• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Cont: Global warming discussion V

I repeat, floods aren't new to NZ. None of these were down to climate change: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/keyword/floods

Pro tip - it rains a lot in NZ and we get frequent floods.

Not true.
In January 2023, Auckland and the upper North Island experienced relentless maritime heatwave conditions caused by the annual La Niña cycle and exacerbated by climate change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Auckland_Anniversary_Weekend_floods#Responses

A study has found that the rainfall from ex-tropical cyclone Gabrielle in New Zealand was about 30% heavier— most likely because of climate change.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/243...s found that,likely because of climate change.


Pathetic attempt at poisoning the well. Poor people don't choose to live in at-risk areas, rich people do.

Poor people are disproportionately affected by climate change, much more so than the rich. That you don't care about them says a lot about you.

Yeah, it's great. Nothing pleases me more than first-world people crying over a few dollars as whole countries are under threat.

But you've just criticised people for living in at risk areas. Some of the low-lying Pacific states are in danger of becoming unlivable. Sub-Saharan Africa is another region severely affected. These poor people have no choice but to live in the countries of their birth. These are the people, remember, that you don't give a rat's arse about, so spare us the crocodile tears about whole countries being under threat, because you obviously don't care.
 
Floodplains, in my understanding, are low-lying areas next to rivers, which are prone to flooding. I don't see the connection between that, and the Auckland Anniversary floods referenced earlier. These floods were caused by excesive rainfall over a wide area, not flooding from rivers bursting their banks. Again, this is my understanding, and I am ready, as always, to be corrected on this.

Too easy.

The reason the Auckwere formerly able to carry large amounts of water have been filled in and diverted to stormwater drains. As always, the people who built them chose the cheapest method, which was to ignore the threat of 100-year flooding, which remarkably, happens every century or so.

When it did, the drains couldn't cope and the water built up very, very quickly as the former flood plains returned to that state and flooded. It was 100% predictable and had long been predicted. This is entirely proven by the fact that in all of the areas flooded the lowest-lying houses had all been flooded in the past. Many on multiple occasions.

Also, it wasn't a wide area, it was very localised rain in several different parts of Auckland. We got 25 mm in 24 hours, some places got 250 mm less than 10 km away from here.

Are earthquakes and volcanoes exacerbated by climate change?

No, it's about risk, which relates to RR's worry about insurance.

You also appear to be unaware of NZ's policy of managed retreat. Areas most likely to flood are being abandoned, and those people relocated.

I'm extremely well aware of the plans and have a good laugh every time I go to Thames. (a town 100 km from Auckland, not the English one)

While southern coastal communities are retreating, Thames had the luxury of a climate-denying mayor and council, who allowed developers to build a whole load of new homes on the shore, which sits a whole metre above high tide level and which was under water in the 1981 floods and tidal surge.

Those people will get relocated all at once next time it happens, as it surely will. The Hauraki Gulf, which Thames sits at the bottom of, is a natural funnel for weather systems and sooner or later a degraded cyclone will come down it was wash the houses away.

Poor people are disproportionately affected by climate change, much more so than the rich. That you don't care about them says a lot about you.

No, I was being a smart-arse and probably missed the point.

Rich people choose to live in at-risk areas. In NZ, that means prime shore-front properties in Auckland and elsewhere.

Poor people don't choose to live in at-risk areas, they're forced to, but a change to that would require a change of political system throughout the world and that's not going to happen, so I smile and wave to save myself rending my clothes and gnashing my teeth.
 
...

Are earthquakes and volcanoes exacerbated by climate change?

I have heard a theory, that the distribution of water is changing around the world, because ice is melting in many places, and this redistribution is liable to change stresses on the tectonic plates...

So, yes, earthquakes and volcanoes are exacerbated by climate change.

(See the 'Fire and Ice: Glaciers and Tectonic Processes' section in this article for example.)

https://science.nasa.gov/earth/clim...ect-earthquakes-or-are-the-connections-shaky/

(The whole article is an interesting read.)
 
Too easy.

The reason the Auckwere formerly able to carry large amounts of water have been filled in and diverted to stormwater drains. As always, the people who built them chose the cheapest method, which was to ignore the threat of 100-year flooding, which remarkably, happens every century or so.

When it did, the drains couldn't cope and the water built up very, very quickly as the former flood plains returned to that state and flooded. It was 100% predictable and had long been predicted. This is entirely proven by the fact that in all of the areas flooded the lowest-lying houses had all been flooded in the past. Many on multiple occasions.

Well, I don't know enough about these specific areas to be able to comment. I'll leave that to your compatriots.

Also, it wasn't a wide area, it was very localised rain in several different parts of Auckland. We got 25 mm in 24 hours, some places got 250 mm less than 10 km away from here.

The images in the wiki link show heavy rainfall across the whole of North Island, and into South Island as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Auckland_Anniversary_Weekend_floods


No, it's about risk, which relates to RR's worry about insurance.



I'm extremely well aware of the plans and have a good laugh every time I go to Thames. (a town 100 km from Auckland, not the English one)

While southern coastal communities are retreating, Thames had the luxury of a climate-denying mayor and council, who allowed developers to build a whole load of new homes on the shore, which sits a whole metre above high tide level and which was under water in the 1981 floods and tidal surge.

Those people will get relocated all at once next time it happens, as it surely will. The Hauraki Gulf, which Thames sits at the bottom of, is a natural funnel for weather systems and sooner or later a degraded cyclone will come down it was wash the houses away.

This may be true, but doesn't this conflict with your earlier claim that the floods had nothing to do with climate change?


No, I was being a smart-arse and probably missed the point.

Rich people choose to live in at-risk areas. In NZ, that means prime shore-front properties in Auckland and elsewhere.

Poor people don't choose to live in at-risk areas, they're forced to, but a change to that would require a change of political system throughout the world and that's not going to happen, so I smile and wave to save myself rending my clothes and gnashing my teeth.

Fair enough.
 
Everything I've read about insurance premium increases has cited climate change as being the main driver. I recently renewed mine and when I informed the company I was a straight white cis-het male and according to the identity politics of climate change I was in the demographic least likely to be affected by climate change and requested a straight white cis-het male discount, they politely declined.
 
South Florida is currently getting drenching rain storms, apparently of historic proportions.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis declared an emergency for Broward, Collier, Lee, Miami-Dade, and Sarasota counties, writing the heavy rain and floods has affected the “operational capability of critical infrastructure,” including major interstates, roadways, schools and airports....By early Wednesday night, Fort Lauderdale had received between 7 and 8.5 inches of rainfall since midnight, Fort Lauderdale officials said on X. It was expecting up to another 5 inches overnight, officials added. Yahoo News news link

Ft. Lauderdale has normally averaged about 60 inches of rain per year. This storm is expected to produce upwards of 12-13 inches in 30 hours.
 
Last edited:
Another excellent video from Climate Town.
This one is about how oil companies control American politics:

0:00 Funding Disinformation Campaigns
1:54 Confession 1: Shadow Groups
3:58 Confession 2:Lying about the Carbon Tax
6:36 Confession 3: Sabotaging the Infrastructure Bill

7:11--> Their strategy is to go after the more vulnerable senators, both Democratic and Republican. A vulnerable senator is someone who's up for re-election and would maybe lose that race if Exxon decided to fund their competi...
You know what? Keith McCoy actually describes this a lot better.
Do we have footage of that?

"On the Democrat side we look for the moderates on this issue. So it's the Manchins, it's the Sinemas, it's the Testers. Joe Manchin, I talk to his office every week. He is the kingmaker on this because he's a Democrat from West Virginia, which is a very conservative state.
Well, who's up for reelection in 2022? It's Hassan, it's Kelly. I can't worry about the 2027 class because they're not focussed on reelection. The 2022 class is focussed on reelection so I know I have them.
Those are Marco Rubio, those are John Kennedy, those are Sen. Daines.
So you can have those conversations with them because they're a captive audience. They know they need you, and I need them."


They're also going after Democratic senator Chris Coons from Delaware. Now why would they be going after ...
"... Senator Coons from Delaware, who has a very close relationship with Biden. So we have been working with his office. As a matter of fact our CEO is talking with him next Tuesday."
Exxon Lobbyist Caught on Camera Going Full Cartoon Villain (Climate Town on YouTube, Aug 10, 2021 - 14:28 min.)
 
Well, I don't know enough about these specific areas to be able to comment. I'll leave that to your compatriots.

Could have just looked at the Wiki page:

Auckland, along with many other areas in the country, experiences ageing stormwater infrastructure systems which are unable to cope with population growth and the impact of climate change. Tar seals and concrete surfaces on roads, carparks, and buildings also prevent rainwater from dispersing into the ground, causing water to pool up and surfaces to flood during heavy rain events. Significant flooding events had previously occurred in Auckland in August 2021 and March 2022.

This may be true, but doesn't this conflict with your earlier claim that the floods had nothing to do with climate change?

I'd agree the rainfall was probably heavier than past events due to climate change, but climate change didn't cause them.
 
Could have just looked at the Wiki page:

Auckland, along with many other areas in the country, experiences ageing stormwater infrastructure systems which are unable to cope with population growth and the impact of climate change. Tar seals and concrete surfaces on roads, carparks, and buildings also prevent rainwater from dispersing into the ground, causing water to pool up and surfaces to flood during heavy rain events. Significant flooding events had previously occurred in Auckland in August 2021 and March 2022.

I'd agree the rainfall was probably heavier than past events due to climate change, but climate change didn't cause them.
There have always been floods, nobody is denying that. 'Aging' infrastructure and population growth doesn't help either. But global warming is making them worse. Your assertion that climate change didn't 'cause' the flooding - as if there wouldn't be any if the council didn't have 'aging' infrastructure - is obnoxious. You also conveniently ignore that the damage wasn't restricted to just flooding.

Cyclone Gabrielle causes national state of emergency in New Zealand
16 February 2023

New Zealand declared its third ever national state of emergency in February 2023, following the passage of Cyclone Gabrielle, with the government attributing the scale of the disaster to climate change.

For those living in Auckland, the country’s largest city, the extreme weather was particularly unwelcome as they were still recovering from their wettest day on record just a fortnight earlier...

- Auckland had its wettest day with 280mm at Albert Park (211mm of that fell in under 6 hours)

- In less than an hour, a month's worth of rain fell at Auckland airport (equivalent to January's rainfall)

- Unsurprisingly, January 2023 was the wettest month since records began, with 539mm of rain at Albert Park

The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, the country's climate science body, said 27 January was the wettest day on record for a number of locations, describing it as a 1-in-200 year event...

As the residents of Auckland recovered, attention shifted to a new threat. Long-range forecasts indicated a tropical cyclone could bring severe weather mid February, so New Zealand's MetService provided early insights and important communications...

Multiple heavy rain and wind warnings were issued across the North Island as Gabrielle approached. States of emergency that were already in place in Auckland and the Coromandel as a result of January's floods were extended...

Gabrielle affected the North Island and the top of the South Island from 12 to 16 February, with a national state of emergency declared on 14 February. About half of the country’s population was affected, with around 10,000 forced from their homes, and at least six people lost their lives.
Strong winds led to widespread power outages and property damage, while heavy rainfall caused severe flooding and landslides. The military helped with evacuations and delivered supplies to the worst-affected parts of the North Island.

While New Zealand has been affected by ex-tropical cyclones before, climate change is more than likely to blame for the intensity of Gabrielle, which brought more destruction to the country than any weather event in decades. And it doesn't bode well for the future, as a warming atmosphere will increase the intensity and frequency of extreme rainfall events.

A study published at the end of March 2023 by the World Weather Attribution found that the rainfall from Gabrielle was about 30% heavier, and that climate change undoubtedly played a role.
So the extreme weather in Auckland on 27 January 2023 was a '1-in-200 year' event, then a mere two weeks later Cyclone Gabrielle hit. So much for '200 years'...

Increased intensity and frequency - this is what scientists predicted would happen due to global warming - and now it's happening. 30 years from now people will pine for the 'good old days' when they could dismiss weather like this as an outlier.
 
Last edited:
But global warming is making them worse. Your assertion that climate change didn't 'cause' the flooding - as if there wouldn't be any if the council didn't have 'aging' infrastructure - is obnoxious.

No, it's factual.

You also conveniently ignore that the damage wasn't restricted to just flooding.

The slips are caused by the rain the same way as flooding, and it's blindingly obvious where the land is susceptible to sudden erosion.

Cyclone Gabrielle causes national state of emergency in New Zealand

Yes, and a huge amount of damage was caused by the idiotic relaxation of the forests, allowing them to let slash build up.

The highest rainfall of Gabrielle was around 450 mm. Bola brought up to 900 mm.

As to how much attribution climate change gets, the answer is bugger all: https://www.worldweatherattribution...rielle-over-aotearoa-new-zealands-east-coast/

This means we cannot quantify the overall role of human-induced climate change.

Looking at the future, for a climate 2°C warmer than in preindustrial times, models suggest that rainfall intensity will slightly increase, although the uncertainty remains large.

The disagreement between model results and observations prevents us from concluding with certainty that human-induced climate change is the main driver making this event more likely.
 
As to how much attribution climate change gets, the answer is bugger all: https://www.worldweatherattribution...rielle-over-aotearoa-new-zealands-east-coast/

You might want to read that article a little more carefully- or perhaps not cherrypick its findings so obviously.
First, using the relationship between historical weather station data (1979-2023) and global mean temperature to extrapolate back to colder climates, we found that the 2-day maximum rainfall over Te Matau-a-Māui/Te Tairāwhiti region is now about 30% more intense than it might have been had human greenhouse gas emissions not warmed the climate by 1.2°C. This also means a rainfall event of this magnitude is now about four times more likely to happen than it was when the world was 1.2°C cooler than it is today.

Especially this part- the highlighted section is the one you so conveniently omitted to quote.
The disagreement between model results and observations prevents us from concluding with certainty that human-induced climate change is the main driver making this event more likely. However, while multiple reasons could explain the absence of a trend in our model results, we have no alternative explanation for a trend in observations other than the expectation of heavy rainfall increasing in a warmer climate.

Their conclusion contrasts rather markedly with your own 'don't give a rat's arse' attitude:
It is therefore important to urgently reduce the exposure and vulnerability of communities to future flooding, particularly ensuring that lifeline infrastructure remains intact so communities can receive flood warnings and respond accordingly.

I should add, too, that your claim that these weather events only occur once every hundred years was contradicted by the Wiki article you quoted above.
Not terribly impressive, TA. :rolleyes:
 
You might want to read that article a little more carefully- or perhaps not cherrypick its findings so obviously.

I didn't cherry-pick anything - it says what it says and the jury is clearly out to a large degree. We know that warmer air can carry more moisture and therefore rain more.

I should add, too, that your claim that these weather events only occur once every hundred years was contradicted by the Wiki article you quoted above.
Not terribly impressive, TA. :rolleyes:

Pretty sure I mentioned 100-year floods in the context of the statistical likelihood. As a statistician, I can tell you 100-year floods can happen in consecutive weeks.
 
As a statistician, I can tell you 100-year floods can happen in consecutive weeks.
We don't need you to tell us that.

I am keenly aware of the increased flooding risk here because I am a member of the local radio control model aircraft club, which has a flying site in Awatoto on the river side of the stop bank. We have free use of this area because it floods when the river gets high. This wasn't a problem until about 15 years ago because it didn't happen very often and the water level soon went down. Then one year we had a big flood that dumped a lot of silt onto the field, taking 3 months to clean up. I was told don't worry, this is a 50 year flood. The next year it happened again, and the next, and...

A few years later we started getting two large floods each year, and then in 2022 three of them, reaching into summertime (which had never happened before). Most people weren't aware of this escalation because the stop banks and large flood protection drains with powerful pumps in the Napier area were keeping them dry.

Finally, in February 2023, Cyclone Gabrielle hit - just a week after we had our annual 'Warbirds Over Awatoto' public flying event. Our infrastructure was designed to handle water up to the top of the stop bank, but it wasn't designed to handle the amount of debris the water brought with it.

picture.php


We fully accepted this as part of the deal. However, as you know, that was nothing compared to the carnage elsewhere. The enormous amount of water and debris took out many of the bridges in the area, including the railway bridge at Awatoto that connected to the port of Napier. Finally the river breached its banks at Redclyffe (after the storm had subsided), destroying the substation that fed electricity to the Napier/Hastings area. Rivers also burst their banks in other places causing unprecedented flooding all over Hawke's Bay and Gisborne.

Most people think of this as a 'once in a lifetime' event, but I had seen it coming for years. Weather patterns are changing. Cyclone Lola, which hit Vanuatu in October 2023, generated wind gusts of up to 295 kph. This out of season event became the earliest category 5 system on record for the Southern Hemisphere.

Trend of earlier, intense cyclones

[T]he early arrival of an intense cyclone is a part of a broader trend being observed around the globe.

A recent paper published in Nature found intense Southern Hemisphere cyclones are forming about two weeks earlier now than they did in the 1980s.

This was also evident in the Northern Hemisphere.

The research attributed the earlier shift in intense cyclones to human-caused climate change which was allowing ocean waters to warm and become more favourable for supporting cyclones earlier in the season.
 
Last edited:
I didn't cherry-pick anything - it says what it says and the jury is clearly out to a large degree.

You omitted the part that spoke of the effect of climate change, as part of your reframing of the conclusions of that article to fit your argument that said there was no effect from climate change. That's a textbook example of cherrypicking.
Furthermore, I suggest you read that article again, a little more carefully, because the jury is clearly not out on this issue at all.


We know that warmer air can carry more moisture and therefore rain more.

And so, do you think it possible that global warming might lead to warmer air?


Pretty sure I mentioned 100-year floods in the context of the statistical likelihood. As a statistician, I can tell you 100-year floods can happen in consecutive weeks.


As RR has pointed out, these '100 year floods' are happening ever more frequently. Do you think your description is still valid?
 
...but it wasn't designed to handle the amount of debris the water brought with it.

The enormous amount of water and debris took out ...

Without the forestry waste, almost none of it would have happened. The reasons for that go back to selling off the forests. When NZFS ran them, nothing was left on the ground after felling.
 
As RR has pointed out, these '100 year floods' are happening ever more frequently. Do you think your description is still valid?

They wouldn't be happening at all if we didn't allow the water to bring down millions of tonnes of logs to dam the rivers allowing stop banks to be breached.
 
Without the forestry waste, almost none of it would have happened. The reasons for that go back to selling off the forests. When NZFS ran them, nothing was left on the ground after felling.


They wouldn't be happening at all if we didn't allow the water to bring down millions of tonnes of logs to dam the rivers allowing stop banks to be breached.


Have there or have there not been increased instances of sustained heavy rainfall? Failure to practice the most optimal flood damage mitigation strategies is not mutually exclusive with there also being more water arriving on the landscape in short-term surges.
 
Have there or have there not been increased instances of sustained heavy rainfall?

Not so far as I can tell.

The rainfall in NZ varies a lot with El Nino/La Nina and the heaviest rain recorded was Bola in the 1980s, so there's been nothing truly exceptional.

Failure to practice the most optimal flood damage mitigation strategies is not mutually exclusive with there also being more water arriving on the landscape in short-term surges.

I think you're missing the point due to unfamiliarity with the country.

The logs and forestry waste isn't a flood mitigation issue and never has been. It's an economic issue that has become a flood issue due to build-up of waste over decades. It was a disaster waiting to happen and whether the planet is 1, 2 or 5 degrees warmer it was going to happen one day. It just happened to be in the tail of Cyclone Gabrielle.
 
Without the forestry waste, almost none of it would have happened. The reasons for that go back to selling off the forests. When NZFS ran them, nothing was left on the ground after felling.
You're wrong.

Cyclone Gabrielle: Most pine wood debris was from erosion, not slash, Hawke's Bay council says
Pine made up the majority of wood debris left behind after Cyclone Gabrielle in Hawke's Bay, but very little of it was "slash", a council survey has found...

The survey of 15 sites found a mixture of pine, willow, poplar, native timber, and other debris that could not be identified.

The mix of material differed from each catchment, with the majority of pine coming from the erosion of hillsides and stream banks...

Lower Tutaekuri, Puketapu, and Awatoto were predominantly willow and poplar with the remaining pine...

The report described the cyclone as a "catastrophic weatherbomb" and one of the most significant weather events in the region on record, with a number of places getting half a metre of rain.

Eighteen bridges were damaged in the region because of it.
Because of the cyclone, not forestry waste.

BTW my brother was a deer culler for the New Zealand Forest Service back in the 1980's. He stayed on when it became the Department of Conservation, working with endangered species including blue ducks and kiwis for many years (he left DOC in 2020). He's old enough to retire now but he keeps working because he's so concerned about how costs are going up due to global warming.
 
Nice little strawman there, mate. Is there a special on them this week?



I was talking about flood plains, and I've always chosen not to live on one. I don't live in an earthquake-prone area, or on top of a magma field either. That I couldn't give a rat's arse about fools who do is fine by me. I'm very happy that my insurance premiums aren't impacted by morons who can't see where floods happen, and they happen a lot in NZ. We get a lot of rain.



Speaking of which, I hope their insurance is well and truly up to date, because there's going to be an awful lot of water arriving over the country in 7-10 days' time.







Your callous lack of concern for those who are already being affected is noted with disapproval.
[/QUOTE]The whole of NZ is at risk of a major earthquake.
 
You're wrong.

I'd be interested to have a look at their evidence, because what I saw was clearly mostly slash.

The whole of NZ is at risk of a major earthquake.

No. No doubt we'd feel it if one struck somewhere close by, but we're in an area that isn't impacted by major faults and we'd suffer no damage. Our area isn't alone - quite a bit of the country is safe from earthquakes.
 
No. No doubt we'd feel it if one struck somewhere close by, but we're in an area that isn't impacted by major faults and we'd suffer no damage. Our area isn't alone - quite a bit of the country is safe from earthquakes.

This does not appear to be true.
The 2010–11 Canterbury earthquakes are outside the areas of greatest statistical risk of high ground shaking. This illustrates the point that large earthquakes may occur anywhere in the New Zealand region, not just in the highest risk areas.

https://teara.govt.nz/en/map/4416/new-zealand-regions-at-greatest-risk-of-ground-shaking
 
Not so far as I can tell.

The rainfall in NZ varies a lot with El Nino/La Nina and the heaviest rain recorded was Bola in the 1980s, so there's been nothing truly exceptional.


I think you're missing the point due to unfamiliarity with the country.

The logs and forestry waste isn't a flood mitigation issue and never has been. It's an economic issue that has become a flood issue due to build-up of waste over decades. It was a disaster waiting to happen and whether the planet is 1, 2 or 5 degrees warmer it was going to happen one day. It just happened to be in the tail of Cyclone Gabrielle.


I am very much unfamiliar with NZ, but there are analogous hazards in many places, including the estuarial wetland ten meters from my front door. One thing that's becoming clear is that there's no separating the various issues.

Flood mitigation doesn't only encompass things you do in case there's a flood. It also includes things you don't do because if you did them it could make floods worse. Overdevelopment of low-lying lands in South Florida (see this past Friday's news) is just as much a flood mitigation failure as the building of the South Fork Dam (whose failure caused the Johnstown Flood of 1889) or the accumulation of slash in timbered New Zealand forests.

The New Orleans disaster of 2005 is a well-known example. Was it caused by unwise development of lands that should never have been developed, by inadequate levee construction and maintenance, by the Army Corps of Engineers' policy of refusing to sacrifice half the city to allow the Mississippi River to change its course naturally during the last century, or by warmer sea water that intensified the hurricane? Yes.

There are things that shouldn't have been done and things that shouldn't have been left undone all over the environment. It's true they would be hazards even if the climate were unchanged, but stronger storms are bigger hazards regardless. Neglected levees didn't help turn Katrina into a category 5 storm, and slash on the landscape didn't help turn Gabrielle into a category 3.
 
This does not appear to be true.

I'd disagree with the analysis, mainly because the example they use of Christchurch is wrong. None of their earthquakes have been large and would have caused very little damage if most of the damaged property wasn't on thixatropic land that turned to liquid. The CTV collapse was due to fraudulent engineering work that was never prosecuted, and the cathedral would have fallen down at some stage.

Two other earthquakes of identical magnitude struck Peru and Taiwan and caused no damage:

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/earthquake-of-magnitude-63-strikes-off-southern-peru

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/514975/taiwan-rattled-by-6-point-3-magnitude-quake

There are things that shouldn't have been done and things that shouldn't have been left undone all over the environment. It's true they would be hazards even if the climate were unchanged, but stronger storms are bigger hazards regardless. Neglected levees didn't help turn Katrina into a category 5 storm, and slash on the landscape didn't help turn Gabrielle into a category 3.

Fair points.
 
When has that ever bothered The Atheist?


The Atheist said:
I'd disagree with the analysis, mainly because the example they use of Christchurch is wrong. None of their earthquakes have been large and would have caused very little damage if most of the damaged property wasn't on thixatropic land that turned to liquid.
Now you're just being silly.

2011 Christchurch earthquake
Although smaller in magnitude than the 2010 earthquake, the February earthquake was more damaging and deadly for a number of reasons. The epicentre was closer to Christchurch, and shallower at 5 kilometres (3 mi) underground, whereas the September quake was measured at 10 kilometres (6 mi) deep...

many buildings were already weakened from the previous quakes...

The peak ground acceleration (PGA) was extremely high, and simultaneous vertical and horizontal ground movement was "almost impossible" for buildings to survive intact...

Intensity

Initial measurement of peak ground acceleration (PGA) in central Christchurch exceeded 1.8 g (i.e. 1.8 times the acceleration of gravity), with the highest recording 2.2 g, at Heathcote Valley Primary School, a shaking intensity equivalent to MMI X+. Subsequent analysis revised the Heathcote Valley Primary School acceleration down to 1.37 g, with the 1.89 g reading at Pages Road Pumping Station in Christchurch revised down to 1.51 g. Nevertheless, these were the highest PGAs ever recorded in New Zealand; the highest reading during the September 2010 event was 1.26 g, recorded near Darfield. The PGA is also one of the greatest-ever ground accelerations recorded in the world, and was unusually high for a 6.2 quake
As usual your ignorance is matched only by your chutzpah.
 
Researchers find extreme heat four times more likely than at turn of millennium and urge reduction in fossil fuels.
Deadly heat in Mexico and US made 35 times more likely by global heating (TheGuardian, June 20, 2024)


Still doing fine:
Exxon Mobil Corp - Rating as of Jun 20, 2024 (Morningstar)
Multiple community organizations joined ExxonMobil's second annual Community Health & Wellness Fair at Charlton-Pollard Elementary.
ExxonMobil hosts second Juneteenth community wellness fair ('BeaumontEterprise, June 20, 2024)
 
Americans?! Democrats?!!!

Joe Biden is producing more oil than Donald Trump did (Newsweek, Jan 9, 2024)
United States produces more crude oil than any country, ever (U.S. Energy Information Administration, March 11, 2024)
Why oil companies are raking in record profits under Joe Biden (CNN, June 11, 2024)
Under President Joe Biden, who campaigned on a pledge of “no more drilling,” America is pumping more oil than any country ever has.
As he campaigned for president in 2020, Joe Biden made a bold promise at a New Hampshire town hall, adding repetition for emphasis: “No more drilling on federal lands. Period. Period. Period. Period.”
Four years later, it appears that Biden may have overpromised.
Why no president has slowed the boom in U.S. oil drilling (WaPo, Aug 16, 2024)
Vice President Kamala Harris and other Democrats have not made significant mentions of climate change or the environment in recent stump speeches.
(...)
The split-screen approach suggests that Democrats see talking about the environment as a lose-lose proposition. If they call for curbing fossil fuel production to fight global warming, they risk alienating voters in Pennsylvania, a pivotal swing state where natural gas powers the economy. But if they tout record U.S. oil production that has helped lower energy costs, they risk angering young voters, a crucial constituency for Democrats.
(...)
“It looks like a deliberate decision to forgo both pro-climate and pro-drilling messaging,” said Kevin Book, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners, a research firm. “The campaign may have concluded that it has more to lose by alienating voters on either side than to gain by drawing in undecideds.”
Why Democrats are so quiet about climate change right now (WaPo, Aug 22, 2024)


Meanwhile:
* Wind and solar generating capacity surpasses 1,200 gigawatts
* Nation’s grid operators investing to handle intermittent power
China by far outspends the rest of the world when it comes to clean energy, and has repeatedly broken wind and solar installation records in recent years.
China’s world-leading clean energy boom has passed another benchmark, with its wind and solar capacity surpassing a target set by President Xi Jinping almost six years earlier than planned.
The nation added 25 gigawatts of turbines and panels in July, expanding total capacity to 1,206 gigawatts, according to a statement from the National Energy Administration on Friday. Xi set a goal in December 2020 for at least 1,200 gigawatts from the clean energy sources by 2030.
China Hits Xi Jinping's Renewable Power Target Six Years Early (Bloomberg, Aug 23, 2024)


Rather lose young voters than Big Oil (and cheap oil!) , right?!
 
Last edited:
President Biden made climate change a cornerstone of his agenda. Vice President Kamala Harris has yet to detail her own plan.
Harris Goes Light on Climate Policy. Green Leaders Are OK with That. (NYT, Aug 21, 2024)

Yeah, right! :mad:

“Harris’ extremely brief mention of climate change” during her speech “capped a week in which the climate crisis was shockingly absent in Chicago,” said Collin Rees, political director at Oil Change US, which advocates for a faster transition away from fossil fuels. “We need concrete, specific commitments.”
For the presidential nominee, the decision to stay largely silent may be a strategic one. While climate activism could energize young voters, it also risks alienating potential supporters in the gas-rich swing state of Pennsylvania, said Kevin Book, managing director of the Washington consulting firm ClearView Energy Partners LLC.
Opponent Donald Trump has relentlessly attacked Harris’ approach to fossil fuels, telling a crowd in York, Pennsylvania, earlier this week that if she’s elected, energy prices will “quadruple,” and the US won’t produce “a drop of oil.”Harris Skips Over Climate Change Even as Party Touts Green Wins (BNN Bloomberg, Aug 23, 2024)
Interesting that Trump appears to recommend Harris to young voters!

There's a striking consistency in the way Kamala Harris and Tim Walz offered just glancing references to climate change in their DNC speeches.

Why it matters: The framing in the context of "freedom" could preview their strategy for the balance of the short campaign.
Driving the news: Harris' speech very briefly touched climate in a much wider riff on what she called "fundamental freedoms at stake" in November.
* It's the "freedom to breathe clean air, and drink clean water and live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis," she said.
* That's the same construction that Tim Walz used a night earlier, when he said the election is about "freedom."
* He didn't even mention climate but tucked in the allegation that Republicans want corporations "free to pollute your air and water."
On climate, a short riff grows in Chicago (Axios, Aug 23, 2024)
They really, really can't be accused of promising too much climate-wise! The "freedom to breathe clean air, and drink clean water and levee free from pollution that fuels the climate crisis" is as meaningless as the freedom to pursue happiness etc.
'I know you have to breathe filthy air and drink filthy water because that's what it's like where you live, but you have the right and the freedom to do so!'

And let us not even mention the freedom to breathe air uncontaminated by SARS-CoV-2. The people at the DNC had that freedom, too, but they would have had to stay away from the Convention to enjoy that freedom.
 
They really, really can't be accused of promising too much climate-wise!
No, and right now that's not a bad thing.

Politicians can't do good if they aren't elected. The next 2 months are critical, not just for Harris but for all Democrats. Once they have an overall majority and/or bipartisan support, then they can look at specific policies to combat global warming.

And let us not even mention the freedom to breathe air uncontaminated by SARS-CoV-2. The people at the DNC had that freedom, too, but they would have had to stay away from the Convention to enjoy that freedom.
They risked their lives for democracy.

Like it or not, most people are tired of trying to avoid Covid and just live with it now. Vaccines were supposed to make this possible, and would have if all countries had eliminated the virus early on. But they didn't, and now it's mutated to much more infectious forms that will never go away. Sad, but totally predictable given the half-hearted response of most countries. Add Covid to the long list of horrible diseases we put up with because you can't spend your whole life in a hazmat suit.

There's a time to be outraged over lack of progress, but now isn't it. Wait until the election is over and then hold their feet to the fire if you're not happy (which I know you won't be...).

On a more positive note...

NZ: Government investment 'big driver' for solar power
A solar power company getting government investment aims to produce 15 percent of the country's daytime electricity.

The $78 million deal between Crown-owned New Zealand Green Investment Finance (NZGIF) and Far North Solar Farm signed on Tuesday will connect five of the company's sites to the national grid...

They would produce the equivalent of 15 percent of daytime electricity, allowing more of the power from hydro lakes to be used for evening demand.

The company, formed in 2019, gained consent in May for a solar farm in the Rangitīkei town of Marton and was building or had approval for others including at Pukenui in the Far North, Edgecumbe in Bay of Plenty, Waiotahe and Foxton.

The NZGIF loan would be a "big driver" to speed up solar generation, he said.

"There is a lot being done [with the government] that you're not necessarily seeing the results for today, but within the next two to five years we'll see more and more of this generation coming online."...

Transpower said the grid connection agreement was the first of many around the country.

"The ability for a developer to access capital is another critical element of getting renewable energy developments off the ground," said Transpower's executive general manager of customer and external affairs Raewyn Moss.
This is no Big Government handout, but an investment in the future. New Zealand is running out of natural gas and now has to import it. Hydro dams are running low due to poor rainfall and less than expected wind. Right now we get very little electricity from solar, but that is about to change. 15% of daytime usage is huge. 58% of the electricity generated in New Zealand is consumed by the industrial and commercial sectors, which have high daytime usage. Hydro provides 49% on average, but its enormous storage capability and nation-wide distribution means any electricity produced by solar increases hydro storage by the same amount. It's like pumped hydro but without the inefficiency!

Solar farms are being installed in the north where sunlight hours are high. With the panels mounted 2m off the ground the same land can be used for farming. The panels actually improve land use by promoting grass growth and providing shade for animals.
 
Last edited:
So not a word from American Democrats. Instead we get a lesson about democracy:
No, and right now that's not a bad thing.

Politicians can't do good if they aren't elected. The next 2 months are critical, not just for Harris but for all Democrats. Once they have an overall majority and/or bipartisan support, then they can look at specific policies to combat global warming.


So it's supposed to be a good thing that politicians don't mention what you imagine that they want to do. It's supposed to be good that they give the voters the wrong idea in order to get elected, and once elected, i.e. "have an overall majority and/or bipartisan support," you are convinced that they will do what they didn't dare say they would do: combat global warming.
And until then, it's better that they don't even "look at specific policies to combat global warming," because, of course, that's what they have desired to do all the time if only the "overall majority" would have let them even though the previous (and current) Democratic president outcompeted the opposition's slogan: Drill, drill, drill!

What a marvelous thing this idea of representative democracy turns out to be: Instead of telling people what then think ought to be done, what they want to do once elected, it's all about giving voters the wrong idea, and once elected with a big enough majority, they will then do nothing but good, no matter what the people voting for them thought they would do, so in the meantime, it's all about tricking voters into electing them.
George Santos seems to have had a pretty good idea of what representative democracy is, after all.

They risked their lives for democracy.

Like it or not, most people are tired of trying to avoid Covid and just live with it now. Vaccines were supposed to make this possible, and would have if all countries had eliminated the virus early on. But they didn't, and now it's mutated to much more infectious forms that will never go away. Sad, but totally predictable given the half-hearted response of most countries. Add Covid to the long list of horrible diseases we put up with because you can't spend your whole life in a hazmat suit.

There's a time to be outraged over lack of progress, but now isn't it. Wait until the election is over and then hold their feet to the fire if you're not happy (which I know you won't be...).


The didn't risk their lives for democracy. They were deluded enough to think that the pandemic was over, and they were told that it was over. The enthusiastic convention celebrated that it was over. But it wasn't and it isn't. The delusional thinking may cost some them their lives, more likely the elderly than the young. And some of them may have brought home with them a life-long souvenir to share with their loved ones and/or colleagues, students and/or patients, some of whom may also remember it until they die, sooner or later.

So the DNC in Chicago helped spread the virus along with another lie, the one about the virus.

No On a more positive note...

NZ: Government investment 'big driver' for solar power
This is no Big Government handout, but an investment in the future. New Zealand is running out of natural gas and now has to import it. Hydro dams are running low due to poor rainfall and less than expected wind. Right now we get very little electricity from solar, but that is about to change. 15% of daytime usage is huge. 58% of the electricity generated in New Zealand is consumed by the industrial and commercial sectors, which have high daytime usage. Hydro provides 49% on average, but its enormous storage capability and nation-wide distribution means any electricity produced by solar increases hydro storage by the same amount. It's like pumped hydro but without the inefficiency!

Solar farms are being installed in the north where sunlight hours are high. With the panels mounted 2m off the ground the same land can be used for farming. The panels actually improve land use by promoting grass growth and providing shade for animals.


In Denmark, we have had sheep grazing in the shade of solar panels for several years.
It's not a bad idea, but it's not unproblematic.
https://landbrugsavisen.dk/biolog-hold-af-får-i-solcelleparker-kan-være-en-dårlig-idé
https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publication...-af-fødevarer-fra-dyr-der-har-græsset-på-mark
 
What else isn't new?!

Exclusive: Over $12bn in subsidies awarded for technologies like carbon capture experts call ‘colossal waste of money’
How Exxon chases billions in US subsidies for a ‘climate solution’ that helps it drill more oil

A handful of wealthy polluting countries led by the US are spending billions of dollars of public money on unproven climate solutions technologies that risk further delaying the transition away from fossil fuels, new analysis suggests.

These governments have handed out almost $30bn in subsidies for carbon capture and fossil hydrogen over the past 40 years, with hundreds of billions potentially up for grabs through new incentives, according to a new report by Oil Change International (OCI), a non-profit tracking the cost of fossil fuels.

To date, the European Union (EU) plus just four countries – the US, Norway, Canada and the Netherlands – account for 95% of the public handouts on CCS and hydrogen.
The US has spent the most taxpayer money, some $12bn in direct subsidies, according to OCI, with fossil fuel giants like Exxon hoping to secure billions more in future years.

The industry-preferred solutions could play a limited role in curtailing global heating, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and are being increasingly pushed by wealthy nations at the annual UN climate summit.

But carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects consistently fail, overspend or underperform, according to previous studies. CCS – and blue hydrogen projects – rely on fossil fuels and can lead to a myriad of environmental harms including a rise in greenhouse gases and air pollution.
US leads wealthy countries spending billions of public money on unproven ‘climate solutions’ (TheGuardian, Aug 29, 2024)


Will CCS projects be mentioned by Harris & Walz, possibly as the solution to global warming?
 
Will CCS projects be mentioned by Harris & Walz, possibly as the solution to global warming?

The solution? Incredibly unlikely. I'd be surprised if it didn't continue to be a small fraction of the resources directed to address climate change, though, given politics.

Complaints about how bad a use of resources CCS projects are and have been are hardly anything new, of course, so I'm mildly surprised that you seem to be just hearing about such now, though.
 
Last edited:
The solution? Incredibly unlikely. I'd be surprised if it didn't continue to be a small fraction of the resources directed to address climate change, though, given politics.

Complaints about how bad a use of resources CCS projects are and have been are hardly anything new, of course, so I'm mildly surprised that you seem to be just hearing about such now, though.


I'm surprised that you seem to think I didn't hear about it till now! Why do you think so?
(You weren't here last year, were you? Or in the other climate thread.)
 
And while Harris said in 2019 that she supported a ban on fracking, a spokesperson for the vice president told The New York Times that she no longer does so.
It's possible that the Harris-Walz campaign already believes that it has clinched the support of those, generally young, voters who would cast their ballots on climate issues.
A new poll from the Environmental Voter Project found younger voters are now more energized for Harris and Walz than they were for President Biden. But, that could be risky - a Data for Progress survey published this month shows respondents say climate is more important than ever to their vote this year.
Harris, Walz are climate candidates: So, why aren't they talking about climate? (The Independent, Aug 30, 2024)


“I think the most important and most significant aspect of my policy perspective and decisions is my values have not changed,” she said. “You mentioned the Green New Deal. I have always believed – and I have worked on it – that the climate crisis is real, that it is an urgent matter to which we should apply metrics that include holding ourselves to deadlines around time.”
Her campaign later said Harris does not continue to support the Green New Deal, a wide-ranging proposal to address climate change first introduced in 2019.
During a September 2019 climate crisis town hall hosted by CNN, Harris was asked if she would commit to implementing a federal ban on fracking on her first day in office.
“There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking, and starting with what we can do on Day 1 around public lands,” Harris said at the time. By the time she had become Biden’s running mate, she had moved away from that stance and even cast the tie breaking vote to expand fracking leases, as she noted to Bash.
On Thursday, Harris pointed to the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, which provided record investments in combatting climate change, as an example of her climate record.
“We have set goals for the United States of America and by extension, the globe, around when we should meet certain standards for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as an example. That value has not changed,” she said.
“What I have seen is that we can grow and we can increase a thriving clean energy economy without banning fracking,” she added.
Harris explains in exclusive CNN interview why she’s shifted her position on key issues since her first run for president (CNN, Aug 29, 2024)


Not exactly promising, is it?! :mad:
 
Back
Top Bottom