Discussion:
RNZ says run for your lives -- the sea is rising "fast"
(too old to reply)
Willy Nilly
2020-11-19 00:39:16 UTC
Permalink
More idiocy from Radio New Zealand --
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-detail/story/2018773000/leaving-the-beach-front-a-political-and-financial-nightmare


The second sentence reads: "New Zealand is a long, slender country --
most of us live less than an hour away from the beach -- and the sea
is rising, fast."

Is it just. Tell it to Te Papa, Wellington's harbourside museum,
which sits lazily on the water's edge. Guess what, you RNZ panickers:
No sea level rise detected! None, nada, zippo.

The idiotic article prattles how a "best case scenario" is a 50cm
sea-level rise by the year 2100. First of all, that's nothing,
booorrringgg. Second, we're not even on the first millimetre yet.
Nothing happening, just ask Te Papa.
George
2020-11-19 01:55:58 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 00:39:16 GMT
Post by Willy Nilly
More idiocy from Radio New Zealand --
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-detail/story/2018773000/leaving-the-beach-front-a-political-and-financial-nightmare
The second sentence reads: "New Zealand is a long, slender country --
most of us live less than an hour away from the beach -- and the sea
is rising, fast."
Is it just. Tell it to Te Papa, Wellington's harbourside museum,
No sea level rise detected! None, nada, zippo.
The idiotic article prattles how a "best case scenario" is a 50cm
sea-level rise by the year 2100. First of all, that's nothing,
booorrringgg. Second, we're not even on the first millimetre yet.
Nothing happening, just ask Te Papa.
Think Tide Gages ...
In every harbour...
And none are showing this sea level rise.
And there's always coastal erosion and tidal surges to poke in their
faces :)


...
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
John Bowes
2020-11-19 03:08:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 00:39:16 GMT
Post by Willy Nilly
More idiocy from Radio New Zealand --
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-detail/story/2018773000/leaving-the-beach-front-a-political-and-financial-nightmare
The second sentence reads: "New Zealand is a long, slender country --
most of us live less than an hour away from the beach -- and the sea
is rising, fast."
Is it just. Tell it to Te Papa, Wellington's harbourside museum,
No sea level rise detected! None, nada, zippo.
The idiotic article prattles how a "best case scenario" is a 50cm
sea-level rise by the year 2100. First of all, that's nothing,
booorrringgg. Second, we're not even on the first millimetre yet.
Nothing happening, just ask Te Papa.
Think Tide Gages ...
In every harbour...
And none are showing this sea level rise.
And there's always coastal erosion and tidal surges to poke in their
faces :)
...
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
It's not just the New Zealand tide gauges George. New York, London and other city's have been keeping records for a couple of centuries or more and none are showing rises. Most of the pics of coastlines changing are of natural erosion not sea level rise. It's pretty obvious from the fact the beaches shown are sand :)
George
2020-11-19 19:04:47 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 19:08:03 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
Post by George
On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 00:39:16 GMT
Post by Willy Nilly
More idiocy from Radio New Zealand --
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-detail/story/2018773000/leaving-the-beach-front-a-political-and-financial-nightmare
The second sentence reads: "New Zealand is a long, slender
country -- most of us live less than an hour away from the beach
-- and the sea is rising, fast."
Is it just. Tell it to Te Papa, Wellington's harbourside museum,
which sits lazily on the water's edge. Guess what, you RNZ
panickers: No sea level rise detected! None, nada, zippo.
The idiotic article prattles how a "best case scenario" is a 50cm
sea-level rise by the year 2100. First of all, that's nothing,
booorrringgg. Second, we're not even on the first millimetre yet.
Nothing happening, just ask Te Papa.
Think Tide Gages ...
In every harbour...
And none are showing this sea level rise.
And there's always coastal erosion and tidal surges to poke in
their faces :)
...
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
It's not just the New Zealand tide gauges George. New York, London
and other city's have been keeping records for a couple of centuries
or more and none are showing rises. Most of the pics of coastlines
changing are of natural erosion not sea level rise. It's pretty
obvious from the fact the beaches shown are sand :)
Well we did have the effects of the earthquake around Kaikoura where
parts of the seafloor are now above water.. :)
In most part the soundings that Captain Cook took when surveying the
coast are still okay
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Firu
2020-11-23 11:47:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Willy Nilly
More idiocy from Radio New Zealand --
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-detail/story/2018773000/leaving-the-beach-front-a-political-and-financial-nightmare
Article is mainly click bait.
Post by Willy Nilly
The second sentence reads: "New Zealand is a long, slender country --
most of us live less than an hour away from the beach -- and the sea
is rising, fast."
In geological terms, yeah. Day to day not so much.
Post by Willy Nilly
Is it just. Tell it to Te Papa, Wellington's harbourside museum,
No sea level rise detected! None, nada, zippo.
Like I said, not day to day. But the historical records show 2.2mm per
year since 1901.

http://infoshare.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/environment/environmental-reporting-series/environmental-indicators/home/marine/coastal-sea-level-rise.aspx
Post by Willy Nilly
The idiotic article prattles how a "best case scenario" is a 50cm
sea-level rise by the year 2100. First of all, that's nothing,
booorrringgg. Second, we're not even on the first millimetre yet.
Nothing happening, just ask Te Papa.
Half a meter is a fair bit, If you live in Wellington, them there
concrete walls will offer some protection but if you live somewhere like
Greymouth it will bugger up the coastline a good bit.
Willy Nilly
2020-11-24 19:17:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Firu
Article is mainly click bait.
Yes, and they have another one today about a supposed 2m sea rise in
Nelson by 2150. As though they have a clue. Where are the voices
saying the opposite? They don't get a voice in our media.
Post by Firu
Like I said, not day to day. But the historical records show 2.2mm per
year since 1901.
And yet, shorelines have pushed outwards in that time, mostly due to
landfilling, and some due to earthquakes, e.g. Napier earthquake of
1931 raised the land 6m higher. Wellington has "Lambton Quay", the
old shoreline.
Post by Firu
Half a meter is a fair bit, If you live in Wellington, them there
concrete walls will offer some protection but if you live somewhere like
Greymouth it will bugger up the coastline a good bit.
Easy solution then, Greymouth can build concrete walls for the sea
rise that may never come. They should have some tsunami protection
anyway, isn't that right?
John Bowes
2020-11-24 21:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Article is mainly click bait.
Yes, and they have another one today about a supposed 2m sea rise in
Nelson by 2150. As though they have a clue. Where are the voices
saying the opposite? They don't get a voice in our media.
Post by Firu
Like I said, not day to day. But the historical records show 2.2mm per
year since 1901.
And yet, shorelines have pushed outwards in that time, mostly due to
landfilling, and some due to earthquakes, e.g. Napier earthquake of
1931 raised the land 6m higher. Wellington has "Lambton Quay", the
old shoreline.
Post by Firu
Half a meter is a fair bit, If you live in Wellington, them there
concrete walls will offer some protection but if you live somewhere like
Greymouth it will bugger up the coastline a good bit.
Easy solution then, Greymouth can build concrete walls for the sea
rise that may never come. They should have some tsunami protection
anyway, isn't that right?
Problem with sea level rise in New Zealand is it's likely to be rising on the west coast and dropping on the east coast due to the Pacific plate subduction zone. Funny how according to the UN experts this has NEVER been taken into consideration :)
Firu
2020-11-25 14:13:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Article is mainly click bait.
Yes, and they have another one today about a supposed 2m sea rise in
Nelson by 2150. As though they have a clue. Where are the voices
saying the opposite? They don't get a voice in our media.
True, but an article that says nothing to worry about wont sell
advertising. Telling the truth wont either. Mainly because the science
is never clear cut. It can only show the current trend with any
certainty. The future's just an extrapolation of that historical data.
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Like I said, not day to day. But the historical records show 2.2mm per
year since 1901.
And yet, shorelines have pushed outwards in that time, mostly due to
landfilling, and some due to earthquakes, e.g. Napier earthquake of
1931 raised the land 6m higher. Wellington has "Lambton Quay", the
old shoreline.
But what the earthquake giveth it also taketh away. There's many
examples of submerged cites around the world that sank after
earthquakes. In truth, I'd rather live with the problems we (might) have
than live in the ruins after an earthquake that raised the coastline.

But that's just me.
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Half a meter is a fair bit, If you live in Wellington, them there
concrete walls will offer some protection but if you live somewhere like
Greymouth it will bugger up the coastline a good bit.
Easy solution then, Greymouth can build concrete walls for the sea
rise that may never come. They should have some tsunami protection
anyway, isn't that right?
Big concrete walls aren't the best solution to everything ;) defo not
for tsunami protection. The last Japanese tsunami showed that! Best bet
in that case was big hills, always the best bet for saving people from
tsunami.
Rich80105
2020-12-02 01:37:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Firu
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Article is mainly click bait.
Yes, and they have another one today about a supposed 2m sea rise in
Nelson by 2150. As though they have a clue. Where are the voices
saying the opposite? They don't get a voice in our media.
True, but an article that says nothing to worry about wont sell
advertising. Telling the truth wont either. Mainly because the science
is never clear cut. It can only show the current trend with any
certainty. The future's just an extrapolation of that historical data.
The certainty is at least enough for insurance premius to rise is some
areas - whether for risk of earthquake, fire or water damage - giving
the companies raising premiums the risk of not selling in those areas.
Many investments are made on the basis of a lower certainty of profit
than there is in some aspects of climate change.
Post by Firu
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Like I said, not day to day. But the historical records show 2.2mm per
year since 1901.
And yet, shorelines have pushed outwards in that time, mostly due to
landfilling, and some due to earthquakes, e.g. Napier earthquake of
1931 raised the land 6m higher. Wellington has "Lambton Quay", the
old shoreline.
But what the earthquake giveth it also taketh away. There's many
examples of submerged cites around the world that sank after
earthquakes. In truth, I'd rather live with the problems we (might) have
than live in the ruins after an earthquake that raised the coastline.
But that's just me.
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Half a meter is a fair bit, If you live in Wellington, them there
concrete walls will offer some protection but if you live somewhere like
Greymouth it will bugger up the coastline a good bit.
Easy solution then, Greymouth can build concrete walls for the sea
rise that may never come. They should have some tsunami protection
anyway, isn't that right?
There are plenty of concrete walls around the world that were not
enough; there are many NZ communities next to the sea who have found
it necessary to lose a row of houses and roads further back from the
sea. Will flooding get worse or better in the Firth of Thames? Will we
get more fires on farms as temperatures get high enough to light dry
combutible material? In some places tsunami protection is an alarm
that says Run! In many instances of risk science can give fairly
accurate predictions, with an estimate of the likely error rate. The
response from those that wish to deny the science is to argue that
anything less than absoute certaintly is good reason not to take
precautions - they probably are the same people that do not cover
earthquake risk for house cover to keep their premium lower . . .
Post by Firu
Big concrete walls aren't the best solution to everything ;) defo not
for tsunami protection. The last Japanese tsunami showed that! Best bet
in that case was big hills, always the best bet for saving people from
tsunami.
I didn't expect validation of my comments quite so fast, but read
this:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/thousands-could-lose-insurance-due-to-climate-change

So who are the insurance companies going to listen to? The scientists
or Willy Nilly or John Bowes? It a "no brainer" whichever way you
look at it.
Tony
2020-12-02 03:40:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Firu
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Article is mainly click bait.
Yes, and they have another one today about a supposed 2m sea rise in
Nelson by 2150. As though they have a clue. Where are the voices
saying the opposite? They don't get a voice in our media.
True, but an article that says nothing to worry about wont sell
advertising. Telling the truth wont either. Mainly because the science
is never clear cut. It can only show the current trend with any
certainty. The future's just an extrapolation of that historical data.
The certainty is at least enough for insurance premius to rise is some
areas - whether for risk of earthquake, fire or water damage - giving
the companies raising premiums the risk of not selling in those areas.
Many investments are made on the basis of a lower certainty of profit
than there is in some aspects of climate change.
Post by Firu
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Like I said, not day to day. But the historical records show 2.2mm per
year since 1901.
And yet, shorelines have pushed outwards in that time, mostly due to
landfilling, and some due to earthquakes, e.g. Napier earthquake of
1931 raised the land 6m higher. Wellington has "Lambton Quay", the
old shoreline.
But what the earthquake giveth it also taketh away. There's many
examples of submerged cites around the world that sank after
earthquakes. In truth, I'd rather live with the problems we (might) have
than live in the ruins after an earthquake that raised the coastline.
But that's just me.
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Half a meter is a fair bit, If you live in Wellington, them there
concrete walls will offer some protection but if you live somewhere like
Greymouth it will bugger up the coastline a good bit.
Easy solution then, Greymouth can build concrete walls for the sea
rise that may never come. They should have some tsunami protection
anyway, isn't that right?
There are plenty of concrete walls around the world that were not
enough; there are many NZ communities next to the sea who have found
it necessary to lose a row of houses and roads further back from the
sea. Will flooding get worse or better in the Firth of Thames? Will we
get more fires on farms as temperatures get high enough to light dry
combutible material? In some places tsunami protection is an alarm
that says Run! In many instances of risk science can give fairly
accurate predictions, with an estimate of the likely error rate. The
response from those that wish to deny the science is to argue that
anything less than absoute certaintly is good reason not to take
precautions - they probably are the same people that do not cover
earthquake risk for house cover to keep their premium lower . . .
Post by Firu
Big concrete walls aren't the best solution to everything ;) defo not
for tsunami protection. The last Japanese tsunami showed that! Best bet
in that case was big hills, always the best bet for saving people from
tsunami.
I didn't expect validation of my comments quite so fast, but read
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/thousands-could-lose-insurance-due-to-climate-change
So who are the insurance companies going to listen to? The scientists
or Willy Nilly or John Bowes? It a "no brainer" whichever way you
look at it.
No validation of anything you wrote.
Just people guessing.
Rich80105
2020-12-02 10:13:51 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 01 Dec 2020 21:40:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Firu
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Article is mainly click bait.
Yes, and they have another one today about a supposed 2m sea rise in
Nelson by 2150. As though they have a clue. Where are the voices
saying the opposite? They don't get a voice in our media.
True, but an article that says nothing to worry about wont sell
advertising. Telling the truth wont either. Mainly because the science
is never clear cut. It can only show the current trend with any
certainty. The future's just an extrapolation of that historical data.
The certainty is at least enough for insurance premius to rise is some
areas - whether for risk of earthquake, fire or water damage - giving
the companies raising premiums the risk of not selling in those areas.
Many investments are made on the basis of a lower certainty of profit
than there is in some aspects of climate change.
Post by Firu
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Like I said, not day to day. But the historical records show 2.2mm per
year since 1901.
And yet, shorelines have pushed outwards in that time, mostly due to
landfilling, and some due to earthquakes, e.g. Napier earthquake of
1931 raised the land 6m higher. Wellington has "Lambton Quay", the
old shoreline.
But what the earthquake giveth it also taketh away. There's many
examples of submerged cites around the world that sank after
earthquakes. In truth, I'd rather live with the problems we (might) have
than live in the ruins after an earthquake that raised the coastline.
But that's just me.
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Half a meter is a fair bit, If you live in Wellington, them there
concrete walls will offer some protection but if you live somewhere like
Greymouth it will bugger up the coastline a good bit.
Easy solution then, Greymouth can build concrete walls for the sea
rise that may never come. They should have some tsunami protection
anyway, isn't that right?
There are plenty of concrete walls around the world that were not
enough; there are many NZ communities next to the sea who have found
it necessary to lose a row of houses and roads further back from the
sea. Will flooding get worse or better in the Firth of Thames? Will we
get more fires on farms as temperatures get high enough to light dry
combutible material? In some places tsunami protection is an alarm
that says Run! In many instances of risk science can give fairly
accurate predictions, with an estimate of the likely error rate. The
response from those that wish to deny the science is to argue that
anything less than absoute certaintly is good reason not to take
precautions - they probably are the same people that do not cover
earthquake risk for house cover to keep their premium lower . . .
Post by Firu
Big concrete walls aren't the best solution to everything ;) defo not
for tsunami protection. The last Japanese tsunami showed that! Best bet
in that case was big hills, always the best bet for saving people from
tsunami.
I didn't expect validation of my comments quite so fast, but read
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/thousands-could-lose-insurance-due-to-climate-change
So who are the insurance companies going to listen to? The scientists
or Willy Nilly or John Bowes? It a "no brainer" whichever way you
look at it.
No validation of anything you wrote.
Just people guessing.
Of course it is validation of what I wrote - but you of course rely
entirely on your own personal opinion, and have not provided any
rebuttal of the articles I have posted, or given any material
supporting your own opinions. "No facts" may be the basis of your
opinions, Tony; but I suggest your reliance on such a lack of support
is no way to persuade anyone - perhaps even including yourself.
Tony
2020-12-03 00:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 01 Dec 2020 21:40:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Firu
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Article is mainly click bait.
Yes, and they have another one today about a supposed 2m sea rise in
Nelson by 2150. As though they have a clue. Where are the voices
saying the opposite? They don't get a voice in our media.
True, but an article that says nothing to worry about wont sell
advertising. Telling the truth wont either. Mainly because the science
is never clear cut. It can only show the current trend with any
certainty. The future's just an extrapolation of that historical data.
The certainty is at least enough for insurance premius to rise is some
areas - whether for risk of earthquake, fire or water damage - giving
the companies raising premiums the risk of not selling in those areas.
Many investments are made on the basis of a lower certainty of profit
than there is in some aspects of climate change.
Post by Firu
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Like I said, not day to day. But the historical records show 2.2mm per
year since 1901.
And yet, shorelines have pushed outwards in that time, mostly due to
landfilling, and some due to earthquakes, e.g. Napier earthquake of
1931 raised the land 6m higher. Wellington has "Lambton Quay", the
old shoreline.
But what the earthquake giveth it also taketh away. There's many
examples of submerged cites around the world that sank after
earthquakes. In truth, I'd rather live with the problems we (might) have
than live in the ruins after an earthquake that raised the coastline.
But that's just me.
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Half a meter is a fair bit, If you live in Wellington, them there
concrete walls will offer some protection but if you live somewhere like
Greymouth it will bugger up the coastline a good bit.
Easy solution then, Greymouth can build concrete walls for the sea
rise that may never come. They should have some tsunami protection
anyway, isn't that right?
There are plenty of concrete walls around the world that were not
enough; there are many NZ communities next to the sea who have found
it necessary to lose a row of houses and roads further back from the
sea. Will flooding get worse or better in the Firth of Thames? Will we
get more fires on farms as temperatures get high enough to light dry
combutible material? In some places tsunami protection is an alarm
that says Run! In many instances of risk science can give fairly
accurate predictions, with an estimate of the likely error rate. The
response from those that wish to deny the science is to argue that
anything less than absoute certaintly is good reason not to take
precautions - they probably are the same people that do not cover
earthquake risk for house cover to keep their premium lower . . .
Post by Firu
Big concrete walls aren't the best solution to everything ;) defo not
for tsunami protection. The last Japanese tsunami showed that! Best bet
in that case was big hills, always the best bet for saving people from
tsunami.
I didn't expect validation of my comments quite so fast, but read
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/thousands-could-lose-insurance-due-to-climate-change
So who are the insurance companies going to listen to? The scientists
or Willy Nilly or John Bowes? It a "no brainer" whichever way you
look at it.
No validation of anything you wrote.
Just people guessing.
Of course it is validation of what I wrote - but you of course rely
entirely on your own personal opinion, and have not provided any
rebuttal of the articles I have posted, or given any material
supporting your own opinions. "No facts" may be the basis of your
opinions, Tony; but I suggest your reliance on such a lack of support
is no way to persuade anyone - perhaps even including yourself.
You are an abusive liar. You produced nothing of substance and I am not going
to argue with nothing.
Rich80105
2020-12-03 01:54:23 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 02 Dec 2020 18:43:32 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 01 Dec 2020 21:40:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Firu
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Article is mainly click bait.
Yes, and they have another one today about a supposed 2m sea rise in
Nelson by 2150. As though they have a clue. Where are the voices
saying the opposite? They don't get a voice in our media.
True, but an article that says nothing to worry about wont sell
advertising. Telling the truth wont either. Mainly because the science
is never clear cut. It can only show the current trend with any
certainty. The future's just an extrapolation of that historical data.
The certainty is at least enough for insurance premius to rise is some
areas - whether for risk of earthquake, fire or water damage - giving
the companies raising premiums the risk of not selling in those areas.
Many investments are made on the basis of a lower certainty of profit
than there is in some aspects of climate change.
Post by Firu
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Like I said, not day to day. But the historical records show 2.2mm per
year since 1901.
And yet, shorelines have pushed outwards in that time, mostly due to
landfilling, and some due to earthquakes, e.g. Napier earthquake of
1931 raised the land 6m higher. Wellington has "Lambton Quay", the
old shoreline.
But what the earthquake giveth it also taketh away. There's many
examples of submerged cites around the world that sank after
earthquakes. In truth, I'd rather live with the problems we (might) have
than live in the ruins after an earthquake that raised the coastline.
But that's just me.
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Half a meter is a fair bit, If you live in Wellington, them there
concrete walls will offer some protection but if you live somewhere like
Greymouth it will bugger up the coastline a good bit.
Easy solution then, Greymouth can build concrete walls for the sea
rise that may never come. They should have some tsunami protection
anyway, isn't that right?
There are plenty of concrete walls around the world that were not
enough; there are many NZ communities next to the sea who have found
it necessary to lose a row of houses and roads further back from the
sea. Will flooding get worse or better in the Firth of Thames? Will we
get more fires on farms as temperatures get high enough to light dry
combutible material? In some places tsunami protection is an alarm
that says Run! In many instances of risk science can give fairly
accurate predictions, with an estimate of the likely error rate. The
response from those that wish to deny the science is to argue that
anything less than absoute certaintly is good reason not to take
precautions - they probably are the same people that do not cover
earthquake risk for house cover to keep their premium lower . . .
Post by Firu
Big concrete walls aren't the best solution to everything ;) defo not
for tsunami protection. The last Japanese tsunami showed that! Best bet
in that case was big hills, always the best bet for saving people from
tsunami.
I didn't expect validation of my comments quite so fast, but read
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/thousands-could-lose-insurance-due-to-climate-change
So who are the insurance companies going to listen to? The scientists
or Willy Nilly or John Bowes? It a "no brainer" whichever way you
look at it.
No validation of anything you wrote.
Just people guessing.
Of course it is validation of what I wrote - but you of course rely
entirely on your own personal opinion, and have not provided any
rebuttal of the articles I have posted, or given any material
supporting your own opinions. "No facts" may be the basis of your
opinions, Tony; but I suggest your reliance on such a lack of support
is no way to persuade anyone - perhaps even including yourself.
You are an abusive liar. You produced nothing of substance and I am not going
to argue with nothing.
Tony, you appear to have descended into the rabbit hole of your
unconsidered personal opinion, stubborn prejudice and pique and are
now blind to reason, or to countenance any facts that may be
inconsistent with your unjustified belief in the infallibity of your
own opinions.
Tony
2020-12-03 02:12:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 02 Dec 2020 18:43:32 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 01 Dec 2020 21:40:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Firu
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Article is mainly click bait.
Yes, and they have another one today about a supposed 2m sea rise in
Nelson by 2150. As though they have a clue. Where are the voices
saying the opposite? They don't get a voice in our media.
True, but an article that says nothing to worry about wont sell
advertising. Telling the truth wont either. Mainly because the science
is never clear cut. It can only show the current trend with any
certainty. The future's just an extrapolation of that historical data.
The certainty is at least enough for insurance premius to rise is some
areas - whether for risk of earthquake, fire or water damage - giving
the companies raising premiums the risk of not selling in those areas.
Many investments are made on the basis of a lower certainty of profit
than there is in some aspects of climate change.
Post by Firu
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Like I said, not day to day. But the historical records show 2.2mm per
year since 1901.
And yet, shorelines have pushed outwards in that time, mostly due to
landfilling, and some due to earthquakes, e.g. Napier earthquake of
1931 raised the land 6m higher. Wellington has "Lambton Quay", the
old shoreline.
But what the earthquake giveth it also taketh away. There's many
examples of submerged cites around the world that sank after
earthquakes. In truth, I'd rather live with the problems we (might) have
than live in the ruins after an earthquake that raised the coastline.
But that's just me.
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Half a meter is a fair bit, If you live in Wellington, them there
concrete walls will offer some protection but if you live somewhere like
Greymouth it will bugger up the coastline a good bit.
Easy solution then, Greymouth can build concrete walls for the sea
rise that may never come. They should have some tsunami protection
anyway, isn't that right?
There are plenty of concrete walls around the world that were not
enough; there are many NZ communities next to the sea who have found
it necessary to lose a row of houses and roads further back from the
sea. Will flooding get worse or better in the Firth of Thames? Will we
get more fires on farms as temperatures get high enough to light dry
combutible material? In some places tsunami protection is an alarm
that says Run! In many instances of risk science can give fairly
accurate predictions, with an estimate of the likely error rate. The
response from those that wish to deny the science is to argue that
anything less than absoute certaintly is good reason not to take
precautions - they probably are the same people that do not cover
earthquake risk for house cover to keep their premium lower . . .
Post by Firu
Big concrete walls aren't the best solution to everything ;) defo not
for tsunami protection. The last Japanese tsunami showed that! Best bet
in that case was big hills, always the best bet for saving people from
tsunami.
I didn't expect validation of my comments quite so fast, but read
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/thousands-could-lose-insurance-due-to-climate-change
So who are the insurance companies going to listen to? The scientists
or Willy Nilly or John Bowes? It a "no brainer" whichever way you
look at it.
No validation of anything you wrote.
Just people guessing.
Of course it is validation of what I wrote - but you of course rely
entirely on your own personal opinion, and have not provided any
rebuttal of the articles I have posted, or given any material
supporting your own opinions. "No facts" may be the basis of your
opinions, Tony; but I suggest your reliance on such a lack of support
is no way to persuade anyone - perhaps even including yourself.
You are an abusive liar. You produced nothing of substance and I am not going
to argue with nothing.
Tony, you appear to have descended into the rabbit hole of your
unconsidered personal opinion, stubborn prejudice and pique and are
now blind to reason, or to countenance any facts that may be
inconsistent with your unjustified belief in the infallibity of your
own opinions.
You are incapable of understanding that what you posted is merely opinion and
of course you like it because it is what you "want" to believe. Just as Trump
does. Are you like him in other ways?
Crash
2020-12-02 04:41:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Firu
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Article is mainly click bait.
Yes, and they have another one today about a supposed 2m sea rise in
Nelson by 2150. As though they have a clue. Where are the voices
saying the opposite? They don't get a voice in our media.
True, but an article that says nothing to worry about wont sell
advertising. Telling the truth wont either. Mainly because the science
is never clear cut. It can only show the current trend with any
certainty. The future's just an extrapolation of that historical data.
The certainty is at least enough for insurance premius to rise is some
areas - whether for risk of earthquake, fire or water damage - giving
the companies raising premiums the risk of not selling in those areas.
Many investments are made on the basis of a lower certainty of profit
than there is in some aspects of climate change.
Post by Firu
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Like I said, not day to day. But the historical records show 2.2mm per
year since 1901.
And yet, shorelines have pushed outwards in that time, mostly due to
landfilling, and some due to earthquakes, e.g. Napier earthquake of
1931 raised the land 6m higher. Wellington has "Lambton Quay", the
old shoreline.
But what the earthquake giveth it also taketh away. There's many
examples of submerged cites around the world that sank after
earthquakes. In truth, I'd rather live with the problems we (might) have
than live in the ruins after an earthquake that raised the coastline.
But that's just me.
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Half a meter is a fair bit, If you live in Wellington, them there
concrete walls will offer some protection but if you live somewhere like
Greymouth it will bugger up the coastline a good bit.
Easy solution then, Greymouth can build concrete walls for the sea
rise that may never come. They should have some tsunami protection
anyway, isn't that right?
There are plenty of concrete walls around the world that were not
enough; there are many NZ communities next to the sea who have found
it necessary to lose a row of houses and roads further back from the
sea. Will flooding get worse or better in the Firth of Thames? Will we
get more fires on farms as temperatures get high enough to light dry
combutible material? In some places tsunami protection is an alarm
that says Run! In many instances of risk science can give fairly
accurate predictions, with an estimate of the likely error rate. The
response from those that wish to deny the science is to argue that
anything less than absoute certaintly is good reason not to take
precautions - they probably are the same people that do not cover
earthquake risk for house cover to keep their premium lower . . .
Post by Firu
Big concrete walls aren't the best solution to everything ;) defo not
for tsunami protection. The last Japanese tsunami showed that! Best bet
in that case was big hills, always the best bet for saving people from
tsunami.
I didn't expect validation of my comments quite so fast, but read
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/thousands-could-lose-insurance-due-to-climate-change
So who are the insurance companies going to listen to? The scientists
or Willy Nilly or John Bowes? It a "no brainer" whichever way you
look at it.
Rich, Willy Nilly is saying there will be no rise in Sea Level. The
article you cite predicts outcomes should a rise in Sea Level occur.


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-12-02 05:35:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Firu
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Article is mainly click bait.
Yes, and they have another one today about a supposed 2m sea rise in
Nelson by 2150. As though they have a clue. Where are the voices
saying the opposite? They don't get a voice in our media.
True, but an article that says nothing to worry about wont sell
advertising. Telling the truth wont either. Mainly because the science
is never clear cut. It can only show the current trend with any
certainty. The future's just an extrapolation of that historical data.
The certainty is at least enough for insurance premius to rise is some
areas - whether for risk of earthquake, fire or water damage - giving
the companies raising premiums the risk of not selling in those areas.
Many investments are made on the basis of a lower certainty of profit
than there is in some aspects of climate change.
Post by Firu
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Like I said, not day to day. But the historical records show 2.2mm per
year since 1901.
And yet, shorelines have pushed outwards in that time, mostly due to
landfilling, and some due to earthquakes, e.g. Napier earthquake of
1931 raised the land 6m higher. Wellington has "Lambton Quay", the
old shoreline.
But what the earthquake giveth it also taketh away. There's many
examples of submerged cites around the world that sank after
earthquakes. In truth, I'd rather live with the problems we (might) have
than live in the ruins after an earthquake that raised the coastline.
But that's just me.
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Half a meter is a fair bit, If you live in Wellington, them there
concrete walls will offer some protection but if you live somewhere like
Greymouth it will bugger up the coastline a good bit.
Easy solution then, Greymouth can build concrete walls for the sea
rise that may never come. They should have some tsunami protection
anyway, isn't that right?
There are plenty of concrete walls around the world that were not
enough; there are many NZ communities next to the sea who have found
it necessary to lose a row of houses and roads further back from the
sea. Will flooding get worse or better in the Firth of Thames? Will we
get more fires on farms as temperatures get high enough to light dry
combutible material? In some places tsunami protection is an alarm
that says Run! In many instances of risk science can give fairly
accurate predictions, with an estimate of the likely error rate. The
response from those that wish to deny the science is to argue that
anything less than absoute certaintly is good reason not to take
precautions - they probably are the same people that do not cover
earthquake risk for house cover to keep their premium lower . . .
Post by Firu
Big concrete walls aren't the best solution to everything ;) defo not
for tsunami protection. The last Japanese tsunami showed that! Best bet
in that case was big hills, always the best bet for saving people from
tsunami.
I didn't expect validation of my comments quite so fast, but read
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/thousands-could-lose-insurance-due-to-climate-change
So who are the insurance companies going to listen to? The scientists
or Willy Nilly or John Bowes? It a "no brainer" whichever way you
look at it.
Rich, Willy Nilly is saying there will be no rise in Sea Level. The
article you cite predicts outcomes should a rise in Sea Level occur.
Insurance Companies set premium rates before insurable events happen.
They will use whatever they believe they need to ensure that they are
not caught having charges too little for predictable (if still of low
incidence and uncertain intensity). Expect them to base decisions on
their assessment of scientific advice and the rates charges by others
in the market.
Gordon
2020-12-02 07:10:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Insurance Companies set premium rates before insurable events happen.
Tell me Rich, where do I get insurance which does not have to be renewed
within 100 years, 50, ten?

So the insurance companies will adjust premiums on a annual basis, just as
they do now.
John Bowes
2020-12-02 05:04:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Firu
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Article is mainly click bait.
Yes, and they have another one today about a supposed 2m sea rise in
Nelson by 2150. As though they have a clue. Where are the voices
saying the opposite? They don't get a voice in our media.
True, but an article that says nothing to worry about wont sell
advertising. Telling the truth wont either. Mainly because the science
is never clear cut. It can only show the current trend with any
certainty. The future's just an extrapolation of that historical data.
The certainty is at least enough for insurance premius to rise is some
areas - whether for risk of earthquake, fire or water damage - giving
the companies raising premiums the risk of not selling in those areas.
Many investments are made on the basis of a lower certainty of profit
than there is in some aspects of climate change.
Post by Firu
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Like I said, not day to day. But the historical records show 2.2mm per
year since 1901.
And yet, shorelines have pushed outwards in that time, mostly due to
landfilling, and some due to earthquakes, e.g. Napier earthquake of
1931 raised the land 6m higher. Wellington has "Lambton Quay", the
old shoreline.
But what the earthquake giveth it also taketh away. There's many
examples of submerged cites around the world that sank after
earthquakes. In truth, I'd rather live with the problems we (might) have
than live in the ruins after an earthquake that raised the coastline.
But that's just me.
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Firu
Half a meter is a fair bit, If you live in Wellington, them there
concrete walls will offer some protection but if you live somewhere like
Greymouth it will bugger up the coastline a good bit.
Easy solution then, Greymouth can build concrete walls for the sea
rise that may never come. They should have some tsunami protection
anyway, isn't that right?
There are plenty of concrete walls around the world that were not
enough; there are many NZ communities next to the sea who have found
it necessary to lose a row of houses and roads further back from the
sea. Will flooding get worse or better in the Firth of Thames? Will we
get more fires on farms as temperatures get high enough to light dry
combutible material? In some places tsunami protection is an alarm
that says Run! In many instances of risk science can give fairly
accurate predictions, with an estimate of the likely error rate. The
response from those that wish to deny the science is to argue that
anything less than absoute certaintly is good reason not to take
precautions - they probably are the same people that do not cover
earthquake risk for house cover to keep their premium lower . . .
Post by Firu
Big concrete walls aren't the best solution to everything ;) defo not
for tsunami protection. The last Japanese tsunami showed that! Best bet
in that case was big hills, always the best bet for saving people from
tsunami.
I didn't expect validation of my comments quite so fast, but read
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/thousands-could-lose-insurance-due-to-climate-change
So who are the insurance companies going to listen to? The scientists
or Willy Nilly or John Bowes? It a "no brainer" whichever way you
look at it.
Science you bloody imbecile!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/science/123559259/the-pacific-islands-which-are-growing-despite-sea-level-rise

No brain is a perfect description for you Rich and your left wing mates panicing over an event that's been going on for about 4.5 billion years!
Gordon
2020-12-02 07:06:37 UTC
Permalink
.
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
I didn't expect validation of my comments quite so fast, but read
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/thousands-could-lose-insurance-due-to-climate-change
So who are the insurance companies going to listen to? The scientists
or Willy Nilly or John Bowes? It a "no brainer" whichever way you
look at it.
Science you bloody imbecile!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/science/123559259/the-pacific-islands-which-are-growing-despite-sea-level-rise
No brain is a perfect description for you Rich and your left wing mates panicing over an event that's been going on for about 4.5 billion years!
Okay, as far as we know the earth is 4.5 billion yeras old. Life almost as
we know it arrived 3.5 billion years ago. The late great bombarment happened
3.8 billion years ago. About this time water arrived on the earths surface.

Also the seal level has changed over the eons. Even the article says in part

" In the area of the Pacific where the study was carried out, sea levels were
slightly more than a metre lower now than they were 2000-4000 years ago.

Sea levels had been rising again during the past century and were expected
to get back to the previous peak during the next century."
Gordon
2020-12-02 06:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
I didn't expect validation of my comments quite so fast, but read
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/thousands-could-lose-insurance-due-to-climate-change
So who are the insurance companies going to listen to?
Kar Ching! Profits. They are a business. They will purchase the sea level
screws in bulk and start using them.

The question is who is going to believe the rate of sea level rise?

Still insurance is nothing more than gambling.
George
2020-12-02 19:07:16 UTC
Permalink
On 2 Dec 2020 06:55:12 GMT
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
I didn't expect validation of my comments quite so fast, but read
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/thousands-could-lose-insurance-due-to-climate-change
So who are the insurance companies going to listen to?
Kar Ching! Profits. They are a business. They will purchase the sea
level screws in bulk and start using them.
The question is who is going to believe the rate of sea level rise?
Still insurance is nothing more than gambling.
Its not so much a case of 'sea level rise' and more one of coastal
erosion.
Situation normal
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Rich80105
2020-12-02 19:16:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
On 2 Dec 2020 06:55:12 GMT
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
I didn't expect validation of my comments quite so fast, but read
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/thousands-could-lose-insurance-due-to-climate-change
So who are the insurance companies going to listen to?
Kar Ching! Profits. They are a business. They will purchase the sea
level screws in bulk and start using them.
The question is who is going to believe the rate of sea level rise?
Still insurance is nothing more than gambling.
Its not so much a case of 'sea level rise' and more one of coastal
erosion.
Situation normal
Indeed extreme events causing such erosin are becoming more common.
See:
https://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/services/regional-services/regional-hazards-and-emergency-management/coastal-hazards/coastal-flooding/coastal-inundation-tool/pre-defined-water-level-scenarios/fot-levels/
and
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/100471363/storm-surges-wall-of-water-one-of-the-biggest-recorded-in-firth-of-thames

for one area that knows what extreme weather events can do.
John Bowes
2020-12-02 22:04:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On 2 Dec 2020 06:55:12 GMT
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
I didn't expect validation of my comments quite so fast, but read
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/thousands-could-lose-insurance-due-to-climate-change
So who are the insurance companies going to listen to?
Kar Ching! Profits. They are a business. They will purchase the sea
level screws in bulk and start using them.
The question is who is going to believe the rate of sea level rise?
Still insurance is nothing more than gambling.
Its not so much a case of 'sea level rise' and more one of coastal
erosion.
Situation normal
Indeed extreme events causing such erosin are becoming more common.
https://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/services/regional-services/regional-hazards-and-emergency-management/coastal-hazards/coastal-flooding/coastal-inundation-tool/pre-defined-water-level-scenarios/fot-levels/
and
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/100471363/storm-surges-wall-of-water-one-of-the-biggest-recorded-in-firth-of-thames
for one area that knows what extreme weather events can do.
Now provide positive proof climate change isn't natural Rich? If we're causing it what caused the iceblock that was once earth to melt? Dinosaurs???
Firu
2020-12-06 11:56:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
for one area that knows what extreme weather events can do.
Now provide positive proof climate change isn't natural Rich? If we're causing it what caused the iceblock that was once earth to melt? Dinosaurs???
Glaciation happens about every 100,000 years. This can be seen in ice
core samples taken from glaciers. Colder weather means more snow and ice
per year. The cores show this as layers, bit like tree rings.

Another neat thing about ice cores is the gases they trap as the snow
falls. The gas can be analysed. The gases show rising carbon dioxide
corresponding with less snow, it's getting warmer, and lower carbon
dioxide corresponding with more snow, it's getting colder. The amount of
dust particles in the samples follows a similar pattern, more dust,
warmer, less dust colder.

What caused this? Volcanos? Bush fires? too many cook outs? Who knows,
we weren't there. But we know something happened. And this looks to be
natural.

Right now on the 100,000 year cycle we (the planet) should be tipping
into a cooling phase. But the carbon dioxide and the dust levels are
rising and the downward trend hasn't happened. This isn't natural.

https://www.fws.gov/slamm/Changes%20in%20Sea%20Level_expanded%20version_template.pdf
Rich80105
2020-12-06 19:35:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Firu
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
for one area that knows what extreme weather events can do.
Now provide positive proof climate change isn't natural Rich? If we're causing it what caused the iceblock that was once earth to melt? Dinosaurs???
Glaciation happens about every 100,000 years. This can be seen in ice
core samples taken from glaciers. Colder weather means more snow and ice
per year. The cores show this as layers, bit like tree rings.
Another neat thing about ice cores is the gases they trap as the snow
falls. The gas can be analysed. The gases show rising carbon dioxide
corresponding with less snow, it's getting warmer, and lower carbon
dioxide corresponding with more snow, it's getting colder. The amount of
dust particles in the samples follows a similar pattern, more dust,
warmer, less dust colder.
What caused this? Volcanos? Bush fires? too many cook outs? Who knows,
we weren't there. But we know something happened. And this looks to be
natural.
Right now on the 100,000 year cycle we (the planet) should be tipping
into a cooling phase. But the carbon dioxide and the dust levels are
rising and the downward trend hasn't happened. This isn't natural.
https://www.fws.gov/slamm/Changes%20in%20Sea%20Level_expanded%20version_template.pdf
Thanks, that is a very good presentation. There are of course
fluctuations in the observed results; we are aware of some events that
are likely to have affected climate previously, such as major
eruptions such as the events that led to the formation of Lake Taupo,
or possibly Vesuvius; of an object that landed from space in Russia
forming a large crater, of earthquakes arising from moving tectonic
plates etc. etc. Some of those "natural" events continue, but we now
know that mankind has also had an effect. Deforestation through
burning and harvesting, mining and burning for heating and industry
are often referred to as not being "natural", but the reaction of
nature to such actions of mankind are "natural" - and the "natural
cycle" is be changing as a "natural" effect of the overall actions of
mankind.

In New Zealand we have been slow to react to these issues. We have not
stopped exploration for oil and gas - although some permit holders
have decided themselves to cease; the decision to not issue new
permits was more a market reaction; bids for additional permits had
fallen in value to the point that the government may not have covered
the risks of a permit holder walking away from polllution and the
results of an accident. We now have a government that is not shackled
by a minor partner, and we will hopefully see action consistent with
the governments stated intentions; and it becoming clear that there
are economic and social benefits from taking those actions in terms of
short term trade and our quality of life. These are natural responses
from a responsible government; but they will not be sufficient to
avoid some of the "natural" effects that will continue to result from
past human actions.

Loading...