global warming affecting California's coastal waters?

[sourdough]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Not to mention all those protected cows.

cow issue already has been addressed...

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Uh oh, someone just caught a local Albacore.

[sourdough]

good catch. Rare albacore hits the deck | San Diego Reader

[sourdough]

Ocean rise maybe 10 ft. ?
RIMS 2016: Sea Level Rise Will Be Worse and Come Sooner

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by DCMann2

Before I close this post there is one other thing I find myself confused about, and it's this: why on earth would anyone WANT global warming and its associated ills to happen? What kind of person would celebrate unpredictable weather, more intense droughts, flooding, blizzards, and so on? Who in their right mind welcomes the inundation and forced migrations of coastal cities? The total loss of low lying island nations like Micronesia? The loss of some of our greatest natural treasures like coral reefs and their associated ecosystems? Mass extinctions?

Rational people don't want these things to happen, and that's why scientists are trying so desperately to sound the alarm and get the world to pay attention to this very serious problem. We know what we need to do, and debating how to do it is perfectly acceptable, but to sit around and say things like "it's only a money/power grab," or "they only say it to get their funding" (side note here: the person who verifiably disproves the accepted theory would get WAY more money than anyone who keeps saying the theory is sound), or "the climate always changes and we're too puny to influence it," or "it was all about global cooling in the 70s!" (it wasn't) is not only incorrect, but dangerous as well because it removes focus from what we should really be talking about: how to adapt and save the lives of millions, if not billions, of people and animals around the world.

That's all.

I will address this question. Of course no one wants these things.

However, there are people who have been indoctrinated with an ideology that modern western civilization is fundamentally evil and corrupt to the core, as opposed to simply a work in progress. And that rather by identifying problems and finding solutions to them, the society itself must be deconstructed and rebuilt through revolution. And the threat of catastrophe can expedite and force a revolution.


While I have always remained convinced that man-made climate change is real, a problem, and that something needs to be done, I hold to the idea that it should be approached as any environmental problem either current or past, whether that be cleaner air, cleaner water, bringing back species from the brink of extinction, saving wilderness, banning and phasing out CFCs or DDT. While activism and changing of a law was no doubt necessary with these things, it was understood that it is primarily science and technology, with yes some personal conservation measures as well that would solve these things.

Invasive, non-native species is just as much of a threat to biodiversity as climate change, but because there is little to no political component to this issue and that it doesn't involve apocalyptic scenarios, it doesn't garner the same type of outrage.

I'll share a story here, about when I saw the red flags that the issue of climate change was being hijacked by people who have no background at all in science.

In early 2007 I went to what I thought was a talk on climate change/global warming that someone invited me to. I figured . . . ok, sure, I'm sure it will be informative. I'll never forget that day.

Instead of scientists, I got community activists/organizers who like a leftist preacher railed about how:

"We have been lied to, climate change is not an environmental issue! I'll repeat myself climate change is NOT an environmental issue. It is a social justice issue!!! We're not going to be able to "technofix" our way out of this folks! Hybrids are not the solution! We have to fundamentally transform our society!!" And then we all went broke out into groups created posters as to what our idealized sustainable city looks like, of course with no cars, and public transit the only way to get around.

I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea, it was etched in my mind. After all these years I am noticing a pattern where people who have a background in politics, sociology, some type of identity politics studies, etc. are leading the debate. Every time it appears that god forbid . . the free market . . . starts to make clean, more sustainable technologies more available and affordable to a wider market of people who are increasingly more aware of their own consumer choices on their own, ideological types are drawn to picking out the most catastrophic climate projections . . . because the free market must NOT succeed in helping to mitigate climate change. Hybrids and electric cars were only a cause of activism before they started expanding into the market, because only then could they blame a conspiracy of oil companies and car manufacturers from suppressing them. Solar and wind was a cause of activism when they were virtually insignificant, and that a conspiracy could be proposed that oil companies were suppressing these. built When companies started to actually manufacture and sell these . . . No! No! No! Any solution to climate change must NOT involve ANYONE MAKING PROFITS!! NO NO NO!! When, in the last 10-15 years, Western values started to become more widespread around the world, allowing women in Asia, Latin America, and even Africa stand up and insisting they are in charge of their own destiny, that they could be independent, pursue careers, and have children when and if, and how many THEY want, well what we get instead is how globalization is imperialism, etc. etc.

Anything that doesn't involve a RADICAL change will not be enough. And the more climate change and other environmental issues are finding solutions organically rather than through radical ideological change, the louder the cry will become. Some want a revolution, and damn it they are going to have it come hell or high water. (no pun intended).

And we wonder why we have all these deniers. Don't get me wrong, I'm not justifying with the deniers, I'm just saying that those who have married radical leftist ideology with the solutions to climate change have created the division are their own worst enemies.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by sourdough

Ocean rise maybe 10 ft. ?
RIMS 2016: Sea Level Rise Will Be Worse and Come Sooner

I think people are taking a lot for granted, namely--stability of life as we know it, and a gradual warming. I've been wondering what San Francisco's Ocean Beach area and the Richmond and Sunset neighborhoods would look like with an 8-10 ft. sea level rise. Not to mention the Bay itself, and all the cities on its shore. And what about that fresh water aquifer under the City; how much of a sea level rise would it take to contaminate it with salt water?

[sourdough]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

I think people are taking a lot for granted, namely--stability of life as we know it, and a gradual warming. I've been wondering what San Francisco's Ocean Beach area and the Richmond and Sunset neighborhoods would look like with an 8-10 ft. sea level rise. Not to mention the Bay itself, and all the cities on its shore. And what about that fresh water aquifer under the City; how much of a sea level rise would it take to contaminate it with salt water?

Cali coast low lands are going to be in trouble.

[Tex?Il?]

Per that documentary posted, the best, quickest way to solve climate change is by opening up to nuclear power again.

Chernobyl and Fukishima may end up causing the real damage to the environment by making people fearful of embracing nuclear power as an alternative, and thus contributing to a rejection of the one truly viable alternative energy that can fulfill our clean energy needs NOW.

How Nuclear Power Can Stop Global Warming - Scientific American