BajaNomad

Rising oceans in Del Mar and Baja

Bajaboy - 12-6-2018 at 01:40 PM

Did anyone else hear the recent story on NPR about rising sea levels? It centered around the city of Del Mar, Ca but had implications to all of Baja.

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/04/672285546/retreat-is-not-an-o...

Retreat' Is Not An Option As A California Beach Town Plans For Rising Seas
5:12
DOWNLOAD
December 4, 20185:02 AM ET
Heard on Morning Edition
Nathan Rott at NPR headquarters in Washington, D.C., September 27, 2018. (photo by Allison Shelley)
NATHAN ROTT

Twitter
Instagram

The city of Del Mar, Calif., located about 20 miles north of downtown San Diego, has voted against a formal policy of "managed retreat" from rising seas.
Art Wager/Getty Images
About 150 steps from John Imperato's Southern California home, pavement gives way to an ever-shrinking stretch of soft sand.

Imperato lives in Del Mar, a small, affluent town just north of San Diego. He spent his life savings to live here. He wanted to raise his son like he grew up, withing walking distance of the sea.

Del Mar is a picturesque place; its name means "of the sea," in Spanish.

That's becoming increasingly true.

Del Mar is one of countless coastal communities in California and across the U.S. that is seeing the impacts of climate change and preparing for worse to come.

By midcentury, tens of millions of U.S. homes and billions of dollars of property are likely to be destroyed or made unusable by increased flooding from rising seas and storms, according to a recent climate report by the U.S. government.

The feel-good here is gone. I thought they were going to bury me here, but if someone offered [to buy my house], I'd take it. I'd walk away.

John Imperato, Del Mar resident

"Sea level rise and storm surge could completely erode two-thirds of southern California beaches by 2100," the report warns.

That leaves residents of seaside towns like Del Mar with an alarming choice: stay and fight those impacts, or turn and leave.

Del Mar has been having that discussion for years. The city is a national leader in that regard. But it also provides a good example of just how difficult and precarious even planning for sea level rise can be.

"The feel-good here is gone," Imperato says, standing outside of his home. "I thought they were going to bury me here, but if someone offered [to buy my house], I'd take it. I'd walk away."

Sign Up For The NPR Daily Newsletter
Catch up on the latest headlines and unique NPR stories, sent every weekday.

E-mail address
What's your email?
By subscribing, you agree to NPR's terms of use and privacy policy.
'When the sea walls go, we go'

In 2015, Del Mar created a committee, consisting primarily of residents, to help identify the city's biggest vulnerabilities to increased flooding and to come up with a plan on how best to address them.

They got grants from the state's coastal commission and worked with paid consultants.

The findings were grim.

Del Mar's walkable beach — a huge draw for the town's 3 million annual visitors — could disappear by 2050.

Sea levels here are projected to rise 1 to 2 feet by 2050, and as much as 5 1/2 by 2100, according to scientific projections used by the city.

The homes in Imperato's low-lying neighborhood faced a double whammy.

Beach erosion and sea level rise are likely to increase flooding during high-tide events and storms, threatening to overwhelm a long line of private sea walls that line the beach.

"When those sea walls go, we go," Imperato, who served on the committee, says.


Del Mar's affluent Beach Colony neighborhood, under the green on left, would be nearly inundated under extreme projections of sea level rise, according to the city's planning documents.
City of Del Mar
Increased precipitation from storm events, another expected result of climate change, may also bring more river flooding. The mouth of the San Dieguito River sits just north of Imperato's neighborhood.

Knowing the risks, a few years ago, the city moved into the next phase of planning: how to adapt.

There are three broad adaptation strategies communities should look at, according to guidance policies provided by the California Coastal Commission, a state agency tasked with oversight of California's coasts.

The first is protection — the creation of of sea walls or other armoring to defend coastal developments.

The second is accommodation — modifying buildings or developments to accommodate increased flooding. That includes changing zoning or elevating structures.

The final option is the one nobody wants — an option that homeowners like Imperato describe as "the kiss of death."

Retreat.

'Not feasible here in Del Mar'

Retreating from sea level rise can take different forms. It can mean changing zoning to limit construction in flood-prone areas. It can also mean removing or relocating development from vulnerable areas, using buyout programs or transferring property rights.

Some communities in California are embracing the idea.

At first, Del Mar was looking at it, too.

The blowback, though, was almost immediate. Realtors' groups spoke out against the plan. Homeowners were hysterical.

"What we learned from our community is that even the mere discussion of managed retreat, in the minds of some, completely devalues their property," says Amanda Lee, Del Mar's senior city planner.

The concern was that if the city formalized a plan that included retreat, it would be harder for property owners to get loans or sell their land.

Foreign Investors Shrug Off Miami's Rising Sea Levels
BUSINESS
Foreign Investors Shrug Off Miami's Rising Sea Levels
Hearing those concerns, "we started crossing out managed retreat and replacing it with other words like 'not feasible here in Del Mar'," says Terry Gaasterland, who chaired the city's Sea Level Rise Advisory Committee.

The city council even went as far as to pass a resolution banning future city councils from planning for retreat.

There were practical reasons for the decision, Gaasterland says. The median home value in Del Mar is about $2.5 million, according to the real estate market app Zillow.

One oceanfront house in Imperato's neighborhood is listed for sale for $24 million.

"In Del Mar, market value of all the properties in the managed retreat zone is estimated at $1.5 billion," Gaasterland says. "Who's going to pay for that? Certainly not the city of Del Mar."


Water is reaching sea walls more frequently during high tides and storm events, residents of Del Mar say.
City of Del Mar
Another problem is the topography of the area. There are bluffs to the north and south of Del Mar, making relocation of residents nearly impossible.

Instead, the town approved a plan that included strategies like sand replenishment for its beaches and dredging of the San Dieguito River to lessen the chance of flooding.

That plan was sent to the state's coastal commission, where it's waiting for review.

The California Coastal Commission, for its part, isn't penalizing cities that don't embrace the idea of managed retreat. Madeline Cavalieri, a manager with the commission, says there's no one-size-fits-all solution for dealing with sea level rise; different cities need to consider a combination of different strategies.

The idea, though, is to prepare.

"Over the past however many years, people have thought, 'Well I'm purchasing a home, I'm buying a property, this property is going to be here forever.' We now understand with sea level rise that there are going to be locations where we can no longer count on the fact that house is going to be there in perpetuity," she says.

End of the line

Homeowners like Imperato are not denying that sea level rise is happening.

He and others in Del Mar will tell you that they've seen the beach shrink and the high tide creep ever higher. But for many, the more devastating effects still seem far away.

"We're not worried about the actual hazard because you can accept Mother Nature, and that may happen a hundred years from now," Imperato says, "What we're afraid of is the regulations that are going to affect us today or tomorrow."

Imperato, like many homeowners in Del Mar, was happy that the city said no to managed retreat, but he's still frustrated that it was considered in the first place. He believes damage to property values has already been done and says he has told a realtor to "pocket list" his house.

"Pocket listing is you want to sell your house, but you don't want to put a sign up with everyone else because then it's a race to the bottom," he says.

Dwight Worden, a city councilman who serves as Del Mar's mayor, is sympathetic to those concerns but says the city needed to consider managed retreat.

"If you pretend that you did a scientific study of risks and options in your community, but you didn't study retreat, your study has no credibility," he says. "It needs to be studied."

Worden agrees that in Del Mar, managed retreat does not make sense. He doesn't believe it's feasible. But he's also realistic about the challenge sea level rise presents.

"At some point you're left with two options. You either organize a retreat, or you do what's called evacuation and you call FEMA because you're flooded out," he says. "We realize that's the end of the line. But we want to try Plan A. And if Plan A doesn't work, we think there may be a Plan B. We want to do everything else we can first."

In other words, he says, the city would rather hold off the water as long as it can.


How about some good news, instead?

David K - 12-6-2018 at 02:11 PM

All predictions... as they have for years.

My old street (Sandy Lane 1957-1964) is still the same distance above sea level. El Niño surges did come through homes there in the late 70s, once. If the sea was higher, then why has this not happened frequently?
They added boulders to counter the beach erosion and protect from waves during storms. The homes and street they are on are not higher. The sand moves but the normal sea level is unchanged as far as affecting homeowners.

From your paste above:

"Sea levels here are projected to rise..."
"Sea level rise and storm surge could completely..."
"...could disappear by 2050."

Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my! The moon could crash into the earth, too!

In thousands of years, the sea level will no doubt be different, it was different thousands of years or more before (I can show you petrified sea shells at 500 feet above sea level).

The point is, why scare little kids (or gullible adults) with these predictions of things that have yet to happen? It is a natural change. You have to be kidding yourself if you think Man is more powerful than Nature. No amount of punishing (taxing) people or corporations will change the sea from rising, whenever it does enough to actually force people off their beachfront properties. Banks will no longer loan money to buy beachfront properties if the sea was getting higher (more than the length of a cigarette or two).

Happy Festivus!

sancho - 12-6-2018 at 02:41 PM

Not sure of the actual sea level rise can be measured YET,
but storm surge, triggered naturally or by other, has taken 10'
vertical of sand, decades old beach palms here in OC. Miami has
plans of seawalls. Don't understand the science deniers



David K - 12-6-2018 at 02:50 PM

Quote: Originally posted by sancho  
Not sure of the actual sea level rise can be measured YET,
but storm surge, triggered naturally or by other, has taken 10'
vertical of sand, decades old beach palms here in OC. Miami has
plans of seawalls. Don't understand the science deniers




Great point! Instead of calling what has been happening "sea level rise", call it what it is, beach erosion. Storms, coupled with the lack of new sand coming down rivers, or pushing up from offshore, are to blame.

PamelaP - 12-6-2018 at 02:58 PM

Erosion! That is science, water is powerful. Our Earth is cyclical, including our climate. Facts can be skewed depending on the author and the data used.
She (mother Earth) blinded me with science! :light:

bajabuddha - 12-6-2018 at 03:18 PM

Quote: Originally posted by sancho  
Don't understand the science deniers




Don't even try. :smug:

DaliDali - 12-6-2018 at 04:31 PM

For centuries upon centuries...….the Sea has been clawing at cliffs, beaches or anything else in it's way.

Now that is a FACT.



Bajaboy - 12-6-2018 at 07:01 PM

NASA can land a rover on Mars and it's cheered.

NASA says sea level is rising and somehow they don't know what they are talking about

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/125/infographic-s...

DaliDali - 12-6-2018 at 07:59 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Bajaboy  
NASA can land a rover on Mars and it's cheered.

NASA says sea level is rising and somehow they don't know what they are talking about

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/125/infographic-s...



The "rock", known as earth, has been around for <4.5> billion years.
How have scientists been able to determine that say....400 million years ago, that rock may have went through many cooling and warming cycles, as a natural part of what a spinning rock does in the atmosphere, during the previous billion years?

Or for discussion only, fast forward to 200 million years ago, how have scientists been able to determine the previous million years did not have natural warming and cooling cycles?

In the early 20th century, scientists had refined the process of radiometric elements, to determine the age of rocks and other substrate to within 50 million years of age and made that call of <5 billion> year old rock.

Were scientific instruments available in the 1930's (early 20th century) that precluded the possibly that the rock was not going through a natural cooling/heating cycle for any it's previous 5 billion years?
Everyone is keen to the ice ages and boiling cauldrons of molten rock...volcanos spewing molten lava...

Are there scientific instruments today that make the call, with certainty, that the rock never had a cooling/heating cycle, as a natural cycle of rocks spinning around in space?

Who made the call that in the entire life of the rock, it never saw a cooling/heating cycle and by what means did they make that call?

Launching a rocket is about thrust, resistance, guidance, distance and re-entry forces....well beyond my pay grade to be certain
Determining the goings of a rock in space over the last 4-5 billion years ago is quite another agreed?




mtgoat666 - 12-6-2018 at 08:02 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Bajaboy  
NASA can land a rover on Mars and it's cheered.

NASA says sea level is rising and somehow they don't know what they are talking about

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/125/infographic-s...


50% of people have IQs below average. Fact!

If you don’t believe in global warming you should go buy a home in the low area of Del Mar! If you don’t believe in sea level rising, Why don’t you get a 30 year mortgage on a home on sandy lane? It would be a smart investment!

The Far-Right and what's Right

MrBillM - 12-6-2018 at 08:32 PM

I don't KNOW why (or whether) and to what extent the weather and climate is being affected respective to the doings of mankind, BUT these repetitious ongoing exchanges bring to mind a recurring question:

Why is it that so many out on the fringes so quickly dismiss scientific theories and conclusions while embracing with conviction myriad lunatic conspiracy theories advanced by wacky kook plot peddlers ?

It seems that the same people who are convinced that (among other ideas) Alex Jones is a prophet, Hillary Clinton is a murderer and George Bush (41) was a German agent are also convinced that NASA (along with a host of serious scientists) are part of a coordinated conspiracy to deceive.

Why is it that the possibility of industrial and social activity having a long-term detrimental effect on climate is so threatening to the core constituency of the MAGA masses ?

[Edited on 12-7-2018 by MrBillM]

DaliDali - 12-6-2018 at 08:38 PM

Put me down as a skeptic...…

The rock earth is 5.5 billions years old....

Are scientists certain that this warming trend is not just another naturally occurring phenom of a rock spinning around in space.

And by what means or measurements have they made the call that indeed, this warming cycle now has never ever occurred before in the last 5.5 billion years.

What Greenland's 'unprecedented' ice loss means for Earth

wessongroup - 12-7-2018 at 07:27 AM

Rather difficult to obtain representative samples which could give empirical data related to historical temperature changes over 4-6 Billion years of this planet.

However, using "ice core" sampling empirical evidence can be obtained to document changes in atmospheric conditions which have direct impact on the planets water cycle and other substances associated with same.

One thing for sure, at this time, there is measurable melting of ice at both the north and south poles ... along with Greenlands ice sheets.

Will it continue to end point ... rather difficult to project with absolute certainty at this time.

Given what is being measured by scientists, does given concern to most reasonable people, including scientists ... add on the removal on air emissions caps for coal ... I'd say we just may find out rather quickly

Was hoping to miss the event ... due to age ... however, at this time ... not to sure :biggrin::biggrin:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/12/green...

bonanza bucko - 12-7-2018 at 09:25 AM


so it's our fault the sea might rise in 82 years in 2100 and you want me to give up my truck and live in a tent while you tell me to feel bad about that. Dream on jerk....check what's happening in France right now as the gumming tries to impose that stuff on the forks.

Then think this some more: What dug the Great Lakes? Glaciers! Where are they now? Melted! What caused that? "Global Warming! Whose fault was that? Probably too many cave men barbecuing too many mastodons and too many sabre toothed tigers farting.

Yep.....I am a denier because I have a brain.

JoeJustJoe - 12-7-2018 at 09:44 AM

Oh no, not another thread dominated by global warming deniers!

It's so funny to see some of these denier, views that flies in the face of science, where over 95% of the scientist agree global warming most recently has been caused by man.

Did any of you even read the new US government report, that Trump, tried to hide, by sending it out during black Friday?

Of course Trump, denies the obvious, because short term, certain polluting industries, make money by rolling back environmental laws. At least Trump, and polluting industries have a reason to deny global warming.......what's your excuse?
______________________________________
Dare to read it and open you mind ( link at the bottom)

Climate change will shrink US economy and kill thousands, government report warns

A new US government report delivers a dire warning about climate change and its devastating impacts, saying the economy could lose hundreds of billions of dollars -- or, in the worst-case scenario, more than 10% of its GDP -- by the end of the century.

The federally mandated study was supposed to come out in December but was released by the Trump administration on Friday, at a time when many Americans are on a long holiday weekend, distracted by family and shopping.

David Easterling, director of the Technical Support Unit at the NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, emphasized that there was "no external interference in the report's development." He added that the climate change the Earth is experiencing is unlike any other.

"The global average temperature is much higher and is rising more rapidly than anything modern civilization has experienced, and this warming trend can only be explained by human activities," Easterling said.

Coming from the US Global Change Research Program, a team of 13 federal agencies, the Fourth National Climate Assessment was put together with the help of 1,000 people, including 300 leading scientists, roughly half from outside the government.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/23/health/climate-change-report-...

here is the actual report:

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

[Edited on 12-7-2018 by JoeJustJoe]

David K - 12-7-2018 at 10:17 AM

If something hasn't happened yet, it isn't science... it's a prediction. Science is the observation and measurements of real things.

Gypsies use crystal balls and liberals use government employees.
Not one prediction made by Al Gore or any other, about global warming or rising sea level, has come true. It's all wishful thinking on their part to have a climate disaster so they can punish us with more regulations and higher taxes. Making government more powerful is not the answer, even if there was a real problem.

No man and no government can change the natural climate changes that have always happened. Things change over long periods of time and life either will adjust to that or disappear. Making life miserable or reverting back to the horse and buggy days won't reverse the natural events of the earth.

[Edited on 12-7-2018 by David K]

Glaciers, Great Lakes and the Like

MrBillM - 12-7-2018 at 10:18 AM

Perhaps one of the most specious arguments cited as proof by the MAGA Minions in their Climate battle is that of LONG (millions of years) past cyclical natural phenomena.

Sounds good. PROVES nothing.

Given that those previous periods were subject to a wide variety of physical atmospheric and astronomical influences (many of which we still guess at) AND that we have no comparable historical reference for mankind's current level of influences, those promoting the "natural" argument are merely assuming as they accuse those with a differing view of doing the same.

Whatever the current period brings and for how long, it could be a continuation of natural phenomena, BUT it could likely be (additionally) a result of increasing stress from man-made sources.

There is NO question that (air, land and sea) pollution has a negative effect on our environment. The debate should lie with how we address all of that with remedial measures and at what cost.

The MAGA masses seem to think ignoring the problems will somehow miraculously allow nature (or God ?) to provide solutions.

Human experience has shown, though, that an ignored problem almost NEVER cures itself.

Barry A. - 12-7-2018 at 10:41 AM

I am old, and have seen a few things. An anecdotal observation: In 1973-74 I was the Natl. Park Service's Chief Pilot at Cape Hatteras/Wright Brothers/Cape Lookout Natl. Rec. Areas in N. Carolina. The Scientists were positive that the Outer Banks (barrier islands) would be essentially gone within about 20 years due to beach-erosion and lack of sand being washed into the sea by man's control of natural rivers, etc. etc.... My ex-wife lives near the Outer Banks today and says she can see practically no change to the barrier islands since we lived 300 feet (Bodie Island) from the ocean on sand dunes back in '73/'74. Yes, things have changed a little, but nothing like the Scientists projected would happen "without a doubt". Scientist do their best to tell us what will happen in the future, but it is not perfect science as we ALL know when predicting what the natural forces will do down the line. I remain a skeptic (not a "denier") of these apocalyptic predictions about "climate change".



BajaNaranja - 12-7-2018 at 11:05 AM

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts.” -Bertrand Russell

bonanza bucko - 12-7-2018 at 11:27 AM

It is impossible for "95% of scientists" to agree about whether 2+2=4.
The minute that happened, if it did, "science" would not be science anymore.

Science requires skepticism and thus the 95% claim of the cool aide drinkers self destructs itself....and them.

Further the predictions for catastrophe in 80 or 100 years are also impossible....check the weather forecast for next week. All of those long range forecasts are based upon computer models which suffer from garbage in and garbage out and from the high propensity of tweeters to safeguard their status and meal tickets by tweaking some more.


wessongroup - 12-7-2018 at 11:41 AM

Not aware of any predications of the cessation of "life" on the planet from Global Warming .... only an environment which may be changed ... The scope and/or impact of this change is not fully understood nor actually predicated in real time .... at this time. Only models and/or math based projections, which tends to have "gaps" due to the complexity of variables, known and unknown

It's called evolution IMO ... which would include "Adaptive Radiation" of living organisms on the planet.

Life is tough on this planet for living things ... always has been, because our environment is not static ... rather dynamic



David K - 12-7-2018 at 12:40 PM

Joe, you prove that 'climate change' is a religion rather than science. You will believe whatever your chosen 'gods' (Al Gore, Bill Nye, etc.) tell you and not question it or use your own eyes to see there is no sea level rise or man-made global warming.
Science is the continuous collection of data and there is NEVER a consensus of scientists who would stop observing the climate and sea level because they have already concluded those conditions as fact.
At some point, there would be a consensus that the predictions they made the past 30 years were wrong and maybe, just maybe that Nature bats last?

mtgoat666 - 12-7-2018 at 02:20 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Joe, you prove that 'climate change' is a religion rather than science.


I think climate change denial is a bit more akin to religion or politics than science. Denial wont make climate change go away. People and countries that plan for change will survive. Del mar-tians that deny and dont plan will fail.
Dk, long after you are gone your grandkids will be stuck dealing with the failures caused by your party’s denial and refusal to act.

Lux sit!

wessongroup - 12-7-2018 at 02:31 PM

Got it .... Lets make the "environment" simple ... good luck with that one

As for the report ... just another report reflecting what is being "measured" within our current environment.

Do I agree with the "measurements" being reported .... Yes .... and that was why I posted the National Geo's article on the ice sheet melting in Greenland.

The monitoring of this location has been going on for a while and the "numbers" being reported are NOT really good for Greenland and perhaps the thermohaline circulation of the oceans

Again ... these changes would not mean a complete removal of all humans from the planet. It would only make it more difficult to exist. Which of course would impact economies of the world, not to mention the shifting demographics and locations of food production and amounts, and many other changes to living organisms on the planet.

Anyone thinking they have all the answers .... definitely not reasonable in their thinking.

As for being "wimpy" ... Well, that is your understanding of what I posted.

I was just stating facts about our planet which has been learned from scientific studies and/or monitoring of same.

As for Trump's position on the issue .. I don't agree with his position on THIS issue. Which I have stated numerous times to YOU and many others.

The only position I agreed with Trump on was "immigration" .... And I did not vote for him, nor did I support him in the run up to the election back in 2016.

The bottom line in all of this is "sustainability" ... Which has been found by the financial industry and the GAO to NOT be sustainable

If you want links do searches on my previous posts ... I've supplied them many times

Is there anyone that finds error's on what National Geo reported in the article related to "ice sheet" melting in Greenland ?

More Warm Oceans Sounds Great

SunDevil - 12-7-2018 at 04:53 PM

I don't know what folks are complaining about, more warm oceans sounds like an improvement.

Glidergeek - 12-8-2018 at 09:03 AM

I know this is probably a mute point but I just pulled a sectional aeronautical chart from my chart archives (file cabinet) it shows Ontario airport at 943' in 1997. Today the charts show it at 944'. SNA John Wayne is 56' MSL back in 1997 shown as 56' today. LAS Las Vegas 2179' back in 1997, 2181 today? well looks to me like the ocean is receding?These charts are comprised by NOAA. I'm taking these as the truth using information from our friends the US govment. Why would they lie to me right?

Glidergeek - 12-8-2018 at 09:08 AM

Here's more KSAN Lindberg field 1997 14' MSL (mean sea level) 2018 17'. Ok I'll check later for the personal attacks, have a nice day I'm going flying.:cool:

[Edited on 12-8-2018 by Glidergeek]

JoeJustJoe - 12-8-2018 at 09:31 AM

Wesson, you could have made it simple, like this overview chapter from the Trump administration, latest report that just came out and is pretty much irrefutable because the last few years we have seen the wild swings in weather patterns, and pure devastating we have never seen before that are so close to each other.

I don't think David K. will be mad with you if you disagree with him on global warming.
___________________________________

Introduction Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities.

The impacts of global climate change are already being felt in the United States and are projected to intensify in the future—but the severity of future impacts will depend largely on actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the changes that will occur.

Americans increasingly recognize the risks climate change poses to their everyday lives and livelihoods and are beginning to respond (Figure 1.1). Water managers in the Colorado River Basin have mobilized users to conserve water in response to ongoing drought intensified by higher temperatures, and an extension program in Nebraska is helping ranchers reduce drought and heat risks to their operations.

The state of Hawai‘i is developing management options to promote coral reef recovery from widespread bleaching events caused by warmer waters that threaten tourism, fisheries, and coastal protection from wind and waves.

To address higher risks of flooding from heavy rainfall, local governments in southern Louisiana are pooling hazard reduction funds, and cities and states in the Northeast are investing in more resilient water, energy, and transportation infrastructure.

In Alaska, a tribal health organization is developing adaptation strategies to address physical and mental health challenges driven by climate change and other environmental changes.

As Midwestern farmers adopt new management strategies to reduce erosion and nutrient losses caused by heavier rains, forest managers in the Northwest are developing adaptation strategies in response to wildfire increases that affect human health, water resources, timber production, fish and wildlife, and recreation.

After extensive hurricane damage fueled in part by a warmer atmosphere and warmer, higher seas, communities in Texas are considering ways to rebuild more resilient infrastructure. In the U.S. Caribbean, governments are developing new frameworks for storm recovery based on lessons learned from the 2017 hurricane season.

Climate-related risks will continue to grow without additional action. Decisions made today determine risk exposure for current and future generations and will either broaden or limit options to reduce the negative consequences of climate change. While Americans are responding in ways that can bolster resilience and improve livelihoods, neither global efforts to mitigate the causes of climate change nor regional efforts to adapt to the impacts currently approach the scales needed to avoid substantial damages to the U.S. economy, environment, and human health and well-being over the coming decades.

Santiago - 12-8-2018 at 09:55 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Glidergeek  
Here's more KSAN Lindberg field 1997 14' MSL (mean sea level) 2018 17'. Ok I'll check later for the personal attacks, have a nice day I'm going flying.:cool:

[Edited on 12-8-2018 by Glidergeek]

Dude: My younger brother is a computer wiz, works for HP. In the late 1990s he and a few others from HP were sent to some government agency to search their programs for any Y2K issues. One of the programs they worked on controlled the reporting info from GPS orbiters and they discovered a keying error in the original late 1980s code for reporting the altitudes had a .91 instead of 1.00, thus slightly under-reporting the altitudes. One of the agencies that got this was the FAA. They did not find any Y2K issues but did clean up a lot of similar stuff.
You will find lots of pre-2000 and post-2000 reports will have similar differences with respect reported altitudes.

DaliDali - 12-8-2018 at 10:44 AM

Quote: Originally posted by JoeJustJoe  
Wesson, you could have made it simple, like this overview chapter from the Trump administration, latest report that just came out and is pretty much irrefutable because the last few years we have seen the wild swings in weather patterns, and pure devastating we have never seen before that are so close to each other.

I don't think David K. will be mad with you if you disagree with him on global warming.
___________________________________


The impacts of global climate change are already being felt in the United States and are projected to intensify in the future—but the severity of future impacts will depend largely on actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the changes that will occur.


This sentence above shows that adaption to a changing world will be necessary to help deal with the effects of a warming climate.

NO ONE can stop it....only slow it down by less than <one> degree over decades upon decades, by the myraid air pollution standards already in place.

The difference some people have is what shall we do to slow it down.
In the hear and now, pollution reducing methods are near their apex, constrained only by technology.

The hue and cry is to shut down fossil fuel use and sources, as they are the main culprit of air born pollution, according to many.
Shutting them all down to get to a lower pollution concentration is just not fesible in the present age......for obvious reasons.

World population growth has increased 400% in the 20th century. Population growth equals more people, using more energy to stay alive and exist.
Perhaps spending billions upon billions to interdict a warming rock, spend some of that money on educating the world as to the benefits of a lower population growth rate.

The UN population division has predicted a worldwide population of over 10 billion(up from 7> billion now) by the year 2021. Although world population growth has dropped to slightly over 1% since the highs of the 20th century.
https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth
Will the steady decrease in worldwide population growth stymie the growing use of fuels to stay alive and exist?

Personally, I take an "all in" approach of energy use, as some past President suggested. Fossil, renewables and nuclear, until such time as technology catches up and the renewable and nuke sides can supplant fossil fuels as the primary sources.
Someone recently said "Scientists can put a module on Mars"...can these scientists also "defang" nuclear waste and turn it into corn fertilizer and cattle feed?

However, I do remain skeptical that scientists know for a fact, the current warming trend is not some natural phenom of a 5.5 billion year old rock spinning in the atmosphere, sometimes closer to the sun orb than in other millions of years.

Or....a simplist approach of......does this rock we live on have a finite life and will be eaten up in the atmosphere like other chunks of rock?




wessongroup - 12-8-2018 at 11:10 AM

Agree the "quoted" sentence ... and the nice recap summary

And thought that was exactly the point which was being made and/or discussed ... sustainability in its broadest sense

This isn't something "new" ..... President's have been telling us the NEED to address these environmental problems since 1963 ...

This little video (1.59) starts with JFK .... :):)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93jGrALQWzA&list=FL5JsXv...

btw when it comes to effecting change on the environment .. through increasing costs at the individual level ... one only has to look to France :lol::lol:

[Edited on 12-8-2018 by wessongroup]

DaliDali - 12-8-2018 at 12:19 PM

Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup  
Agree the "quoted" sentence ... and the nice recap summary

And thought that was exactly the point which was being made and/or discussed ... sustainability in its broadest sense

This isn't something "new" ..... President's have been telling us the NEED to address these environmental problems since 1963 ...

This little video (1.59) starts with JFK .... :):)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93jGrALQWzA&list=FL5JsXv...

btw when it comes to effecting change on the environment .. through increasing costs at the individual level ... one only has to look to France :lol::lol:

[Edited on 12-8-2018 by wessongroup]


Macron is in hiding...….while the city burns in protest of hikes in gas and diesel.....To disuade the use of those fuels, as some panacia to cool the earth?

Finchaser2020 - 12-8-2018 at 12:35 PM

"Al Gore"

That name makes me chuckle
:)

What a dweeb!

High on Conspiracy !

MrBillM - 12-8-2018 at 02:57 PM

The Glider Guy qualifies for today's Conspiracies R US Propeller-Hat award AND the traditional Red MAGA Enema-Bag Booby-Prize.

To "assume" that a one-foot revision in MSL after 20-years as noted is evidence of anything more likely than improved technical methodology is ........................

FAR out THERE, Mon !

schwlind - 12-8-2018 at 08:49 PM

BajaNaranja…
I agree with Bertrand Russell!!!

AKgringo - 12-8-2018 at 09:52 PM

Quote: Originally posted by BajaNaranja  
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts.” -Bertrand Russell



And I agree with schwlind, that is a quotation worth plagiarizing!

wessongroup - 12-9-2018 at 05:57 AM

Yes I agree with his point on population .... based on Malthus and/or Population Ecology ... a field of study that was once in Biology and has branched out due to the importance of population in planning for just about everything to insure survival of the species.

Also I don't see it as a right or wrong issue .... just one of survival based on factual evidence ... excuse me if I'm not looking for someone to "blame" all this on .... I'm just looking to define it, adopt and plan and then execute ... hopefully before it becomes really "hard" to exist here in my location :biggrin::biggrin:

Appears cutting back on "oil" and "natural gas" though increases costs would be rather difficult, at this time ... will say the electric car is coming along nicely .. plus the trucks

Hell of a problem and/or balancing act ... keeping the poor from having a better life through "growth", which is more resources all the while leaving a deeper negative foot print within the environment

"The development of population ecology owes much to demography and actuarial life tables. Population ecology is important in conservation biology, especially in the development of population viability analysis (PVA) which makes it possible to predict the long-term probability of a species persisting in a given habitat patch. Although population ecology is a subfield of biology, it provides interesting problems for mathematicians and statisticians who work in population dynamics.
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_ecology

Know any planners that don't use math and statistics :lol::lol:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...


Quote: Originally posted by JoeJustJoe  
Wesson, very simple, in all DaliDali's long post, at the end of his post, it's a 'denier" posts, where he blames natural phenom, instead of mankind, where the blame should be placed.

You Wesson, agree with DaliDali, just like you agree with David K. but at the same time you claim you claim your this scientist environmentalist.

What gives Wesson, because clearly Earth's climate is changing faster than at any point in human history. Is this WRONG Wesson?

Wesson, if you don't believe in global warming, then say so, but don't play both sides.
---------------

Science says: "Introduction Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities.
_________________________
DaliDali wrote: However, I do remain skeptical that scientists know for a fact, the current warming trend is not some natural phenom of a 5.5 billion year old rock spinning in the atmosphere, sometimes closer to the sun orb than in other millions of years.


[Edited on 12-9-2018 by wessongroup]

JoeJustJoe - 12-9-2018 at 08:55 AM

Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup  


Also I don't see it as a right or wrong issue .... just one of survival based on factual evidence ... excuse me if I'm not looking for someone to "blame" all this on .... I'm just looking to define it, adopt and plan and then execute ... hopefully before it becomes really "hard" to exist here in my location :biggrin::biggrin:

Appears cutting back on "oil" and "natural gas" though increases costs would be rather difficult, at this time ... will say the electric car is coming along nicely .. plus the trucks



You don't see it as a right and wrong issue!

Really, when big business, and the Denier Trump, administration, denies the very existence of global warming that flies in the face of irrefutable scientific evidence.

This is exactly the same thing the tobacco industry used to do when they hired shady scientist on the take to deny tobacco smoke caused cancer so the industry would not be liable for million dollar lawsuits.

Wesson, I bet if some kook came along and said, they were skeptical that tobacco was directed related to causing cancer, because their Uncle Ben, smoked like a chimney and lived to 100 years without getting cancer, and that a lot of people die of cancer.

I bet you Wesson, would look for ways to agree with such a kook.

I'm just curious on why you always do this Wesson ,when I know you know better?

The future is clean and green energy, not fossil fuels, although for now natural gas, could be a bridge product since it's 50% cleaner. We need to stop supporting the coal industry as a starting point.



[Edited on 12-9-2018 by JoeJustJoe]

God has the Answers

MrBillM - 12-9-2018 at 10:28 AM

BUT, he isn't telling.

Last evening, during one of my frequent conversations with God (Harvey as he likes to be called) as we sipped our Glenlivet and Guinness Dry Stouts, the Up-High guy once again confided that the whole business was just a mind-game and he hadn't yet made up his mind regarding how it's going to play out. There are days when he says "F- IT ALL" and is tempted to turn the third-planet into a big fireball before starting a new game with a new toy. Regaining his composure, he decides to play with the masses a bit more.

In the meantime, have fun with what time may be left.

You never know when God will Blow.

He has his moods.

watizname - 12-9-2018 at 10:47 AM

:smug::smug:
Quote: Originally posted by MrBillM  
BUT, he isn't telling.

Last evening, during one of my frequent conversations with God (Harvey as he likes to be called) as we sipped our Glenlivet and Guinness Dry Stouts, the Up-High guy once again confided that the whole business was just a mind-game and he hadn't yet made up his mind regarding how it's going to play out. There are days when he says "F- IT ALL" and is tempted to turn the third-planet into a big fireball before starting a new game with a new toy. Regaining his composure, he decides to play with the masses a bit more.

In the meantime, have fun with what time may be left.

You never know when God will Blow.

He has his moods.

wessongroup - 12-10-2018 at 02:38 AM

Back on point:

"possible to predict the long-term probability of a species persisting in a given habitat patch"

That "patch" is the planet ... get a clue

And those predictions are in fact based on "measurements" which are "numbers" of known variables, at this time.

IF some conclude the "measurements" are incorrect .. that is to be expected and discussed...... Item by item ... and typically is done 24/7 by someone around the planet

This is an excellent source online of "measurements" on many things, which may answer some questions.

https://www.pnas.org

Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855

[Edited on 12-10-2018 by wessongroup]

Skipjack Joe - 12-10-2018 at 03:54 AM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  

If something hasn't happened yet, it isn't science... it's a prediction. Science is the observation and measurements of real things.


I can't believe you wrote this.

Where do you think your weather forecast comes from every day. They're predictions based upon mathematical models of data.

How do you know your spaceship will reach Mars without an understanding of Newton's Laws.

What good is cancer research without a prediction of it's efficacy? In fact, why would you even undergo therapy.

Science is ALL about prediction. That's it's greatest asset.

paranewbi - 12-10-2018 at 06:05 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Skipjack Joe  
Quote: Originally posted by David K  

If something hasn't happened yet, it isn't science... it's a prediction. Science is the observation and measurements of real things.


I can't believe you wrote this.

Where do you think your weather forecast comes from every day. They're predictions based upon mathematical models of data.

How do you know your spaceship will reach Mars without an understanding of Newton's Laws.

What good is cancer research without a prediction of it's efficacy? In fact, why would you even undergo therapy.

Science is ALL about prediction. That's it's greatest asset.


Are you sure?
mathematical models are not magical. They only display the evidence of reality in a communicative form, i.e. what exists is provable through the model.
Variables bend predictive probabilities based on math, resulting in the failure to predict the weather, unrecognized aberrations in space that project something that is not there. And of course, the success of cancer treatment based on a non-variable enviroment...which always exists in the human body and forces medicine to be labeled a 'practice'. And the efficacy of a treatment is based on models of 'trial' i.e. rats, pigs, monkeys, humans, etc.

Math does provide the evidence for argument...when used to back prediction.

[Edited on 12-10-2018 by paranewbi]

JoeJustJoe - 12-10-2018 at 08:12 AM

What point and who are you talking to?

Planetary boundaries! Really Wesson?

That's like dropping an obscure big word, and hoping people will be impressed you know such a big word.

Right now we are trying to determine if global warming real or not, and if if it's real, who is most to blame, mother natural, or mankind. The only rule is you can't take both sides of the debate.


Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup  
Back on point:

"possible to predict the long-term probability of a species persisting in a given habitat patch"

That "patch" is the planet ... get a clue

And those predictions are in fact based on "measurements" which are "numbers" of known variables, at this time.

IF some conclude the "measurements" are incorrect .. that is to be expected and discussed...... Item by item ... and typically is done 24/7 by someone around the planet

This is an excellent source online of "measurements" on many things, which may answer some questions.

https://www.pnas.org

Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855

[Edited on 12-10-2018 by wessongroup]


[Edited on 12-10-2018 by JoeJustJoe]

Skipjack Joe - 12-10-2018 at 09:20 AM

Quote: Originally posted by paranewbi  
Quote: Originally posted by Skipjack Joe  
Quote: Originally posted by David K  

If something hasn't happened yet, it isn't science... it's a prediction. Science is the observation and measurements of real things.


I can't believe you wrote this.

Where do you think your weather forecast comes from every day. They're predictions based upon mathematical models of data.

How do you know your spaceship will reach Mars without an understanding of Newton's Laws.

What good is cancer research without a prediction of it's efficacy? In fact, why would you even undergo therapy.

Science is ALL about prediction. That's it's greatest asset.


Are you sure?
mathematical models are not magical. They only display the evidence of reality in a communicative form, i.e. what exists is provable through the model.
Variables bend predictive probabilities based on math, resulting in the failure to predict the weather, unrecognized aberrations in space that project something that is not there. And of course, the success of cancer treatment based on a non-variable enviroment...which always exists in the human body and forces medicine to be labeled a 'practice'. And the efficacy of a treatment is based on models of 'trial' i.e. rats, pigs, monkeys, humans, etc.

Math does provide the evidence for argument...when used to back prediction.

[Edited on 12-10-2018 by paranewbi]


The value of laws of physics as expressed in math models is not that they express a reality but they express reality under all circumstances and in all times, past future and present. The real value to mankind is that it predicts events.

Yes if the formula is wrong then it’s inaccurate but that has nothing to do with science. And it has still less to do with the statement that science is all about measuring current events and nothing to do with prediction. That’s lunacy.

bajaric - 12-10-2018 at 09:30 AM

Count me as full of doubts. The media's job is to sensationalize. The internet serves to recirculate whatever sensational issue of the day is currently in vogue until the population of mentally weak people soak it up and sensational news turns in to accepted popular thought. So, the guy that lives in Del Mar wants to sell his house because he believes the sea level is rising. Perhaps he does not have the mental capacity to look out the window and see that the sea level is, in fact, not rising. Hey, sell it to me! Meanwhile, people in Ocotillo get to stare at giant ugly wind turbines that kill the birds.

If you can trust the ice core data, the earth has seen spikes in CO2 levels several times over the last 450,000 years, with accompanying warming, which then reversed and transitioned to global ice ages, where the shoreline in Del Mar was a probably a half mile west of where it is now because the sea level was LOWER. Why? Because much of the surface water was locked up in mile thick glaciers from about the middle of California northward through Oregon, Canada, and beyond. The last ice age was only about 10,000 years ago, a relative blink of an eye in geological time. The low sea level allowed for migration of humans in to north America via a land bridge at the Bering Straight. Then, without any help from humans (unless you count the camp fires of stone age cave men) it started to warm up again and the glaciers melted, a process that continues today. In a short 10,000 years the human population exploded. So if I can be a bit contrarian, with tongue firmly in cheek, maybe we should all be driving big gas guzzler muscle cars from the 1970's, you know, heat things up, has worked out pretty good so far. Sign me up for a 1973 Oldsmobile Cutlass, with the 350..

JoeJustJoe - 12-10-2018 at 09:58 AM

Whenever a global warming "denier" comes up with their opinions on why global warming is not real, or tries to blame some other force.

Instead of wasting your time with them, you can instead go to a site like this, that takes on their skeptic augments by popularity, that way you don't have to waste your time trying to set them straight.
_________________________________

1. Skeptic Argument:Climate's changed before"

What the Science Says:Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant force.
_______________________________
4. Skeptic Argument:There is no consensus"

What the Science Says:97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
_____________________
6. Skeptic Argument:Models are unreliable"

What the Science Says: Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

read the rest here:


https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php

[Edited on 12-10-2018 by JoeJustJoe]

paranewbi - 12-10-2018 at 10:01 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Skipjack Joe  
Quote: Originally posted by paranewbi  
Quote: Originally posted by Skipjack Joe  
Quote: Originally posted by David K  

If something hasn't happened yet, it isn't science... it's a prediction. Science is the observation and measurements of real things.


I can't believe you wrote this.

Where do you think your weather forecast comes from every day. They're predictions based upon mathematical models of data.

How do you know your spaceship will reach Mars without an understanding of Newton's Laws.

What good is cancer research without a prediction of it's efficacy? In fact, why would you even undergo therapy.

Science is ALL about prediction. That's it's greatest asset.


Are you sure?
mathematical models are not magical. They only display the evidence of reality in a communicative form, i.e. what exists is provable through the model.
Variables bend predictive probabilities based on math, resulting in the failure to predict the weather, unrecognized aberrations in space that project something that is not there. And of course, the success of cancer treatment based on a non-variable enviroment...which always exists in the human body and forces medicine to be labeled a 'practice'. And the efficacy of a treatment is based on models of 'trial' i.e. rats, pigs, monkeys, humans, etc.

Math does provide the evidence for argument...when used to back prediction.

[Edited on 12-10-2018 by paranewbi]


The value of laws of physics as expressed in math models is not that they express a reality but they express reality under all circumstances and in all times, past future and present. The real value to mankind is that it predicts events.

Yes if the formula is wrong then it’s inaccurate but that has nothing to do with science. And it has still less to do with the statement that science is all about measuring current events and nothing to do with prediction. That’s lunacy.


It may be hard to swallow for some...but DK is actually spot on when you define science, google it.
You brought mathematical models into something such as weather to be used as a predictive model, but we know there is nothing certain about predicting the weather as proofed by observable evidence. Often our personal lives are altered due to faulty weather reports.

There is observable evidence (science) that seashells are present many thousands of feet above sea level, but that does nothing to determine that they will once again be in the ocean but tells us it is possible (prediction). Prudence would dictate we all move to an area higher than the seashells in the mountains. :O

David K - 12-10-2018 at 10:09 AM

Skipjack Joe, weather forecasts are often more wrong than right, and we are talking just a few days away. That some want to believe they can predict what will happen with the weather in 50 years is hilarious, is it not?

I only ask people to think about what you are told by "climate experts" and not just fall for every word that comes out of their mouths.
Nature will do what it wants and we have no control over Nature. We do have control over ourselves and will adapt if we are to survive.

JoeJustJoe - 12-10-2018 at 10:12 AM

Regarding Paranewbi weather argument above:

63. The Skeptic says: Scientists can't even predict weather"

What Science says: Weather and climate are different; climate predictions do not need weather detail.

See it works like a charm.

What you will notice from the "skeptic" crowd, is rarely do they provide links to back up their arguments, and when they do, it's usually from some hired gun, hired by Exxon, or some dubious site.




Skipjack Joe - 12-10-2018 at 11:51 AM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Skipjack Joe, weather forecasts are often more wrong than right, and we are talking just a few days away. That some want to believe they can predict what will happen with the weather in 50 years is hilarious, is it not?

I only ask people to think about what you are told by "climate experts" and not just fall for every word that comes out of their mouths.
Nature will do what it wants and we have no control over Nature. We do have control over ourselves and will adapt if we are to survive.


“Nature” does NOT do what it wants.

To quote Einstein “God does not play dice”. What he meant is that there is no randomness in nature. “Nature” is not an entity. It’s a series of events that are all predictable by laws.

We have control over nature because we know the laws that govern it. Don’t talk about it as some unknowable mystical entity that is beyond control. Do you know that in the Middle Ages people believed that God had afflicted them with the plague and the only cure was a greater devotion to Him. They too didn’t understand their condition and ascribed powers to it. We supposedly have come a long way since then.


David K - 12-10-2018 at 12:00 PM

Ok amigo ;)

Skipjack Joe - 12-10-2018 at 01:16 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Ok amigo ;)


Esta bien.

jajajaja - 12-25-2018 at 08:13 PM

as someone who is in the ocean 3-5 times a week, surfing, and often swimming after his board lol I have noticed sea level rise around san diego.

I know 15 years is not a long time, yet one examples is in north county at terramar in carlsbad. The sea wall on the southern end near the stairs used to backwash on a 3 foot high tide, meaning you could surf terramar until around a 4 foot tide before the backwash became too much...

these days the water reaches the wall at a 1-1.5 foot tide and the backwash appears shortly after. if you surf the 'point' after a 2-3 foot tide you start noticing the backwash.

also at scripps pier. the sign at the bottom of the stairs that says scripps institution of oceanography used to be a sea wall around 6-8 feet high that was a challenge to put items up there.

now a days that the increasingly higher tides have washed more sand up against that wall, you you guessed it, lower height. now that sea wall is almost at waist or chest height.

i am curious how many climate change deniers spend their whole lives indoors not even interacting with the environment they claim is impervious to mans actions...



wake the eff up, your children sure are.



[Edited on 12-26-2018 by jajajaja]

David K - 12-26-2018 at 10:12 AM

Funny, but I often wonder the same about those who believe this sea level scare... do they ever go outside to the beach or a bay and see for themselves or do they just believe what they are told?

Sea level and beach erosion are two totally different things.

If the sea was higher, then it would be higher everywhere and not just in one place. The sand moves and you saw that. The bottom of the pier is still the same distance to the surface of the ocean at high tide at the same phase of the moon as it was 50 years ago. Every so often, there are events that bring the ocean higher like a storm-driven El Niño or supermoon tide or storm surge fro air pressure changes. But for most of the 365 days of each year, the sea level is where it was for all of our lives, our parents lives, and so on.

I am not denying it is changing (climate and sea level) but it changes over hundreds or thousands of years and has without man to blame over and over for all time. I lived right on the beach in Del Mar from 1957 to 1964 and the street is no closer to high tide now then it was then. The beach has changed (erosion) but the ocean is still at the same level.

You will know when the ocean really has risen because boat launch ramps will be useless if they are underwater, streets such as Sandy Lane in Del Mar (and the homes on it) will be flooded, etc. I think it will be a few generations from now before that happens and there is nothing man can do other than to move inland and higher up.

mtgoat666 - 12-26-2018 at 10:21 AM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
... there is nothing man can do other than to move inland and higher up.


You forgot a couple options:
Stick your fingers in your ears, Deny and ignore (I.e. what you are doing now)
Step up, be a man, find a solution, and act (what responsible people do)

Bubba - 12-26-2018 at 10:32 AM

You forgot a couple options:
Stick your fingers in your ears, Deny and ignore (I.e. what you are doing now)
Step up, be a man, find a solution, and act (what responsible people do)[/rquote]

That right there is funny, I don't care who you are.

David K - 12-26-2018 at 10:42 AM

I am not denying things in Nature change. I am denying what you think, that man has the power of God to change Nature's natural course.

elgatoloco - 12-26-2018 at 11:09 AM

god is in charge
end of argument
discussion closed
moderator please delete this thread asap
gracias

motoged - 12-26-2018 at 11:24 AM

The magical thinking of "god/God" might only work if such a notion truly existed....in the meantime, waiting for realistic and practical solutions is an opportunity for humans to use their own resources and power to not damage the planet at the going rate.

Pray for what you want....work for what you need...

The Power of GOD

MrBillM - 12-26-2018 at 11:44 AM

Of Course, man doesn't have the power of God.

And, History shows us that God simply doesn't have the inclination. Those who believe that God is going to come to their rescue are on a fool's journey.

Those mysterious ways of his haven't been revealed at any level we understand. And, it's clear that they won't be. Even scripture tells us that those Heavenly Rewards come AFTER we're Dead and Rotted.

God (Harvey) is just having a Hooley with us until we move on.

That said, it's absurd to think that industrial activity and social practices by mankind cannot have an unknown effect on the climate. THAT is truly faith without foundation.

mtgoat666 - 12-26-2018 at 11:49 AM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
I am not denying things in Nature change. I am denying what you think, that man has the power of God to change Nature's natural course.


Your argument is is to compare industrial processes and laws of physics to powers of a mythical creature with hocus pocus powers? Wtf?

The science is in, biological and and industrial systems do change the atmosphere.

To date, i have seen no proof of this mythical creature you speak of.

motoged - 12-26-2018 at 11:51 AM

Faith - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

In the context of religion, one can define faith as confidence or trust in a particular system of religious belief, within which faith may equate to confidence based on some perceived degree of warrant, in contrast to a definition of faith as being belief without evidence.


be·lief
/bəˈlēf/
noun
noun: belief; plural noun: beliefs

1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.
"contrary to popular belief, Aramaic is a living language"
synonyms: opinion, view, conviction, judgment, thinking, way of thinking, idea, impression, theory, conclusion, notion
"it's my belief that age is irrelevant"
a religious conviction.
"Christian beliefs"
synonyms: ideology, principle, ethic, tenet, canon; More
doctrine, teaching, dogma, article of faith, creed, credo
"traditional beliefs"
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
synonyms: faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence
"belief in the value of hard work"


And just because one believes something doesn't make it true....

Each to their own.....

David K - 12-26-2018 at 11:51 AM

Every day the sun rises and every day a new baby is born... proof! :light:

The Sun comes up and the Sun goes Down

MrBillM - 12-26-2018 at 12:06 PM

It doesn't mean that God stuck around.

He "could" have simply done the Creation thing and then said "OK, i'm on my way".

To create other toys.

Leaving us on our own until that Judgement day.

He tends to be cagey and abstruse in my frequent conversations with him.

[Edited on 12-26-2018 by MrBillM]

David K - 12-26-2018 at 01:04 PM

I did say "the Power of God" so it doesn't mean God is here (for you non-believers). Man does not have the Power of God... with maybe the exception of nuclear explosions?

Now, go be productive... I will try... adios! Ooop that means "to God"!