Lennox island victim of climate change

[maryjane48]

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/multimedia/ ... -1.3888946


well proofs in pudding

[w84u2]

Of coarse it could be nothing else but human caused, right?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -affect-w/

[LTD]

kinda got to expect that if you're going to live at sea level the sea reclaims land all the time

[maryjane48]

very true but over millions of years not less than a hundred

[GenesisGT]

Of coarse it could be nothing else but human caused, right?

I always have to wonder if people read articles to support their point of view before posting. Yes, the posted article talks about how volcanoes emit CO2 into the atmosphere and how this can change the climate, but the interesting part of the article is;

There is no doubt that volcanic eruptions add CO2 to the atmosphere, but compared to the quantity produced by human activities, their impact is virtually trivial: volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year, whereas human activities contribute almost 10,000 times that quantity.

So If one agrees that volcanoes emitting CO2 change the climate, then you have to agree that humans contributing almost 10,000 times the quantity of volcanoes must really be contributing to climate change.

[d0nb]

Of course, changes to the contours of the silt and sand of Lennox Island have nothing to do with the fact that all of PEI is subsiding. No event, it seems, is too mundane to escape being exploited to excite climate change hysteria.

[The Green Barbarian]

Al Gore told me Vanuatu would be gone by now, and yet its still here. Same with the Maldives. Come on, sink already!!!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... l-warming/

[rustled]

Of coarse it could be nothing else but human caused, right?

I always have to wonder if people read articles to support their point of view before posting. Yes, the posted article talks about how volcanoes emit CO2 into the atmosphere and how this can change the climate, but the interesting part of the article is;

There is no doubt that volcanic eruptions add CO2 to the atmosphere, but compared to the quantity produced by human activities, their impact is virtually trivial: volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year, whereas human activities contribute almost 10,000 times that quantity.

So If one agrees that volcanoes emitting CO2 change the climate, then you have to agree that humans contributing almost 10,000 times the quantity of volcanoes must really be contributing to climate change.

And there are interesting articles, at least one of which I've posted elsewhere, that point out this is an oversimplification of how volcanoes affect climate.

But that doesn't stop people from glomming onto it with the same zeal that allowed Cook to assert the "97%" as "settled".

When it comes to confirmation bias, everyone with a firmly closed or "settled" mind is equally apt to find what they want to find and henceforth overlook anything that doesn't support their preferred narrative. Once they've started championing a cause, that cause becomes more important than anything.

It seems to me people who will have us expend all resources to fight climate change tend to be utterly disinterested in assessing whether or not anything can or should be done for the island. That is, they seem utterly disinterested in doing what actually needs to be done. Because it's all about CO2 for them, and little else seems to matter. This is why they are able to read until they see something about CO2 that suits their narrative, and then completely overlook the important information about what volcanic haze has to do with climate change.

Then, instead of processing what should have been a reality check about their oversimplification, they go straight back to harping about how CO2 is the great evil destroying the earth and we must expend all our resources to deal with CO2.

Stories like this one are like a weird form of voyeurism, bringing the misery of others to our attention not because they want to focus our resources on practical solutions to help these people and others like them, but solely because they feel it will prove the "cause" they're championing is "right".

Every age has had their zealots.

[JLives]

When it comes to confirmation bias, everyone with a firmly closed or "settled" mind is equally apt to find what they want to find and henceforth overlook anything that doesn't support their preferred narrative. Once they've started championing a cause, that cause becomes more important than anything.

It seems to me people who will have us expend all resources to fight climate change tend to be utterly disinterested in assessing whether or not anything can or should be done for the island. That is, they seem utterly disinterested in doing what actually needs to be done. Because it's all about CO2 for them, and little else seems to matter. This is why they are able to read until they see something about CO2 that suits their narrative, and then completely overlook the important information about what volcanic haze has to do with climate change.

Then, instead of processing what should have been a reality check about their oversimplification, they go straight back to harping about how CO2 is the great evil destroying the earth and we must expend all our resources to deal with CO2.

Stories like this one are like a weird form of voyeurism, bringing the misery of others to our attention not because they want to focus our resources on practical solutions to help these people and others like them, but solely because they feel it will prove the "cause" they're championing is "right".

Every age has had their zealots.

That's not how science works. My mind is not closed, nor settled. Scientists around the world, from public and private backgrounds and a variety of disciplines, have determined human activities are accelerating climate change. That's a fact, as written, not an opinion. Should new evidence lead to a peer reviewed, different conclusion so does my view. Immediately.

Because of people not accepting science and getting their "news" from blogs that line up with their preconceived opinion it strays the debate towards this asinine discussion of whether it is occurring when debate should be how it is affecting us and what can we do about it.

Relocation is certainly going to be coming up in many cases where people are going to lose their countries and others will need to step up and take in, giving new citizenship. Infrastructure planning and future rezoning plans are happening in many coastal cities. We don't know exactly when and how hard climate change is going to affect different areas. Climate is about projections, not absolutes, as there are too many variables. This is why the planning needs to happen now and this is the issue with AGW. The problem isn't that the climate is changing, it's that it is accelerating faster than we, and other species are prepared to adapt to.

I'm not a big fan of monetizing this issue through carbon taxes and credits. This just passes the buck of responsibility and puts an undue burden on low income people. I would prefer to see mandates and fines for non-compliance as well as vigilant enforcement. That's not to say you can't profit from fighting climate change but it is going through improving technologies. Redesigning wind farms, improving solar efficiency, rethinking our use of plastics and a complete overall in the energy and transportation sectors as examples. There are many valuable discussions worth having on this issue but the fact it is occurring is not one of them.

[rustled]

LOL. See how long it took for your post to consider the question of what could or should be done about Lennox? It starts out with defending a position, not addressing the issue of Lennox Island.

And then, see how quickly your post turned from figuring out what to do about the people being affected, to what we should do to punish and enforce CO2 emitters and force everyone away from CO2?

And then how quickly you moved on to insisting that no one should discuss anything else?

That, my dear, is precisely my point. When it's clearly not about dealing with pressing issues in the here and now, you might ask yourself what it is all about.

The science clearly shows how quickly volcanic activity has changed climates in the past. Why does no one want to look at that, at how we could face a sudden reversal in trends?

Instead, the fixation remains solely on reducing CO2, to the direct detriment of those who need help now.

[maryjane48]

i agree jlives that carbon taxing and cap and trade is a shell game because it allows a govt to pretend to do something about carbon use . that's why i found it amusing when clark announced carbon taxes and her supporters got mad lol . or now prime minister . at end of the day its still drill baby drill

[maryjane48]

LOL. See how long it took for your post to consider the question of what could or should be done about Lennox

theres nothing to be done if carbon is burned at rate we do now . its sure thing that island will disappear faster than what nature would have without our help .

the greenhouse effect is fact , why you think humans build greenhouses? keep things cool?

[rustled]

LOL. See how long it took for your post to consider the question of what could or should be done about Lennox

theres nothing to be done if carbon is burned at rate we do now . its sure thing that island will disappear faster than what nature would have without our help .

the greenhouse effect is fact , why you think humans build greenhouses? keep things cool?

More evidence that this focus on the potentially disastrous long-term affects of CO2 has completely hobbled our ability to plan rationally for the immediate future, and our willingness to deal with the here and now.

(Small closed systems of human-built greenhouses are a drastic oversimplification of the far more complex system making up the earth's atmosphere, but apparently this type of oversimplification works super-well to support the disaster narrative and keep us focused on CO2. "Oh, dear, there's nothing to be done for the island people because we're turning the earth into a greenhouse, so back to focusing on CO2.")

[The Green Barbarian]

Should new evidence lead to a peer reviewed, different conclusion so does my view. Immediately.
.

and if anyone actually believes this, then inbox me and let me tell you about this fabulous bridge I want to sell you over Lake Okanagan.