Worth 1000 words

Written By: - Date published: 10:25 am, December 16th, 2009 - 72 comments
Categories: climate change - Tags:

nick-anderson-cartoonCartoon by Nick Anderson.

72 comments on “Worth 1000 words ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. fizzleplug 1
    16 December 2009 at 10:31 am

    That guy with the emails looks like he’ll do ok after global warming crushes all those too stupid to get off the tracks. Might even rifle through the other guy’s wallet. Bound to be some lunch money in there.

    • roger nome 1.1
      16 December 2009 at 10:57 am

      hmmm – so according to fiz, if you’re born on a low-lying area in a developing country, you’re stupid. Now i feel free to discount anything i read that’s authored by you.

      • ben 1.1.1
        16 December 2009 at 11:06 am

        according to fiz, if you’re born on a low-lying area in a developing country, you’re stupid

        Boy that’s a silly comment. Back of the class for you, Rog.

        • roger nome 1.1.1.1
          16 December 2009 at 11:13 am

          not really – it’s a serious issue. I’m just tired of morons like you who have such a callous attitude, that may well sink all of us. That ain’t cool.

        • felix 1.1.1.2
          16 December 2009 at 11:19 am

          Who do you imagine he was referring to as “those too stupid to get off the tracks.” then, ben?

          • ben 1.1.1.2.1
            16 December 2009 at 11:23 am

            Not people born on a low-lying area in a developing country. That’s just making sh*t up.

            • felix 1.1.1.2.1.1
              16 December 2009 at 11:25 am

              Then who, ben? Serious question.

              If you’re going to deny the interpretation you should really offer a plausible alternative.

              • fizzleplug …
                16 December 2009 at 12:03 pm

                Or you could take the words at face value without applying some deeper subtext.

                Guy with moronic posture, looking baffled by pieces of paper is on tracks. Guy waving the paper (albeit looking hysterical) isn’t on tracks. Hands up if you know who is likely to survive the train passing?

                Not everything in this world is serious people. Lighten up.

          • Tim Ellis 1.1.1.2.2
            16 December 2009 at 12:10 pm

            felix, I interpreted the stupid person as the one who is paying attention to the hysterical fellow with the emails. I don’t know how anybody would interpret the person on the tracks as somebody living in low lying areas.

            • felix 1.1.1.2.2.1
              16 December 2009 at 12:37 pm

              Thanks Tim, we were actually analysing fizzleplug’s interpretation, not the cartoon itself.

              Not that it matters as fizz reckons it didn’t mean anything anyway.

    • ben 1.2
      16 December 2009 at 11:05 am

      lol

      Might even rifle through the other guy’s wallet

      Very good!

    • Galeandra 1.3
      16 December 2009 at 2:22 pm

      Yeah, I’ll feel better, too,if me and my iwi get a few cents for ETS trading while the rest of the place goes to hell.

      If today’s Tara Daily News is anything to go by it’s going to come up roses…Will Fisher AAP get about 18 column inches on “Don’t Fear Global Warming.” He says ‘the planet will survive and flourish’..”Who knows, maybe pineapples will grow in Poland” and whole nother buch of stuff. Pennies from heaven.

      It was an irony as two pages over was an even larger Washington Post article on the 10 year Murray Darling drought and its impact on agriculture there. I guess that’s another example of media balance.

      BTW I’d just read the post about the ‘bought priesthood’ but no lol.

  2. vto 2
    16 December 2009 at 10:39 am

    So how much are sea levels going to rise? I heard a while ago maybe 40cm over the next 100 years or so bt it seems to have recently been ramped up to 1-2m. Just curious. We have an opportunity to get hold of some coastal acreage and too much rise will wash it all away!

    • fizzleplug 2.1
      16 December 2009 at 10:41 am

      I say go for it!

    • lprent 2.2
      16 December 2009 at 11:48 am

      Depends on the melting in the West Antarctica ice sheet and the Greenland ice cap. The 40cm was from the IPCC AR4 that was essentially finished in 2005 and released in 2007.

      It didn’t include most of the expected melting in those sheets because the research hadn’t been done for long enough to eliminate seasonal or cyclic vagaries. This is one of the . I always refer to the IPCC reports as conservative.

      Since then there has been a pile of research done, some of which I’ve pointed out in some of my posts. The 1-2 metres is what the people working in that area are now calling the conservative confirmed estimates. This is probably what will be in the IPCC AR5 report (that process started earlier this year).

      I think that they are still way too conservative both about the volumes and time frames (some of the recent data about East Antarctica icecap wasting is really quite scary). But conservative is what the IPCC reports are for.

      • vto 2.2.1
        16 December 2009 at 12:17 pm

        hmmmmmm. Thanks lprent.

        Christchurch as a whole would be a goner.

        It would seem to me that the danger would be at least as much about the rise in water tables in lowish lying areas as the position of the high tide mark and wave etc action.

        • vto 2.2.1.1
          16 December 2009 at 12:21 pm

          Mind you I have always like the idea of building a house on lowish pier-type concrete columns (think Chch pier) and then letting the land wash away to beach and then tide as the sea rises. Would be quite exciting having a beach and ocean all around. It would also save going through the RMA process to get such a pad.

        • lprent 2.2.1.2
          16 December 2009 at 1:45 pm

          Yep. That is what is showing up in the atolls, which are the early warning ‘canaries’ for what causes the population and food creation shifts.

          Atolls pretty much rely on a freshwater ‘bubble’ under the atolls. These are getting hit by storm surges as well as the existing sea-level rises over the last century and forming larger brackish water. That hits plants badly because they draw water from the fresh water bubble. That hits the food crops that can be grown, and people cannot live on fish alone. There are a lot of examples of this happening now, and some atolls are being evacuated or planned to be.

          Of course atolls have a separate climate change problem contributing to their issues. in many areas the corals have actually bleached and died because of the rapid rises in water temperatures and loss of the temperature sensitive algae that they are in symbiosis with. The corals die because the rate of increase in water temperatures (and decreases where currents have shifted) has been too fast for the usual migrations. So there are a *lot* of dead corals around.

          Bad time to live on an atoll. But also a bad time to live on a sea level flood water plain. The same seawater intrusions will happen there long before you get your feet wet. Of course bearing in mind the rate that the water from some of those water tables is being sucked up, that is happening anyway.

      • Andrei 2.2.2
        16 December 2009 at 12:28 pm

        “There’s a train a-comin”

        The 1-2 metres is what the people working in that area are now calling the conservative confirmed estimates. This is probably what will be in the IPCC AR5 report (that process started earlier this year).

        And my guess is “the people working in that area” along with many others are going to finish their days working as hotel doormen after they bet hit by it.

        The days of laying it thick to get the grant money for next year are over and science will hopefully get back to what it is supposed to be about and healthy skepticism will be back in fashion.

  3. grumpy 3
    16 December 2009 at 10:47 am

    Thanks VTO. I’m looking at buying a bach in the Sounds. Do you think the prices will come down, or will the Sounds come to me?

  4. roger nome 4
    16 December 2009 at 11:01 am

    dunno grumpy – the climate change refugees may come to you and take your property at gun point. You never know.

    • grumpy 4.1
      16 December 2009 at 11:05 am

      Nah, I think they’ll go for the higher ground. After you’ve lost your island the last thing you would want is waterfront property.

      Perhaps the MacKenzie Basin?

  5. ben 5
    16 December 2009 at 11:08 am

    The seaside property market is a test of the plausibility of sea level rises. Judging from the value of property at Eastbourne I’d say nobody much believes it.

    • roger nome 5.1
      16 December 2009 at 11:11 am

      depends how soon you’re planning on selling your investment property. Ben palm-face plant.

    • felix 5.2
      16 December 2009 at 11:22 am

      “Judging from the value of property at Eastbourne I’d say nobody much believes it.”

      Or knows much about it.

      A more meaningful index would be to see where climate scientists are buying or selling property, surely.

      • grumpy 5.2.1
        16 December 2009 at 11:28 am

        I think you’re on to something here felix. If we find a climate scientist with a waterfront property should we “out” him?

        • felix 5.2.1.1
          16 December 2009 at 11:45 am

          I don’t know. If you find a skeptic selling waterfront property should you put your head in bucket? Who gives a shit?

          The point is it’s ridiculous to assume that everyone buying property knows what they’re doing – I think that’s pretty obviously not the case. However a putting-your-money-where-your-mouth-is index might be interesting.

          roger is absolutely right though, time is the most important factor to consider. Without that the whole idea is absurd.

          • grumpy 5.2.1.1.1
            16 December 2009 at 11:53 am

            I think we are onto a good thing here felix.

            An index of sceptics selling waterfront property v believers buying it would be a bloody good indication of credibility.

            Look farward to some real bargains in Sumner.

            • felix 5.2.1.1.1.1
              16 December 2009 at 12:10 pm

              Up on the hill at the eastern end, perhaps…

              But yeah, in principle that’d be a good prediction market

  6. roger nome 6
    16 December 2009 at 11:10 am

    well, then all their piss and crap will flow downstream and cover your lovely resort, and their kids will raid your property for any choice toys …..

  7. vto 7
    16 December 2009 at 11:28 am

    So nobody know how much sea levels are predicted to rise?

    I thought the science was settled

    • roger nome 7.1
      16 December 2009 at 11:40 am

      So if holland were to play Australia in a cricket test match in Sydney, i would say, “bet on Australia to win”. You would say “tell me exactly how much by, or else you have no reason to believe that they’ll win”. Never quite grasped the idea of logic hey VTO?

      • grumpy 7.1.1
        16 December 2009 at 11:42 am

        Roger, your reasoning is flawed.

        If you are correct about AGW, there will be no Holland, therefore no cricket Test.

        • roger nome 7.1.1.1
          16 December 2009 at 11:56 am

          heh – for someone who claims to be grumpy, you have a pretty up-beat sense of humor.

          • grumpy 7.1.1.1.1
            16 December 2009 at 12:09 pm

            Well, it’s a pretty slow day in the lead up to Christmas – and we are talking about a bloody cartoon!

  8. singularian 8
    16 December 2009 at 11:29 am

    Funny world you live in Rodger.

    I want to know if r0b is still 100% behind the ‘science’ of AGW?

    It looks like the lawsuits are starting to roll so maybe we’ll have some answers on the corruption of data in the next year or so.

  9. tsmithfield 9
    16 December 2009 at 11:51 am

    I don’t believe the e-mails in question show any indication of a global conspiracy amongst scientists. However, I think there is plenty of evidence in the e-mails that demonstrates the the scientists in question have on occasions manipulated the data and the process to exaggerate the strength of warming and attempted to shut critics out of the debate.

    This cannot be good for the credibility of any science.

    • Rob Carr 9.1
      16 December 2009 at 3:13 pm

      It’s not good for the credibility but I don’t think that the estimates range is really any different to it. There was already people who have no evidence of tampering data that got far higher predictions than them…

  10. Doug 10
    16 December 2009 at 11:58 am

    At last the British are onto the fraud that’s Global Warming.
    http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

    • Pascal's bookie 10.1
      16 December 2009 at 12:49 pm

      Awesome stuff. No really. Folks should check it out.

      (But mentioning such articles exist, or pondering as to why would be ‘attacking a strawman’ and likely to make ben cry.)

      Hard to pick a fav, but 15 is good:

      15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity’

      2 is gooder…

      2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

      If it wasn’t the Express I’d suspect they were taking the piss.

    • Matt 10.2
      19 December 2009 at 7:29 am

      Well if the Express says it it must be true…

  11. mickysavage 11
    16 December 2009 at 12:10 pm

    Why are these comments reading like something I would expect to read at kiwiblog?

    [lprent: Beats the hell out of me. I know what you mean – looks like the juvies and students are on holiday. But they aren’t bad enough for me to debug. ]

  12. Doug 12
    16 December 2009 at 12:31 pm

    mickysavage
    Why are these comments reading like something I would expect to read at kiwiblog?
    Well maybe you are batting for the wrong side.

  13. felix 13
    16 December 2009 at 2:01 pm

    Marvin Gaye knows what’s going on. ben has no idea.

  14. walter 14
    16 December 2009 at 2:37 pm

    You’ve got me thinking, we’re currently giving directions to an architect for the design of a new home. I figured it prudent to stipulate it be built to withstand higher higher winds than our zone already requires, and we’re already way above the nearest flood zone.

    Now I wonder what other climate future proofing measures we might incorporate? I don’t envisage doomsday is around the corner, but I do think that insurance won’t be paying out for weather events in the near future. What will the kiwi home of the future look like?

    • vto 14.1
      16 December 2009 at 2:40 pm

      Like Lockwoods. Only ones to survive Cyclone Tracy in Darwin. Try that.

    • grumpy 14.2
      16 December 2009 at 2:42 pm

      A concrete bunker on the side of a hill?

    • Rob Carr 14.3
      16 December 2009 at 3:16 pm

      I imagine the standard home will look the same. Sea walls can protect us from most the sea level rises. Its all the poor developing countries and our farms(via increased salt levels) that will be suffering.

      • grumpy 14.3.1
        16 December 2009 at 3:21 pm

        Interesting, I have a property where the 1st aquifer level is only 0.5m below the surface (the 2nd aquifer is artesian).
        I suppose this means that the level of the 1st aquifer will be above ground level – time to look at rice growing?

        • Rob Carr 14.3.1.1
          16 December 2009 at 3:36 pm

          Only if it is an aquifer that seawater can reach. If it is rain water collecting on the rock beneath I don’t imagine it will change. Could be fun to grow rice though 😛

          • lprent 14.3.1.1.1
            16 December 2009 at 4:00 pm

            That was why I specified the coastal part. The mixing mechanics of aquifers at the sea shore are pretty interesting because of the relative densities of and lack of mixing between fresh and brackish water. But there is always a period when there is external change when the mixing gets more intense….

        • lprent 14.3.1.2
          16 December 2009 at 4:05 pm

          It won’t worry you if you’re a long way from the shore. That is probably the case if you have an artesian aquifer below. Sounds like the main issue you have to worry about is replenishment ‘upstream’ for the first aq, and usually draw off compared to replenishment on the artesian. Plus the usual irrigation issues of evaporative salt accretion.

          Don’t want to get like the mid-west or the murray basi.

      • vto 14.3.2
        16 December 2009 at 4:02 pm

        Rob Carr, where would you place a seawall in Chch to protect the city and its seaside suburbs? I don’t think it is viable or even possible.

    • felix 14.4
      16 December 2009 at 3:31 pm

      Not sure how they’ll look but they’ll be functioning a bit like this.

  15. vto 15
    16 December 2009 at 4:20 pm

    ha ha, yes well the Council may have to relent on its bizarre policy of limiting housing on the hills at a minimum at least.

  16. Brett Dale 16
    17 December 2009 at 8:09 pm

    That is actually quite celever, unlike Sean hannity who said “I dont believe in global warming at all”