Xtra News Community 2
October 24, 2017, 01:13:11 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to Xtra News Community 2 — please also join our XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP.
   Home   Help Arcade Gallery Links BITEBACK! XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP Staff List Login Register  

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10
 on: October 21, 2017, 01:13:36 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by aDjUsToR
Clearly KTJ you are just making shit up re "fake scientists" and try to hide your lack of thought through spamming. Get back to me when you've worked out how to think for yourself.

 on: October 21, 2017, 12:24:20 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

from Fairfax NZ....

Some New Zealand climate change impacts may
already be irreversible, Government report says

By CHARLIE MITCHELL and GED CANN | 2:05PM - Thursday, 19 October 2017


CLIMATE CHANGE may have already had an irreversible impact on New Zealand's natural systems and the effects are likely to worsen, a new Government report says.

Data showed conclusively that temperatures had already risen by one degree in New Zealand, which would have an impact on the economy, extreme weather events, biodiversity and health.

The Our Climate and Atmosphere 2017 report, released by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) and Statistics New Zealand on Thursday, revealed the country's glaciers had lost nearly a quarter of their ice since 1977, and sea levels had risen between 14 centimetres and 22 centimetres at four main ports since 1916.

Meanwhile, our contribution to global greenhouse emissions had increased and sea level and temperature rises were forecast to gain momentum.

Soils in some areas had become drier and both the acidity and the temperature of the ocean had risen.

Last year was the country's warmest year since records began and the five warmest years on record had occurred in the last 20 years.

The number of extreme weather events had increased, as had the insurance cost of those events, Insurance Council of New Zealand data showed.

New Zealand had the fifth-highest emission levels per person in the OECD, the report said.

Since 1990, gross emissions increased 24 percent, while net emissions increased 64 percent. Net emissions accounted for carbon stored in forests, which was released when they were cut down.

Our high rate of emissions was attributed to an unusually large share of agriculture emissions and high car-ownership rates.

“While New Zealand is not a large contributor of emissions globally, we are certainly affected locally and we need to act on what that means for us,” secretary for the environment Vicky Robertson said.

Flooding in Canterbury this year. Such events are likely to become more frequent due to climate change. — Photograph: Alden Williams.
Flooding in Canterbury this year. Such events are likely to become more frequent due
to climate change. — Photograph: Alden Williams.

The scope of the report did not include recommendations for tackling emissions and Robertson said the purpose was to open the conversation.

“We are working quite significantly to bring together all the public services towards advising collectively and consistently around what government could do to create a pathway to our 2030 targets.”

Current targets were to reduce greenhouse emissions to 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.

The document singles out transport as a key driver of increased emissions, which had jumped 78 percent since 1990 and now equated to 18 percent overall.

However, agriculture emissions sat far higher, constituting just under half of overall emissions and had also climbed significantly in the same period.

Robertson said the report had not sought to downplay agriculture's impact and she would not be shying away from it in policy advice.

While New Zealand's emissions had continued to climb, the United Kingdom reduced its emissions by 26 percent from 1990 to 2013, Sweden by 25 percent, and France by 11 percent.

Robertson refused to give New Zealand a scorecard on its performance to-date, but said now was the time to make changes.

“The future impacts of climate change on our lives all depend on how fast global emissions are reduced and the extent to which our communities can adapt to change.”

University of Otago environmental epidemiologist Simon Hales said the main takeaway was that the country was not living up to its international obligations on climate change.

“We require a much better, more quantitative understanding of the likely adverse impacts of climate change on human health than the brief, vague statements in the MfE report.”

Fox Glacier in 2014. Our shrinking glaciers are a sign of a warming climate. — Photograph: Ian Fuller.
Fox Glacier in 2014. Our shrinking glaciers are a sign of a warming climate.
 — Photograph: Ian Fuller.

Climate change would likely have an impact on our already struggling biodiversity.

Research showed there was already a growing imbalance in the gender split of tuatara.

Warmer temperatures in tuatara nests were more likely to produce male offspring; on North Brother Island in the Cook Strait, the ratio of male to female tuatara had increased from 1:66 to 2:36 in recent decades.

Warmer temperatures also increased the wasp population in beech forests, which resulted in less food for native species, and the frequency of masts (tree seed dropping), creating food for rodents, which attract predators.

“We can expect to face possibly costly decisions around how we manage the effects of a changing climate for our unique and celebrated native biodiversity,” the report said.

Climate change would also affect the economy and our physical and mental health, although the extent for both was not yet clear.

Rising sea levels and increasing extreme weather events would affect coastal communities, likely requiring some communities to move.

An earlier risk census determined around $19 billion worth of buildings were at risk of rising sea levels.

Drier conditions in some areas would have an impact on agriculture and the rates of some diseases may increase, as well as exposure to heat waves, flooding and fires.

The report also determined the atmosphere's "ozone hole", which was attributed to high levels of melanoma in Australia and New Zealand, was shrinking.

It had decreased 21 percent from its largest size, which was reached in 2006, and may no longer exist mid-way through the century.

It was largely due to a global effort to reduce the usage of ozone depleting substances, such as those in refrigeration and air conditioning equipment.

NIWA atmospheric researcher Richard McKenzie said the report was heartening, but the country still had to be vigilant.

“The situation is delicate at present and we remain at risk from possible effects from future volcanic eruptions.”

Download the “Our Atmosphere and Climate 2017” report. (348KB PDF document)

Download the accompanying Media Release. (80KB PDF document)


Related to this topic:

 • The seaside town being eaten alive

 • Climate change could spell ‘extreme poverty’ in coastal NZ towns

 • Sea level rise could swamp some New Zealand cities


 on: October 21, 2017, 12:24:02 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

from Fairfax NZ....

Intensifying sun and increased CO²
a ‘double-whammy’ for climate change

By GED CANN | 11:57AM - Thursday, 06 April 2017

The burning of fossil fuels is releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide, sucked from the atmosphere over millions of years by plants. — Photograph: Lukas Schulze/Getty Images.
The burning of fossil fuels is releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide, sucked from the
atmosphere over millions of years by plants. — Photograph: Lukas Schulze/Getty Images.

THE SUN is getting stronger and Earth has only escaped a frying because plants sucked up the extra carbon dioxide, reducing the heat caught in the atmosphere.

But that's all changing as the burning of fossil fuels ramps concentrations of CO² back up.

A new study, published in Nature Communications, traced how atmospheric CO² changed over the past 420 million years, providing researchers a key clue as to how Earth's delicate heat balance was maintained.

A leading Kiwi researcher said humans had already wound back the clock on CO² by three to four million years, with current estimates at 400 parts-per-million, effectively creating a double-whammy for global warming.

“At that time, temperatures were a couple of degrees or so higher than now, but sea levels were around 10 metres higher than present, worldwide,” Victoria University climate scientist James Renwick said.

Reversal of CO² trends could eventually result in warming of up to 10 degrees Celcius, he said.

“If we keep burning the oil and coal, we would eventually put atmospheric CO² back where it was several hundred million years ago — when the sun was a lot dimmer. With today's intensity of sunlight, the earth could get very warm,” he said.

“Our burning of fossil fuels is emitting, in the space of a century or two, huge quantities of carbon laid down over millions of years. The rate of release is hundreds of times faster than anything we know of from the past.”

Victoria University climate scientist James Renwick says human have already turned back the clock on CO² by up to 4 million years.
Victoria University climate scientist James Renwick says human have already turned back
the clock on CO² by up to 4 million years.

The new study predicting a failure to curb fossil fuel emissions could see atmospheric CO² levels reach concentration not experienced for 50 million years by the end of the century.

Renwick said that could equate to temperatures between 7°C and 8°C higher than present, with sea level rise of 50 metres or more higher than present, a state we would be locked into for several hundred years.

“Essentially all the ice on Antarctica and Greenland would melt,” he said.

“The issue is that tens of metres of sea levels rise, plus wholesale changes in rainfall patterns and heat extremes means that billions of people would be displaced and global food production would fall to a small fraction of what it is at present. That is, many billions of lives would be put at risk.”

Otago University climate scientist Jim Salinger said inaction from the likes of the United States, Australia and New Zealand was creating a dim outlook for the planet.

“There is potential for a runaway effect if we don't curb emissions quickly.”

Salinger said to lock the same CO² back into the ground would likely take hundreds of years, with the need to grow trees, chop them down, and bury them.

“We are going into uncharted territory in terms of human existance.”


Related to this topic:

 • Sea level rise could swamp some New Zealand cities

 • Editorial: Doubting climate change science is no joke

 • Climate change education missing in New Zealand schools

 • Eating the shore: New Zealand's shrinking coastline


 on: October 21, 2017, 12:23:42 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

from Fairfax NZ....

Houses will be ‘red-zoned’ due to climate change
 — Environment Commissioner

Report warns of “big social issues”, with 44,000 New Zealand
homes at risk if high tide rises reach 150cm.

By ROSANNA PRICE | 4:03PM - Thursday, 31 March 2016

Dr Jan Wright's report presented to local government and the environment select committee warns of “big social issues” as a result of climate change.
Dr Jan Wright's report presented to local government and the environment select committee
warns of “big social issues” as a result of climate change.

CLIMATE CHANGE is coming, and with it communities may have to be abandoned or left to deal with major financial costs.

Environment Commissioner Jan Wright said the country would face some “big social issues” because of climate change, identified in a report presented to the local government and environment select committee.

She urged central and local government to improve their planning and have national guidelines.

The report identified 44,000 homes would be affected by flooding when the high-tide rise reached 150 centimetres. An additional 24,000 buildings would also be affected.

It would cost $20 billion to replace them — and the figure did not include any infrastructure or telecommunications.

When considering a 50cm high-tide rise, 9,000 homes would be affected with an additional 4,000 buildings. This would equate to a $3b cost for replacement.

Wright had been in talks with insurance companies and banks about the effects.

“If a particular property is subject to this kind of risk, then insurance companies will start to look at whether they insure it or not,” she said.

“So you might see premiums go up, you might see the co-payments go up. Eventually a house would become uninsurable — probably a lot before it became uninhabitable.”

She said insurance companies “would take themselves quietly out of the picture”.

There could be mortgage holders in the “sad” situation of dealing with negative equity, where their mortgage would be bigger than the value of the house.

“It's kind of like a slowly unfolding red-zone in Christchurch.”

The report claims that 44,000 homes would be affected by flooding when sea level rises reached 150 centimetres. — Photograph: Asleigh Stewart/Fairfax NZ.
The report claims that 44,000 homes would be affected by flooding when sea level rises
reached 150 centimetres. — Photograph: Asleigh Stewart/Fairfax NZ.

The cost of sea-level rise of 50cm would be affect a similar number of houses in Christchurch's evacuated red-zone within the next couple of decades, she said.

Climate Change Minister Paula Bennett said every time you learn a bit more about the science “it is a little more frightening”.

“I worry about future insurance costs for every day households if they're having to deal with those sorts of flooding events,” she said.

“I do think we can put more into the kinds of technology and adaptation that would make a difference.”

However, the advice she had received about Kiwis locked into negative equity was that it would not be the case in the “near future”, but was still an “unknown” in decades to come.

Bennett was confident she could pull together a longer term plan that was not just Government-run, but led across communities.

Finance Minister Bill English said the Government would not budget for the costs of rising sea levels when the report was released in November.

The report includes maps by region of risk areas for flooding, erosion and groundwater issues. Those are available online.

The UN's climate body had predicted up to a one-metre rise by the year 2100.

However, it may be a two-metre rise at the current rate of carbon emissions, according to a study in the journal Nature which took into account Antarctic ice sheets that are melting faster than previously thought.


Read more on this topic....

 • Preparing New Zealand for rising seas: Certainty and Uncertainty


 on: October 21, 2017, 12:22:39 pm 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

 on: October 21, 2017, 12:19:25 pm 
Started by reality - Last post by Kiwithrottlejockey

Yes, it is obvious you worship Donald J. Trump because he grabs women by the pussy.

 on: October 21, 2017, 12:13:30 pm 
Started by reality - Last post by aDjUsToR
New Zealand men have cowered into submission from this kind of arrogant emotional bluster. The guy was asking quite reasonable questions of a potential prime minister. The "but, you" was indicative of an arrogant gender condescension unique to NZ fembots.

 on: October 21, 2017, 12:04:21 pm 
Started by reality - Last post by aDjUsToR
Here you go. Note the arrogant and condescending "but, you" and the finger pointing..


A typical hysterical and hypocritical fembot reaction.

 on: October 21, 2017, 11:34:40 am 
Started by Kiwithrottlejockey - Last post by aDjUsToR
And again from loony left Wankerpedia..

On Prof Judith Curry..

Curry was a Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology; she held the latter position from 2002 to 2013.[8] Curry serves on NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee whose mission is to provide advice and recommendations to NASA on issues of program priorities and policy. She is a recent member of the NOAA Climate Working Group[8][9] and a former member of the National Academies Space Studies Board and Climate Research Group.[8][10]

Curry is a former professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder and has held faculty positions at Penn State University, Purdue, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison.[8][10] Curry has been active in researching possible connections between hurricane intensity and global warming.[11][12] Her research group has also done research linking the size of hurricanes and resulting damage that showed that, among other things, the size of the hurricanes was an important factor in determining the number of tornadoes spawned by the system.[13]

Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999),[14] and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002).[15] Curry has published over 130 scientific peer reviewed papers.[16] Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.[16]

Climate change   Edit
Judith Curry has argued that climatologists should be more accommodating of those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change.[17] Curry has stated she is troubled by what she calls the "tribal nature" of parts of the climate-science community, and what she sees as stonewalling over the release of data and its analysis for independent review.[17]

In February 2010 Curry published an essay called "On the Credibility of Climate Change, Towards Rebuilding Trust" on Watts Up With That? and other blogs.[18] Writing in The New York Times, Andrew Revkin calls the essay a message to young scientists who may have been disheartened by the November 2009 climate change controversy known as "Climategate".[17]

In September 2010, she created Climate Etc., a blog related to climate change and hosted by Curry. She wrote that "Climate Etc. provides a forum for climate researchers, academics and technical experts from other fields, citizen scientists, and the interested public to engage in a discussion on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface."[8] She wrote: "I have a total of 12,000 citations of my publications (since my first publication in 1983). Climate Etc. gets on average about 12,000 ‘hits’ per day, and 300-400 comments." She gets " zero academic credit or incentives for my blogging and tweeting," but hopes that " social media and the associated skill set [will become] better recognized within the academic system."[19]

Curry testified before the US House Subcommittee on Environment in 2013,[20] remarking on the many large uncertainties in forecasting future climate.[21]

In October 2014, Curry wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal [22] where she argued that human-caused warming near the end of the 21st century should be less than the 2-degrees-Celsius “danger” level for all but the IPCC’s most extreme emission scenario, which is far later than the IPCC prediction of a 2-degrees-Celsius warming before 2040.

In April 2015 Curry gave evidence to the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology Hearing on the President’s UN Climate Pledge. She summed up her evidence -

The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century. Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence. Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution. It has been estimated that the U.S. national commitments to the UN to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree centigrade in warming by 2100... The articulation of a preferred policy option in the early 1990’s by the United Nations has marginalized research on broader issues surrounding climate variability and change and has stifled the development of a broader range of policy options. We need to push the reset button in our deliberations about how we should respond to climate change. We should expand the frameworks for thinking about climate policy and provide a wider choice of options in addressing the risks from climate change. As an example of alternative options, pragmatic solutions have been proposed based on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction. Each of these measures has justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation. Robust policy options that can be justified by associated policy reasons whether or not human caused climate change is dangerous avoids the hubris of pretending to know what will happen with the 21st century climate.[23]

Now please tell where in there it says she's a "fake scientist"?
Stop making shit up.

 on: October 21, 2017, 11:27:18 am 
Started by reality - Last post by aDjUsToR
The equal pay thing is an irrational loony left religion. It supposes women are retarded fools who are unable to CHOOSE their life path. Women are doing fine and it's actually generally men who are supporting them in doing that.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10
Powered by EzPortal
Open XNC2 Smileys
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum

Buy traffic for your forum/website
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.109 seconds with 14 queries.