• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

AGW and rising sea levels (1 Viewer)

Interesting take, but is there any evidence that global water vapor levels have risen over the past century?
There is good evidence for rising CO2 levels, which is I think why scientists see it as a major factor.
She's essentially saying the same thing that Peter Andrews demonstrates in the video I posted above - weeds colonising bare soil and living in symbiosis with grasses to sequester a multiple of carbon.

I'd be pretty sure that the climate scientists have good measurements of water vapor - but the big picture is what are they measuring? Escapees from disturbed or removed vegetation in drastically altered landscapes??

As Peter Andrews shows above in his restored landscape - the bulk of the water is recycled in a localized daily microclimate landscape. The trouble is that most landscapes under human influence are degraded - not restored.

Still does my head in that one of the suite of proposed solutions to "climate change" - namely, hydrogen powered vehicles ...... has 'water vapour' as the key tailpipe emission ! :eek!: :cat: :eat:
ding ding !






Chosun :gh:
 

The key is the management priority focus on land restoration.
Maximizing short term profit by overgrazing the land desertifies it for a long time.
The desert around the Chiricahua hills by Portal AZ, a wonderful birding spot, was once a verdant landscape. In the late 1800s, an onslaught of 5 million cattle stripped it. It has not recovered in the century since.
 
The key is the management priority focus on land restoration.
Maximizing short term profit by overgrazing the land desertifies it for a long time.
The desert around the Chiricahua hills by Portal AZ, a wonderful birding spot, was once a verdant landscape. In the late 1800s, an onslaught of 5 million cattle stripped it. It has not recovered in the century since.
Yes, restoration is the key, and it requires precise management actions to replicate natural predatory pressures and hence stock movement. I will have to research more on Allan Savory and his exact techniques - what I've looked at so far makes good sense, though I don't know how he treats stock watering.

Restoring and maintaining wetland systems and hydrological functioning is key to long term environment repair and rebuilding eroded damage grain of plant secured soil at a time.

I wonder if the seed banks still exist for the region you mentioned? Hydrology is important even in desert landscapes too, so perhaps that plays a role in the lack of natural rehabilitation to this point?




Chosun :gh:
 
The Book of Peter

(forgive the quasi-biblical title, but the gems of wisdom get right to the heart of the planetary 'crisis')
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V5yEjA5DMgc

Great news that Peter Andrews' former living laboratory "Tarwyn Park" has been spared (at least for now) from the ravages and permanent destruction (of hydrological functioning) by a proposed coal mine. The reasoning may not have been entirely spot on - but the result was :t:
https://www.edonsw.org.au/bylong_re...6RERn43YrVvmEQqdnffz58ahDa2LJfib_vkCEYETxMgkg





Chosun :gh:
 
Have to admit, I found this comment, from a well known denier web site, actually quite well documented.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/20/tarawa-and-the-war-against-sea-level-rise/

The threat of catastrophic sea level increases just seems iffy, even if only because both Al Gore as well as Barack Obama have purchased large ocean front properties since leaving office. Presumably they are well informed and would hesitate to do so if they expected their new homes to be flooded shortly.
 
Last edited:
. . .The threat of catastrophic sea level increases just seems iffy, even if only because both Al Gore as well as Barack Obama have purchased large ocean front properties since leaving office. Presumably they are well informed and would hesitate to do so if they expected their new homes to be flooded shortly.

How then do you account for neither man being an AGW-denier?
 
Beyond me, but imho actions speak louder than words.

Seems to me a comically weak basis for an opinion but I won’t argue the point.

On what other grounds do you find the of threat of catastrophic sea rises “iffy”? To the best of my knowledge, there’s little or no credible scientific evidence against it, “denialism” being mostly the province of cranks and of fossil-fuel interests and the sleazy politicians who pander to them.
 
Last edited:
Seems to me a comically weak basis for an opinion but I won’t argue the point.

On what other grounds do you find the of threat of catastrophic sea rises “iffy”? To the best of my knowledge, there’s little or no credible scientific evidence against it, “denialism” being mostly the province of cranks and of fossil-fuel interests and the sleazy politicians who pander to them.

Simply noting two points:
1 There has been very little increase to date, as evidenced by the Tarawa piece I linked earlier.
2 The credibility of the assertions of catastrophic sea level rise is not helped when the most powerful advocates buy ocean front homes.
 
How then do you account for neither man being an AGW-denier?
Apart from the whole unfortunate labeling of 'the other' as a "denier" etc, the question is how ? indeed !
...... Hypocrisy ? Delusion ? Sanctimonious Superiority ? Offsets ? (though that's getting back into the delusional realms) , Other ?
Perhaps it's an improvement over former residences ? https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...es-nashville-estate-expends-21-times-more-en/
..... imho actions speak louder than words.
True. There seems to be an awful lot of quacking and waddling ..... you know what they say - if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then ........
Simply noting two points:
1 There has been very little increase to date, as evidenced by the Tarawa piece I linked earlier.
2 The credibility of the assertions of catastrophic sea level rise is not helped when the most powerful advocates buy ocean front homes.
Given that, given the planned doubling of the global passenger airfleet (whose CO2e effects are multiples more deleterious when delivered to the upper atmosphere) as I posted above, the energy (mostly non-renewable, and not CO2e free) consumption in mining Bitcoins now in the top 40 charts of COUNTRY consumption, and global warming poster-boys (add James Lovelock to that - who was so freaked out by AGW that he flipped from advocating the Gaia hypothesis to promoting nuclear power [along with all it's intractable waste]) snapping up waterfront real estate - serious questions must be asked as to whether the whole thing is a non event ?
Perhaps this sheds some light ? https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www...ing-glaciers-flood-al-gores-coastal-home/amp/





Chosun :gh:
 
Apart from the whole unfortunate labeling of 'the other' as a "denier" etc. . . .

What euphemism for “denier” would you prefer? The author of the article you provide the link to, by the way, roundly describes AGW as a “hoax” and if that doesn’t make him a “denier”, I don’t know what would.

As I’ve already pointed out, the notion that Gore and Obama have inside information contradicting their public positions on AGW is simply ludicrous. What would the motive be, depressing seaside property values so they could pick up their new holdings cheaply?? That would be a stretch even for a sleazy real estate mogul like Dumbo, whose golf courses disfigure coastlines both here and abroad.
 
Simply noting two points:
1 There has been very little increase to date, as evidenced by the Tarawa piece I linked earlier.
2 The credibility of the assertions of catastrophic sea level rise is not helped when the most powerful advocates buy ocean front homes.

1. How do you account, then, for the fact that the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that AGW is real and imminent and a threat not just to coastlines but to much else as well? Or are you a conspiracy theorist, like a few others here, seeing the AGW “movement” as the result of an evil alliance between corrupt politicians and a venal scientific “establishment”?.
2. See the previous post.
 
Last edited:
Facts on the ground outweigh any consensus.
Occam's razor would suggest that both Gore and Obama are well aware that there is no threat to their properties for the foreseeable future.
It is imho less than honest to propagandize kids to believe doom is imminent when you know better.
 
Facts on the ground outweigh any consensus.
Occam's razor would suggest that both Gore and Obama are well aware that there is no threat to their properties for the foreseeable future.
It is imho less than honest to propagandize kids to believe doom is imminent when you know better.
I was going to use pretty much exactly those words !
In the light of what they are advocating their behaviour is simply illogical ....

I find it more than a little ironic that AGW advocates move to the seaside while Trump tries to buy Greenland ....




Chosun :gh:
 
What euphemism for “denier” would you prefer? The author of the article you provide the link to, by the way, roundly describes AGW as a “hoax” and if that doesn’t make him a “denier”, I don’t know what would.

As I’ve already pointed out, the notion that Gore and Obama have inside information contradicting their public positions on AGW is simply ludicrous. What would the motive be, depressing seaside property values so they could pick up their new holdings cheaply?? That would be a stretch even for a sleazy real estate mogul like Dumbo, whose golf courses disfigure coastlines both here and abroad.
No doubt there are paid shills and miscreants on all sides of the argument. For those not in those camps perhaps undecided, or unconvinced, or open to further proof, would be more suitable, however inconvenient that may be ;)

As Etudiant said, who knows their motive ? Without direct interview (and likely interrogation under truth serum! :) we simply don't know enough information and can observe the behaviour as the most telling factor.

The most effective leaders will faithfully model the very behaviour they propose everyone else follow. This 'energy audit' from publicly available information shows AL Gore at 20-odd times + the national average energy consumption falling far short of that.
https://nationalcenter.org/ncppr/20...YjJmGMQgtJdI9_kNRUea9w4Yb4CStpeZFOPZiKTOijAeo

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." ....... ¿¿





Chosun :gh:
 
Facts on the ground outweigh any consensus.

The “consensus” is based on myriads of “facts” (measurements in this case) established by thousands of highly qualified scientists all over the world. Against that (as far as the evidence presented by your military historian goes) is the “extrapolation (of sea levels of the recent past) to 2100”. Talk about missing the point!

It is imho less than honest to propagandize kids to believe doom is imminent when you know better.

Imho it would be immoral not to inform “kids” (and everybody else) of anthropogenic climate change while there is still time—precious little time as it happens—to mitigate its catastrophic effects.

Occam's razor would suggest that both Gore and Obama are well aware that there is no threat to their properties for the foreseeable future.

Occam’s razor doesn’t “suggest” anything, it prunes away over-elaborate hypotheses in favor of simpler ones with the same explanatory power. In the present case, there are 2 competing hypotheses:

1/. The properties concerned were purchased by a couple of prominent Democratic politicians (both currently out-of-office) with secret knowledge that AGW is a hoax.
2/. The properties concerned, though coastal, are so situated as not to be in immediate danger of flooding

Implied by the first, is the existence of an otherwise undocumented left-wing conspiracy—Gore and Obama surely not being the only members of the Democratic elite in on the secret—to foist AGW “alarmism” on the general public.
Motive? Beats me. . .. But maybe you could suggest one?

Implied by the second, is due diligence in the purchase of coastal real estate.
Motive? Investment or some other legitimate purpose.

I’m pretty sure how Occam’s razor cuts in this case. ;)
 
No doubt there are paid shills and miscreants on all sides of the argument. For those not in those camps perhaps undecided, or unconvinced, or open to further proof, would be more suitable, however inconvenient that may be ;)

As Etudiant said, who knows their motive ? Without direct interview (and likely interrogation under truth serum! :) we simply don't know enough information and can observe the behaviour as the most telling factor.

The most effective leaders will faithfully model the very behaviour they propose everyone else follow. This 'energy audit' from publicly available information shows AL Gore at 20-odd times + the national average energy consumption falling far short of that.
https://nationalcenter.org/ncppr/20...s “effective” leadership have to do with AGW?
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 4 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top