a higher one or whatever it takes for whatever particular city that can foresee a problem with higher water...if any of these solutions would even work...even moving the city, little by little inland, and don't allow new buildings to go up right on the water's edge anymore....

By no means am I an expert on any of this, but I do know they can ADAPT, it's just whether they do so in a timely manner and before half of them are destined to get killed. Some big cities probably need to hire a few Dutch engineers as consultants to learn about the problems they went through...







No, we didn't. Conversely the water level is only going to rise a few feet....not hundreds. And, we have technology the ancients couldn't even dream of. I do agree with you that mitigation is smarter, and cheaper to accomplish. These wild claims that the warmists make are simply ridiculous. The world has been much warmer in the not too distant past (within written history) and at no time have any of the disasters the warmists whine about ever occurred. They simply didn't occur.
Only a few feet. And how far would that 'few' feet be? 5? 20? 50?

At no time in history, period, have we had 7 billion + humans on this planet. At no time in history have we had the kind of infrastructure we presently have in out port cities. You simply do not just move water and sewage systems. Same for the docks and machinery attendent to the docks. And you also have the farms and aquifers that would be rendered unusable by that rise of a 'few' feet.

Your claim that we had significantly warmer climate within the period of written history worldwide needs some credible sourcing. Link? Now there was a warmer period than at present about 7000 or 8000 years ago, but that was not within written history.






BFD. You can take all the people on the planet and place them within the physical boundaries of the state of Rhode Island. You have been presented with links ad infinitum showing the MWP and the RWP were warmer and global. Go look them up here on this site, you lazy bum. The CO2 levels have normally been much higher throughout Earths history. This is a low period. Further (as has likewise been shown to you many times) the CO2 level has been high and low when the global temps have been both high and low showing beyond doubt that CO2 has nothing to do with global temp.
Bullshit. Many of your links were fraudulent. And many, like the Indian Ocean sediment cores stated just the opposite, that the MWP was no more than a global increase of 0.2 C, while we are at 0.8 C at present, and still rising.

I have seen no evidence that the MWP or the RWP were warmer than today, worldwide. 8000 years ago, yes, it was warmer. Peak of the interglacial. Now we should be headed the other way. But instead, we are rapidly warming.

Your statements concerning CO2 are just plain shit. No backing from physics at all. In fact, the physics state just the opposite. By the way, where the hell is the cooling you have predicted? 2014, warmest year on record, 2015 already shaping up to exceed that. 9 of the 10 warmest years recorded have happened since 2000. So, where the hell is your predicted cooling?







Oh, now you're just lying through your teeth olfraud. The links I provide are always checked (unlike yours) and I further go through and verify their accuracy. You claim fraud because they refute the bullshit you spew on this forum but the facts are plain to see. Hell even your buddy cricky just posted up a well known graph that supports everything we say.

You have been presented with dozens of links to studies showing the MWP was both warmer and global and because that interferes with your lie you ignore them. That's on you and your unethical behavior though.

Quell me unsurprised. All of you collectivist asshats lie all the time.
 
This is how Westwall lies on the topic of the MWP.

He goes to his favorite cult liar website, "CO2 Science", and takes a couple studies from their pre-cherrypicked list.

Study A at location A shows a warm temp spike at 1000AD, and cool temps at all other times.

Study B at location B shows a warm temp spike at 1100AD, and cool temps at all other times.

Study C at location C shows a warm temp spike at 1200AD, and cool temps at all other times.

(The papers with no warm spikes at all, which would be most of them, are not mentioned. As those didn't support the denier cult agenda, they were not put on the cherrypicked list at "CO2 science".)

Now, honest and intelligent people would look at those studies as obvious evidence there was no global MWP. A global MWP would have to show warm temps over the whole period over the whole globe, yet those studies directly showed that wasn't the case.

Not being honest or intelligent, Westwall will lie big and state the direct opposite of what the evidence indicates. According to the kook Westwall theory, short temp spikes occurring at wildly different times over a handful of cherrypicked locations proves the entire world was warm the whole time, even if the papers flat out said that wasn't the case. To divert from the way he lied about what the papers said, Westwall will scream "But I gave a link!".

But then, Westwall is a proud Stalinist thug who wants all of his political enemies imprisoned and murdered for the crime of disagreeing with TheParty. In comparison to his lust for genocide, his chronic lying is small potatoes.
 
Also remember, the "CO2 follows temp" thing is old debunked science.

Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming

Parrenin et al 2013
---

Abstract
Understanding the role of atmospheric CO2 during past climate changes requires clear knowledge of how it varies in time relative to temperature. Antarctic ice cores preserve highly resolved records of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the past 800,000 years. Here we propose a revised relative age scale for the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the last deglacial warming, using data from five Antarctic ice cores. We infer the phasing between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature at four times when their trends change abruptly. We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2, as has been suggested by earlier studies.
---
 
Also remember, the "CO2 follows temp" thing is old debunked science.

Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming

Parrenin et al 2013
---
Abstract
Understanding the role of atmospheric CO2 during past climate changes requires clear knowledge of how it varies in time relative to temperature. Antarctic ice cores preserve highly resolved records of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the past 800,000 years. Here we propose a revised relative age scale for the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the last deglacial warming, using data from five Antarctic ice cores. We infer the phasing between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature at four times when their trends change abruptly. We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2, as has been suggested by earlier studies.
---








Oh, I get it. The actual data refutes their claims so they wish to change the scale so that they can then alter the data to support what they say.

That about cover it?:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Ladies and Gentlemen, THIS is what climate science has devolved to.
 

Forum List

Back
Top