Frances Bula header image 2

City tells builders near sea must raise land by 1 metre minimum to cope with rising levels

February 11th, 2012 · 184 Comments

I reported before Christmas that many municipalities on the coast are scrambling to alter their long-term guidelines for building on the coast following a provincial report that upped the estimate of how much the sea will rise in the next hundred years.

Word was just issued this week in Vancouver that, as an interim guideline, all builders are being told they should raise the level of their land by a metre. Memo below

CMO – SUS – Adaptation Sea Level Rise – Interim FCL Memo to Council signed – 2012

Categories: Uncategorized

184 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Julia // Feb 11, 2012 at 9:56 am

    well this is going to be interesting. For the next 50 years we are going to have retaining walls and stairs and a dogs breakfast for a streetscape.

    Wonder what they are going to do in municipalities like Richmond and Delta where 50% of the land is currently at sea level? Disallow building, or insist on stilts, or retaining walls and fill?

    So much for affordable housing.

    Why can’t we be like Venice – assuming the science is right. It would be great for tourism.

  • 2 Roger Kemble // Feb 11, 2012 at 10:46 am

    Julia @ 31

    This is beyond ridiculous: hysterical more like.

    How come the city is getting into this now? AGW has been the cocktail party de rigueur gossip for a decade or more.

    There is no evidence that sea levels are on the rise, only hype . . .

    Over ambitious bureaucrats have hung their reputations, (evidently not their integrity), on AGW, or whatever be the alphabet soup of their choice, for decades and cannot let go.

    Feather bedding types lead their students down the garden path, for what?

    They can believe what they like, I suppose, but as you say, “ So much for affordable housing.”, and much, much more!

  • 3 John F. Dunbar // Feb 11, 2012 at 11:00 am

    Raising land elevation has little to do with the affordability of housing. A perfectly livable (and beautiful) house for a couple can be built for a few thousand dollars –

    Here’s a “Lanehouse” that cost $320,000 to build which compares well to the cost of a 600 sq.ft. condo in Vancouver. I think it is very nice but, from my perspective the ‘quality of life’ it offers is no better than one of the buildings in the video that cost perhaps 1/50 as much which leaves 49/50 left for fill and a great house-warming – so it isn’t really about affordable housing, but affordable lifestyle.

  • 4 John F. Dunbar // Feb 11, 2012 at 11:03 am

    I’m heading for higher ground and less magnitude 9 earthquake certainty Julia, sorry but I don’t see the same world you do.

  • 5 Derp // Feb 11, 2012 at 12:38 pm


    …and there was no hole in the ozone layer. Totally unnecessary CFC hype.

  • 6 gmgw // Feb 11, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    This is not only a necessary step but one that is uncommonly far-sighted by Vancouver standards. You climate-change denier-morons can rant and froth all you like, but while you dig ever-deeper sand pits in which to bury your empty heads, almost every seacoast city in the industrialized world is either enacting similar measures or is being forced to consider them.

    I’m assuming your Venice reference was tongue-in-cheek, but even so, Venice is the poster city for the effects of rising sea levels. For some time now the levels of the annual flooding of Venice that takes place in the winter months– the so-called “Acqua Alta” (“high water”)– have been increasing. Work is scheduled to be completed this year on the long-gestating MOSE project (derided as the “Moses” project by many) which will see a complex series of massive flood barriers erected in the area where the Venetian lagoon meets the Adriatic. The multi-billion-euro MOSE project, similar in purpose to the enormous Thames Barrier installed just east of London, has been subjected to innumerable delays over the years thanks in considerable part to the endemic corruption that pervades every level of Italian government and siphons cash away from most large public-works projects (and a good many private ones). There have also been many quite valid concerns raised by environmentalists that the MOSE project will irrevocably alter the unique ecology of the Venetian lagoon. Despite this risk, the project has finally proceeded. Whether it will accomplish its purpose, of course, remains to be seen. Recent projections have indicated that even the Thames Barrier, in its current state, could eventually prove to be inadequate, given that the rise in sea levels could be greater than anticipated. Venice’s millennia-long defiance of the sea may still be coming to an end at long last.

  • 7 Jeff // Feb 11, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    Oh dear. appinsys? When discussing sea level rise I wouldn’t be paying attention to personal blogs. Instead I’d be looking at scientific journals. the sea level is increasing at rising at a rate of about 3.4mm/y per deg C currently and it is expected to increase. (This is a link to a scientific journal)

    Or we can just look at the actual data itself.

  • 8 Roger Kemble // Feb 11, 2012 at 2:07 pm

    You climate-change denier-morons can rant and froth all you like . . .

    Your name calling gmgw @ #4 belies your ignorance. Unless of course your survival depends upon brown-nosing the bureaucrat directly above in your corrupted pecking order . . . .

    Back up your tender appellations with more than a vindictive rant: show us the evidence but please not Al Gore again . . .

    . . . the earth warms . . . the earth cools and believe it or not dear boy (or are you a cuddly little chica?) you have nothing to do with it.

    So please reduce the decibels of your unmotivated ego . . .

  • 9 Mark Allerton // Feb 11, 2012 at 2:14 pm

    What the memo actually says is that “Flood Construction Levels” must be raised 1 metre, not that *land* must be raised 1 metre. As I understand it, the FCL is the lowest level at which livable areas of the building can be constructed, not the “ground” level.

  • 10 tf // Feb 11, 2012 at 3:11 pm

    wow, here it is – the next challenge.
    are we ready?
    can we behave pleasantly this time?

  • 11 Julia // Feb 11, 2012 at 4:31 pm

    lowest livable areas – so no basement suites, no laneway housing at grade, no split levels – we are back to Vancouver specials with unfinished grade level space that is virtually good for nothing.

    How will this housing be accessible? Elevators?

    Even though we tear down and rebuild houses every 50 -60 years, we have do do this now?

    Do you think this is more about risk assessment and legal liability than logic?

  • 12 Mark Allerton // Feb 11, 2012 at 5:47 pm

    If the current FCL allows basement suites to be built in a given area, it seems to me that a raised FCL would also allow them to be built, just one metre higher.

    And let’s be clear, this is about areas at risk of flooding. If you lived in an area at risk of flooding, why on earth would you not want construction to take this into account? You talk about risk assessment like it is a bad thing, which makes no sense to me unless you expect Roger Canute to come and hold back the waves.

  • 13 Silly Season // Feb 11, 2012 at 6:15 pm

    I already have a wetsuit, so no probs here.

  • 14 Roger Kemble // Feb 11, 2012 at 9:30 pm

    wow, here it is – the next challenge. Good point rf @ #7.

    Yup more government scare mongering to wet your pants over . . . or basements.

    I’m amazed how eagerly you all are to get sucked in by another cash grab. Why are you so eager to pay to pollute? Paying doesn’t stop the pollution.

    Lest you don’t know, and I’m sure all you do know, you guys seem to be so comfy knowing everything, about 70% of Metro has been designated flood plains for as long as I’ve been practicing and longer: Richmond, Coquitlam, Pitt Meadows etc.

    How come your dearly beloved building inspectors haven’t required your basements to be built on stilts in those areas?

    Or is it you’ll believe anything the government tells you so you can blame it on the oil companies!

    Look at the graphs I linked. I’ve been sailing these waters almost every summer day for ten years. Trust me, the sea isn’t rising. Go back to believing in Santa Claus.

    Wow is right rf!

  • 15 Glissando Remmy // Feb 11, 2012 at 11:55 pm

    Thought of The Night

    “The Deluge, The Flood and Noah’s Ark; The Virgin Mary, The Bible and The Jesus; The Crusades, The Witches, The Halley Comet, The Aryan Race, The H Bomb, The Stock Market, The New Man, The Cold War, The War on Terror… The Global Warming.”

    For thousands of years… and counting, a ferocious dumbing down of the human race marketing campaign, is going on. It never stopped, it’s been interrupted a few times, thanks , ahem , to that imaginary guy in the sky, and it seems that every time you think it’s finally over, the same hideous Hydra heads are reattaching themselves to its Body of Lies, trying to claim yet another victim, trying to suck a bit more from a different alphabetic Generation X , Y, or Z.

    Now it’s The Global Warming time!

    With the Communism brand dead or dying throughout the world there are no known natural predators to the “Westernized” World anymore. So, there it is.
    The powers that be, thought that it’s about time for you and me to get busy and start worrying about something, and pronto, because, you know what they say “Time is money!” and every second without us being scared shit, it’s a total waste of their bank’s compounding interest.

    And here’s how it works:

    From my ( twitterDOTcom/glissandoremmy) account:

    “Z Green Long Con: U Buy A Coke ->Recycling Fee; U Buy A Laptop ->Eco Fee; U Buy A New Car -> Air Care Fee + Gas Tax; BC Hydro -> Smart Meters = Conservation Fee; Even VSB Takes Candy From Your Children To Pay “Green” Corporations $500,000+/year To Offset Their Carbon Footprint… WTF?
    25 Jan ”

    Exactly… WTF!?

    You better stop worrying about things you arrogant pricks (I’m referring to those Scaremongering Greens) cannot control or influence (as per Roger Kemble above said); you never did control Mother Nature and you never will, so stop it, or you’ll get everybody sick with worries, no, really!
    Monthy Python, did a song about your brethren, many years back.

    Here’s something you shall be thinking about, though…
    Earthquake & Tsunami Combo or what some in the Real Estate would call The Big Equalizer; The Waterfront Revival; , The Housing Market Price Corrector.
    Till we get scared by something else…

    We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

  • 16 gmgw // Feb 12, 2012 at 2:15 am

    Arguments with climate-change deniers often remind me of a famous scene in an otherwise forgettable 1962 circus movie called “Jumbo”, wherein Jimmy Durante’s character is attempting to stealthily(!) lead an elephant through a deserted street (the reasons why I’ve long forgotten). A startled cop spots the unlikely pair, strolls over and brusquely inquires: “Hey buddy, where d’ya think you’re going with that elephant??” Durante, rope in hand, glances about and, the picture of outraged innocence, responds: “*What* elephant?!”

    Jimmy D, meet Roger K.

  • 17 Mark Allerton // Feb 12, 2012 at 8:57 am

    (Meta) I’ve discovered that there is something even more tedious than Glissandy Remy’s postings: *repeats* of Glissando Remy’s postings. It seems it’s now not enough to post something once, now GR repeats his tweets inside his posts, and his fan club reposts his posts from one thread to another.

  • 18 brilliant // Feb 12, 2012 at 10:26 am

    OMG, its Kevin Costner’s Waterworld come to life. The smart money’s on houseboat builders!

  • 19 Bill // Feb 12, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    @gmgw #13

    You only succeed in displaying your ignorance by using terms like “climate change denier”. The debate is not whether climate changes but what are the most significant causes of that change. And this is the question that has not yet been settled.

  • 20 Julia // Feb 12, 2012 at 1:08 pm

    Why not phase it in. Seriously. For the most part, we replace our housing stock every 50 years. Add a half a meter now so that there is not a streetscape mismatch to deal with and in 50 years… if the projection is true, add the other half meter. At least that way the streetscape can evolve gracefully and you can address the impending doom if it actually happens.

  • 21 Andrew // Feb 12, 2012 at 2:06 pm

    I think everyone is forgetting that this applies ONLY to those areas of the city considered to be prone to flooding. This is a small proportion of the overall City, and the BC Building Code would have already mandated similar flood construction level rules for quite some time.

  • 22 gmgw // Feb 12, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    @Bill #16:
    Gosh all hemlock, you mean there might be *other* reasons apart from the immeasurable amounts of of suspended particulates, chemicals, hydrocarbons, gases, and billions of tons of assorted wastes that the human race has been merrily pumping into the atmosphere for the past few centuries? Sure like to know what that might be!

    Of course, maybe Ronnie Reagan was right– it’s all those damn cow farts. But hey, the most important thing is to avoid any action that might result in the downsizing of those sacred corporate profits, huh? As Phil Gagliardi used to say, “Pollution is the smell of money” (but I don’t think he meant it in quite the same way I do).

  • 23 Terry M // Feb 12, 2012 at 4:29 pm

    Ha, ha, Michelle!
    That was hilarious. Never trust a man with a mallet… Mark… Touché!
    Btw ditto what Michelle said!

  • 24 Julia // Feb 12, 2012 at 4:53 pm

    Andrew, the report is in response to provincial guidelines… so if you are living south of the Fraser, this will apply to 90% of the land.

    have some fun with this,-122.9057&z=4&m=3

  • 25 Robert in Calgary // Feb 12, 2012 at 6:06 pm

    There’s zero scientific evidence to support the theory of man-made global warming. That’s why they were forced to shift to “climate change”

    Fanatics like gmgw are left to rant and rage and scream….in the knowledge they are losing.

    “To get carbon dioxide, a plant food, into perspective, for every one carbon dioxide molecule of human origin there are 32 of natural origin in a total of 88,000 other molecules.

    It has yet to be shown that this one molecule in 88,000 drives climate change and there is only information to the contrary because no past climate changes (which were larger and more rapid than anything we measure today) were driven by carbon dioxide, certainly not human induced, and what we measure today is within variability.”

  • 26 Mark Allerton // Feb 12, 2012 at 6:11 pm

    Haha Michelle, what a great demonstration of the mental inadequancy of Glissy’s fan club: the best you can do is have a go at my hair and you can’t even get that right.

  • 27 Mark Allerton // Feb 12, 2012 at 6:13 pm

    Where is autocorrect when you actually need it. *inadequacy*, sigh.

  • 28 Frances Bula // Feb 12, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    @Julia. The plan is to phase it in. All new buildings have to be built on higher ground. As the older ones already there come to the end of their lifespan, they will then have to have some height added before they re-develop.

  • 29 brilliant // Feb 12, 2012 at 7:05 pm

    @gmgw-Over the course of its existence the Earth has been a frozen snowball, a tropical paradise and everything in between.

    Who do you blame that on?

  • 30 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 12, 2012 at 8:44 pm

    @ All of you. Buildings in flood areas.

    When you fly into YVR have a look at the Fraser. Both banks extend for quite a distance at or near water level. Those areas are at risk. But that big hill we climb on the Surrey side of the Port Mann, that ‘wall’ will protect the neighbourhoods behind it.

    Along our coastline on the Burrard Inlet, it doesn’t take too long to get 1 m above sea level.

    However, there are depressions within the high-ground areas. As we point out in the VHQ study of the Old East End, it was once possible to portage a canoe along Carrall Street, or Raymur, from False Creek to Burrard Inlet. Maybe we’ll be doing that again some decades from now:

    On Semiahmoo Bay, and UBC, the land rises out of the water like a great wall already.

    The highways, when they cross these low-lying areas, are built at 100-year flood levels, or possibly more—I didn’t study those codes.

    This memo is an indication that we are taking a threat seriously, and proceeding with a measure of caution. Very easy to peel these guidelines back.

    If we want a good spin on this, the areas nearest the shore represent the most vital and fragile habitat. Backing off the riparian zones because it is 1 meter more expensive to build there may end up giving us a more sustainable urbanism.

  • 31 Glissando Remmy // Feb 12, 2012 at 11:06 pm

    Thought of The Night

    “I always wanted to meet a Clown. But I never had the courage to engage, as I was always scared of them. Then, today, one of them approached me… he’s all right, I guess!”

    So, watzzup Mark Allerton?
    What can I do for you?

    Fan club?
    “Haha Michelle, what a great demonstration of the mental inadequancy of Glissy’s fan club”
    WTF are you talking about? What “Michelle”? What “mental inadequacy” ?
    Really, no contest from me, pal!

    Are you for real? You’re giving me Good Vibrations!

    Here, The Marky Mark of the Backstreet Vision Boys might give you whatever you were looking for:

    And, if I am honest, I’ll have to thank you for the idea of having the link to my twitter on top.
    Let’s see how it goes… and…’Submit”
    (yeah, it seems that it didn’t work properly so…)

    We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

  • 32 Everyman // Feb 12, 2012 at 11:28 pm

    LNV #30
    “But that big hill we climb on the Surrey side of the Port Mann, that ‘wall’ will protect the neighbourhoods behind it.”

    Well thank heavens Surrey is protected. We wouldn’t want to lose that.

  • 33 gmgw // Feb 13, 2012 at 12:24 am

    @Robert in Calgary, #25:
    We’re all losing. Not just me. Every damned one of us. Even you. Fanatic? Me? Why the hell should I care what happens after I’m gone? I have no children. I’ll be dead in 20 or 30 years max, leaving those of your grandkids that are still alive and any other survivors to strap on their oxygen masks and smear on SPF 200 sunscreen each morning before they venture out to forage for food in the ruins. I’m sure they’ll honour your memory for the world you’ll have left them.

    Were you weaned on an exhaust pipe?

  • 34 Roger Kemble // Feb 13, 2012 at 3:10 am

    Yes Robert,

    gmgw exposes his inability to comprehend complex subjects daily . . . he is not alone!
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever . . . publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: . . . the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?””

    He is Thomas Wolfe’s . . . “a sort of relentlessly rational . . . logician who flies higher and higher in ever-decreasing concentric circles until, with one last, utterly inevitable induction, he disappears up his own fundamental aperture and emerges in the fourth dimension as a needle-thin umber bird.”

    Delusional, he and his choir are Talleyrand’s “They have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing”.
    As for ridding our air of trace toxic particles we can learn a lot learn Mexico city . . .

  • 35 Chris Keam // Feb 13, 2012 at 9:14 am

    “strap on their oxygen masks and smear on SPF 200 sunscreen each morning before they venture out to forage for food in the ruins. ”

    Well, this is coming regardless of the PPM of CO2. The good news is we are resourceful and it could take as many as six or seven generations before it becomes reality. The bad news is that GMGW is being a bit disingenuous. That’s not a warning he wrote, but a paraphrase of the employee vacation brochure for a middle manager at the long-pig processing plant. More properly it reads thusly:

    Strap on Your Oxygen Mask! Smear on SPF 200 sunscreen each morning! Venture out to forage for food in the ruins! (oxygen taxes and mutant handling fees not included).

    Have a Nice Day :-)

  • 36 boohoo // Feb 13, 2012 at 9:37 am

    @ Roger.

    It’s adorable how you think some time spent sailing on the ocean equals an ability to comment on rising sea levels.

  • 37 Roger Kemble // Feb 13, 2012 at 10:37 am

    Well, boohoo @ #36 if I cannot tell the sea level after jumping the sharks for ten years, looking for the wind, why on earth should you be told to spend your hard earned pennies sticking your basement up on stilts (a pretty pricy job).

    It’s all about mature judgement boohoo and I don’t see any of that here . . .

  • 38 boohoo // Feb 13, 2012 at 11:12 am

    Mature judgement would involve rational discourse. Equating your ability to watch the tides with understanding the impacts of climate change on the oceans is not rational.

    If I play golf for 10 years, does that make me an expert on grass?

  • 39 Bill // Feb 13, 2012 at 11:12 am

    @gmgw #22

    “Gosh all hemlock, you mean there might be *other* reasons apart from the immeasurable amounts of of suspended particulates”

    Actually suspended particulates would have a cooling effect on climate like when volcanoes erupt. But carry on, you are doing a good job of thoroughly discrediting the AGW position.

  • 40 Roger Kemble // Feb 13, 2012 at 11:15 am

    boohoo @ #38 as usual you have missed my point completely . . . over and out.

  • 41 boohoo // Feb 13, 2012 at 11:25 am

    Care to explain then?

  • 42 brilliant // Feb 13, 2012 at 11:37 am

    @boohoo 38-“does that make me an expert on grass?”

    Biting my tongue.

  • 43 boohoo // Feb 13, 2012 at 11:42 am

    Care to rationalize that massive stereotype brilliant?

  • 44 Chris Keam // Feb 13, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    “Actually suspended particulates would have a cooling effect on climate like when volcanoes erupt.”

    Except for when particulate has a insulating effect by trapping heat. But all of you, carry on like you have the faintest clue how a complex, interwoven system such as the eco-system actually works.

    Parentthetically, if we looked for common ground and worked towards those goals, we’d be unstoppable and the world would be a better place for all, even those who don’t share your beliefs… without a single soul having to give up anything except greed, ego, and perhaps the convenience of the single serving packet. Instead, we squabble like little boys and beggar our grandchildren. It’s sickening and a terrible example for the kids we claim to care so much about.

  • 45 Bill // Feb 13, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    @Chris Keam #44

    “But all of you, carry on like you have the faintest clue how a complex, interwoven system such as the eco-system actually works.”

    This is precisely the point that skeptics have been making since the prophet Al Gore proclaimed that the science was settled.

  • 46 Chris Keam // Feb 13, 2012 at 1:45 pm

    Please don’t use my utter contempt for this pointless argument as a bulwark to support inaction and environmental degradation. Every action which might mitigate climate change also brings additional environmental and social benefits with it. Doing nothing because the science isn’t proven to your satisfaction is an abdication of our responsibility to live this place in better shape than we found it and can only lead to greater problems and misery for billions of people.

  • 47 Chris Keam // Feb 13, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    ‘leave this place’

  • 48 Bill // Feb 13, 2012 at 3:44 pm

    “Every action which might mitigate climate change also brings additional environmental and social benefits with it.”

    There is nothing Canada can do to mitigate climate change. We could disappear tomorrow and it won’t make any difference even if you accept the AGW crowd is right. Without China, India and the US on board it is a pointless gesture. If there are environmental and social benefits from certain actions then they should be justified on these benefits rather than pretending we are saving the world by preventing climate change.

    “our responsibility to live this place in better shape than we found it and can only lead to greater problems and misery for billions of people.”

    Ironically there have been tens of millions lifted out of abject poverty in China and India which would not have occurred without their explosive growth in CO2 emissions and it is why they will never sign on to any agreement to limit them.

  • 49 Glissando Remmy // Feb 13, 2012 at 4:04 pm

    Thought of The Day

    “George Carlin. Smarter than David Suzuki? More honest than Al Gore? Less interested in moving monies from the US to Canada to pay for the Environmental Racket? You bet!”

    He may have been a comedian, but he was smarter than the most of us, and he said it, like it was. And, it wasn’t so Green!

    People in BC , the No. 1 Province in Child Poverty in Canada, are complaining about the minimum wage, about not enough bike lanes, they cannot even touch the surface, on solving the housing affordability, yet they want to be the Champions in solving the Planet’s problems…
    Listen to Carlin:
    “Nothing wrong with the Planet. The People are F#%*ed!”

    We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

  • 50 Julia // Feb 13, 2012 at 4:19 pm

    This conversation is not about leaving the world a better place – this is about preparing for the end of the world 100 years in advance.

    ‘Science’ has already determined that global warming will not retreat, cycles will not occur, glaciers will not return (ever) and we are destined for massive losses of land mass across the world.

    Wonder what will happen to our rail yards and port facilities if sea level rises a metre. Wonder what will happen to our industrial land?

    If you told me it was a precaution against a Tsunami, I might be able to buy it a little easier.

  • 51 Michelle // Feb 13, 2012 at 7:54 pm

    Frances dear, even our beloved Alex Tsakuminator when deletes someone’s comment, at least he is courteous enough to tell them, and also tell them why. So what did it for you? The “pipi envy” or the ‘mallet’ statement?
    I thought that this was an adult site with no children access. Sorry to say this but, it seems that more and more you are adopting the Ballem’s media Gag Order put on City staff on comments re. the Vision crew.
    Good luck with that.
    Fear mongering and global warming are your latest reporting news? Talk a lot about them for a long time and who knows people might start believing in it…
    And btw, that guy calling me a “mental” case, that’s ok with you… phew!

  • 52 Joe Just Joe // Feb 13, 2012 at 10:54 pm

    I was a non believer in global warming until tonight. I was so warm I took my socks off for bed. No need to worry though my wife is now dedicating her life to stopping global warming so that I don’t remove my socks again. We’ll all be saved.

  • 53 gman // Feb 13, 2012 at 11:46 pm

    Venice did have problem back in 2008,hope their ok now.

  • 54 brilliant // Feb 14, 2012 at 9:25 am

    I bet Venice and the rest of Europe are really wishing for some if that good ol’ global warming right now as they suffer through the coldest winter in decades!

    The evangelical fervour of the global warming crowd is nearly as great as cyclists, but I guess they’re just different sects of the same cult.

  • 55 MB // Feb 14, 2012 at 9:47 am

    @ Roger. I, too, have been paying attention to the sea, but for over 30 years.

    I have noticed a rise of 3.7 millimetres in that time, as observed from several points, like Stanley Park, Galiano Island, the Oak Bay Marina and French Beach.

    My ability to detect this rise improved much since I astarted wearing glasses 10 years ago, which also coincided with the start of the warmest decade in recorded history.

    Now, 3.7 mm may not sound like much, but we’re only at the beginning of a century that may warm as much as 5 degress C average instead of the 2 degrees estimated by the IPCC.

    The rate of rise will increase too, meaning we could get 2+ metres total rise over the next 88 years.

    Don’t believe I can detect the rise with my naked eye? Well, neither do I your ability to disbelieve those with the instruments to measure it. I may be off by 50%, but their measurements are a helluva lot more accurate than you or eye can determine.

  • 56 gman // Feb 14, 2012 at 10:06 am

    Yep the good old IPCC,now there’s a trustworthy bunch…..NOT.

  • 57 gman // Feb 14, 2012 at 10:21 am

    Your right Brilliant,isnt it odd that we hardly here a peep from the media on this side of the pond.But that pesky CO2 is sure working its magic over there.

  • 58 boohoo // Feb 14, 2012 at 10:28 am

    ahh brilliant, your latest post only underscores your complete and utter lack of understanding.

  • 59 boohoo // Feb 14, 2012 at 10:29 am

    lol, on cue gman steps up with the same ignorance.

  • 60 Roger Kemble // Feb 14, 2012 at 10:45 am

    MB @ #55

    I, too, have been paying attention to the sea, but for over 30 years.

    30 years” Wow! Let’s see now I joined the Scarborough Sailing Club on the north Yorkshire coast 1945, crewing with my pals. Then two years in His Maj’s Royal Navy on a minesweeper and rescue motor launch gave me all kinds of opportunities to fill my sea boots. Then back with SSC I sailed my own sloop up and down the North Yorkshire coast until I came to Vancouver in 1952

    I immediately bought a 16’ flatty, moored at Fraser’s Kits wharf, often following the CN booze cruise to Bowen Island.

    In Victoria I lived on the waterfront in Oak Bay testing the tides to Discovery and Chatham Islands in my little 10’ dinghy.

    I was boat-less, family and practice taking precedence, in Vancouver from 1957 to 1997. Two years in Mexico City where I never saw the sea let alone a boat, in 1998 I came to Nanaimo.

    Sailing my Ranger 22 Agua Flor, my 28 year old girl friend, from the Nanaimo boat basin for the last ten years, (Victoria to Toba Inlet to Hornby to Vancouver to Galliano, and every cove and dock in between have been the happiest sailing days of my life. Now I am too old to pull a rope.

    I am not trying to out distance you MB but surely if the sea has risen imperceptibly in that time surely pressing the panic button to make architects deface their designs with stilts is over reacting, adding unreasonably expense, because the mayor is going thru one of his affordability spasms:

    Julia @ #50 seems to be getting unnecessarily upset!

    At the risk of awakening the likes of gmgw I believe the earth warms and cools and humanity (even though her ego wont allow it) has nothing to do with it. There is so much evidence to back this up, ice cores, Medieval warming, Sun activity etc I really cannot be bothered to engage the likes ofboohoo or gmgw who, inebriated by their certitude, appear to provoke for their own sake.

  • 61 boohoo // Feb 14, 2012 at 10:54 am

    Roger, the earth does cool and warm on its own. That’s not the question.

    But regardless, you mock our ‘certitude’ yet you are certain it is not happening based on your experiences in a row boat. That’s funny.

  • 62 Bill // Feb 14, 2012 at 11:02 am

    “Roger, the earth does cool and warm on its own”

    Then how can you justify spending billions of dollars to reduce CO2 when we should be saving our resources to adapt to climate change which is going to occur anyways.

  • 63 boohoo // Feb 14, 2012 at 11:33 am

    I don’t think we need to spend billions to reduce CO2, I think we need to stop spending billions to increase CO2. We’ve got a government that enacts a carbon tax on the pretense that it’s ‘green’ while it simultaneously spends billions building and expanding highways all over the place. One example of a myriad showing our collective stupidity and hypocrisy.

  • 64 Bill // Feb 14, 2012 at 11:53 am

    “I think we need to stop spending billions to increase CO2.”

    I am not aware of any policy that is based on the rationale of increasing CO2 but there are countless policies that are justified because they reduce a carbon footprint – subsidies for wind and solar power being just one. Do you agree that policies should not be adopted simply because they reduce CO2?

  • 65 MB // Feb 14, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    @ Bill: “how can you justify spending billions of dollars to reduce CO2 when we should be saving our resources to adapt to climate change which is going to occur anyways.”

    That’s the problem. We’re not saving our resources. In fact, we seem to be allowing our resources to be exported with a gold rush mentality without a clue os what “value added” or “planning for the future” means.

  • 66 MB // Feb 14, 2012 at 12:58 pm

    There are the usual suspects on the notion of anthropogenic climate change who have a hard time with the scientific method developed over the last century when the results conflict with their belief systems. But many of them do seem to understand Inverse Proportionality.

    For example, to them a 40% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, the most prevalent (but not the most potent) greenhouse gas with well-known heat-retaining properties by the combustion of petroleum fuels over the last 150 years results in a change in climate that is the inverse. You ramp up the CO2 to ramp down global temperatures. Or there is no reaction and temps remain unchanged.

    The High Priests of climate science be damned.

    This is similar to a well-known factoid in the nursing and psychology professions, that men who “need” to own large sport utility vehicles are sexually insecure. The bigger the Hummer, the smaller the penis.

    Then there is a minority who agree that the climate is changing, but confuse the issue by denying the hard evidence, that it is caused by human activity, predominantly burning carbon-laden fuels.

    And they persist to say that we need to mitigate the effects without stopping or slowing the combustion of carbon-based fuels (limiting the production of gotta-prove-my-masculinty Hummers will “destroy” the econony, dontcha know?), and therefore independently refute the Laws of Thermodynamics.

    The Laws of Thermodynamics, therein, do not amount to much when stacked against Inverse Proportionality that is tailored to suit one’s belief patterns.

    And there ain’t no religion in science?

  • 67 boohoo // Feb 14, 2012 at 2:12 pm

    There is no policy that flat out says we’re increasing CO2, but what do you think the result of massive highway construction and expansion will be?? This is my point, there are conflicting policies that leave us just spinning our wheels.

    We subsidize plenty of things, some reduce CO2, some increase CO2.

  • 68 Bill // Feb 14, 2012 at 2:17 pm


    The one question that all the proponents of taking action to fight climate change never fail to duck:

    Why should Canada saddle its economy with additional costs solely to reduce CO2 emissions when this action will have no effect unless China and the US have signed on to the program.

    From a practical point of view it is irrelevant whether or not AGW is occurring. If China and the US adopt CO2 reduction policies then we will have to follow suit simply for trade considerations.

  • 69 MB // Feb 14, 2012 at 2:57 pm

    @ Bill. I’ve never ducked that question.

    My answer(s):

    Because our per capita emissions are nearly the highest in the world.

    Because who are we to preach to the world when we won’t take action to lower emissions ourselves?

    Because our cold climate and long distances between destinations are not a valid excuse when comparing per capita emissions to other countries (we’re #12 out of 185 diverse nations, highest to lowest emissions rankings).

    Because waiting for others to act until the effects are unmistakenly upon us is like waiting to see the bullet train you hear is just around the corner before jumping off the tracks. When you see it, it’s too late.

    Because not acting will also prevent us from diversifying our national economy, especially at the urban level, and make it less resilient to change.

    Because not acting will increase the costs of acting with every year that goes by.

    Because not acting will continue to strengthen our dependence on finite resources, no matter what the climate does.

  • 70 Kirk // Feb 14, 2012 at 3:03 pm

    Why expand a freeway when you can expand an airport? People fly here from all over the world so they can have a secondary home in our “green city”. Comically, we even built an electric train to add more capacity.

  • 71 gman // Feb 14, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    Jeez Boo you seem to have replaced your sense of humor with a sense of fear,thats really too bad.But I have a question,because temps have been flat for the last 15yrs. and CO2 has increased by about 5% in that same period I would like to know how many years of flat or falling temps. it will take before you jump off the bandwagon? You see Boo first it was global warming and when that stopped it was climate change and then when that failed now its….wait for it….climate disruption,wow,thats a bit of a bugger isnt it.The same question was asked to Ben Santor and his answer was 15yrs. wasnt a long enough period of time and said we needed at least 17yrs.of data,I call that moving the bar.And at Durban they didnt talk too much about AGW instead the good old sustainability mime popped up again.Go figure.Are you starting to see a pattern now Boo.

  • 72 boohoo // Feb 14, 2012 at 3:15 pm

    I would add MB that not acting because someone else isn’t acting is a race to the bottom.

    Perhaps we shouldn’t let women drive either. I mean if Saudi Arabia isn’t doing it, why should we?

  • 73 boohoo // Feb 14, 2012 at 3:18 pm


    To answer your question, I have no idea. I’m not a scientist. I would imagine you aren’t either but for some reason you seem to pretend you are.

  • 74 Bill // Feb 14, 2012 at 4:08 pm

    @MB and boohoo

    Thank you for taking a stab at dealing with the question but your answers fall short:

    – per capita measures of CO2 emissions are irrelevant when it is the total amount of CO2 in the air that counts. Who contributes more in absolute terms China or Canada. If the goal is to stop total CO2 from increasing then China has to be part of the solution.

    – “Setting an example” for the rest of the world is irrelevant if no one is going to pay attention. End result is still more CO2 and we will still have to bear the cost of adaptation to climate change.

    – introducing our cold climate is irrelevant to the question.

    – the problem with your train analogy is that we can’t jump off the tracks on our own – we are joined at the hip to China and the US. If they decide not to get off the tracks then we are stuck too since we cannot reduce total CO2 emissions on our own.

    – diversifying our economy is a separate issue and should stand on its own merits and climate change is irrelevant to the decision.

    – increasing costs of CO2 reduction are only relevant if at some point in the future we undertake CO2 reduction. Given the explosion in shale gas production (no pun intended) that does not seem to be the direction the world is choosing to go.

    – reducing our dependence on “finite resources” is again a separate economic decision which must stand on its own merits.

    – boohoo – the difference is that we can choose to let whoever we want drive and will succeed in that goal and the actions of Saudi Arabia are irrelevant. Your analogy only makes sense if we could unilaterally stop climate change in Canada by taking action.

  • 75 boohoo // Feb 14, 2012 at 4:13 pm


    That’s great and all, so what’s your solution? Just throw your hands up in the air ‘meh, if China isn’t doing it, screw it’?

  • 76 gman // Feb 14, 2012 at 4:29 pm

    The University of Colorado has just released their update on sea level,kind of opportune to this discussion, there is a typo in the story,60 month should be 60 day.Links to the data are provided so those who want to can run it themselves.I know some here wont be happy with the facts but it seems to have flattened out just like the temps.

  • 77 Bill // Feb 14, 2012 at 5:11 pm

    boohoo, if one believed that AGW posed a grave danger to mankind then the logical approach would be to put pressure on those countries whose support is needed to solve the problem – China, USA and India for a start. The environmental groups would be organizing boycotts of all things produced in China and travelling there to engage in street protests. Canada would have to fall into line if China and the USA take action.

    Think about it – why use all your resources to target Canada when even if you succeed in pressuring Canada to act you will still not reach your goal of reducing CO2 emissions. Targetting Canada only makes sense if your goal is to find ways to make money on AGW.

  • 78 Everyman // Feb 14, 2012 at 7:11 pm

    Anyone follow Richmond here? If I recall there was a development proposed for Steveston, that fronted on Bayview, which is actually the dyke. There was talk of all kinds of problems caused by the requirement to raise the dyke, erego that section of the road, at the time the site was redeveloped.

  • 79 Chris Keam // Feb 14, 2012 at 9:50 pm

    “Targetting Canada only makes sense if your goal is to find ways to make money on AGW.”

    One of the longest traditions for the various environmental awareness groups in the world is summed up in the slogan “think globally, act locally” so I don’t think this suggestion that profit is the primary motive is supported by your reasoning.

    It’s also easier to make progress by picking the low-hanging fruit first. Tackling the laggards will be much easier with the weight of world opinion behind your efforts. So, we see that activism that begins at home fulfills both a philosophical aim and a tactical one.

  • 80 Chris Keam // Feb 14, 2012 at 9:53 pm

    “The environmental groups would be organizing boycotts of all things produced in China and travelling there to engage in street protests. ”

    At which point critics would level the charge of jet-setting environmentalists at them. Yet another instance of the shifting goal posts activists groups continually must deal with as their critics seek any avenue to discredit their actions.

  • 81 MB // Feb 15, 2012 at 8:56 am

    @ Bill, how convenient it is for you to separate economic and energy diversification from the climate change debate.

    I don’t think isolating these issues does any good because climate change is not a neat little self-contained package. It is all-encompassing.

    Also, what mitigation measures do you anticipate we’re talking about when you complain about “spending billions”? Shutting down the tar sands? Banning cars from our cities?

    We recently replaced our 40+ year old gas furnace with a new high-efficiency model. It cost us $5,200, and we received a $1, 200 energy rebate from the feds and the province.

    That is one of many affordable mitigation measures.

    So is incrementally introducing more public transit to our cities and attaching that to more compact forms of development. Perfectly affordable stuff here, especially when considered over a decade or two.

    Would you knock the lowly city bus and high-efficiency furnaces?

    Sure, these measures don’t have an effect on China. But I suspect the Chinese government will find out soon enough where the ceiling is on their ability to subsidize their fossil energy imports to keep their domestic fires burning, namely when the price exceeds its ability to pay.

    When that happens, China will not be the only country to realize how stupid it is to be so utterly dependent on these limited forms of energy, and how dumb it is to not utilize oil & gas as bridge fuels, therein stretching out supplies.

    So, back to mitigating sea level rise. Sheet piles driven out from the existing shoreline will help stave off short-term flooding and make it more feasible to reconstruct port infrastructure over a longer period of time. Sheet piles can be buried under well-designed stone ramparts, seawalls for pedestrians, etc.

    Richmond may have to consider becoming a floating city.

    Just hope the Ross ice sheet in Antarctica doesn’t disintegrate before the end of the century. If it does, then the sheet pile barriers will have to be over 6 metres above ccurrent high tide.

    To prevent that, the world must lower is GHG emissions soon.

  • 82 spartikus // Feb 15, 2012 at 10:19 am

    It should be noted that China is investing huge amounts in alternative energy – so much so the price of solar panels has dropped to the point where solar energy now competes with more established energy sources.

    (Ostensibly about India, this piece in Time gives good background).

    In addition to solar and hydro (Three Gorges), China is investing in research for thorium reactors, a theoretically much safer alternative to uranium/plutonium based nuclear reactors.

  • 83 Chris Keam // Feb 15, 2012 at 10:32 am

    “It should be noted that China is investing huge amounts in alternative energy”

    And rapid transit, and bike shares, and all kinds of sensible improvements to infrastructure. They are like a crack dealer plowing the profits from selling rock into their own RRSPs — securing their future by satiating our need for plastic gee-gaws. It’s blackly humorous watching our political leaders such as Harper and Clark get played for geo-political neophytes by the culture that brought you ‘The Art of War’. Too bad our kids’ futures are the punch line in this bizarre jape.

  • 84 Bill // Feb 15, 2012 at 11:31 am

    @Chris Keam #79

    “Tackling the laggards will be much easier with the weight of world opinion behind your efforts”

    Sure, China has consistently buckled under world opinion on issues, like sanctions on Syria, Tibet, human rights etc, hasn’t it.

    @MB #81

    “how convenient it is for you to separate economic and energy diversification from the climate change debate”

    That is because they are separate issues.

    @spartikus #82

    And most of those solar panels were exported to countries that were subsidizing solar energy. And those countries now have built in higher energy costs over the life of those projects all because we rushed implementation because of the climate change imperative. I have no problem in alternative energy sources that are competitive to established energy sources because those investments will stand on their own merits and not need a climate change argument to justify them.

  • 85 Chris Keam // Feb 15, 2012 at 12:32 pm


    “China’s vice-president has said his country has made progress on human rights but acknowledged there was room for improvement.”

    We’ve come a long way from Tiananmen Square and it wasn’t because we gave up when our initial efforts weren’t a raging success. Tibet’s situation has improved from years past as well.

  • 86 MB // Feb 15, 2012 at 2:21 pm

    @ Bill 84

    It’s not just climate change driven by the combustion of carbon fuels, but the diminishing supplies of conventional carbon fuels that will dictate energy policy.

    The issues are not separate because they both have (and will have greater) worldwide economic impacts. The causes may be indirectly related, but the effects are the same.

    Perhaps we have a disconnect in perceptions here.

  • 87 spartikus // Feb 15, 2012 at 4:32 pm

    MB is precisely right – China (and almost everyone else) isn’t diving into alternatives because they’ve started wearing hemp and Birkenstocks – they’re doing it for energy security.

    And if Chinese manufacturers corner the market on solar panels…well, that’s a happy side effect.

    They’ll tax the consumption end of it, but it should also be noted that oil, gas and coal production are also heavily subsidized.

    This is another good article on the plunge in price for solar, focused on Germany. Grid parity is around the corner.

  • 88 Bill // Feb 15, 2012 at 5:05 pm

    @Chris #85

    “Tibet’s situation has improved from years past as well.”

    From todays’s Financial Times:

    “In the past year, at least 23 Tibetans, most of them young monks or former monks and including three nuns, have set fire to themselves to protest religious persecution and conditions under Chinese rule.”

    “Over the past two weeks alone, seven people have set themselves alight. And two Tibetans were shot dead by police who were hunting them in connection with their role in fresh protests three weeks ago, according to Tibetan exiles and human rights groups.”

    Is this how you define improvement?

    “We’ve come a long way from Tiananmen Square and it wasn’t because we gave up when our initial efforts weren’t a raging success”

    This is an insult to all the dissidents in China who are making sacrifices to achieve basic freedoms. Every gain the Chinese people have made and will make in the future will come from their own actions. To say that external forces have played any significant role is a joke.

  • 89 Bill // Feb 15, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    @spartikus #87

    You are confusing the two issues. If there is a strong economic case (which usually means cheaper) to invest in alternative energy then I am all for it but to date it has been driven by a mandate to produce “clean” energy and has proven to be more expensive than existing sources. (although in the case of solar “clean” means ignoring the environmental degradation that goes with cheap Chinese manufacturing).

    China is also investing heavily in the oil sands and shale gas. By your logic that must mean we are on the right track with developing the oil sands and I look forward to your support of the Enbridge pipeline.

  • 90 spartikus // Feb 15, 2012 at 6:57 pm

    If there is a strong economic case (which usually means cheaper)

    Most things don’t start out right off the bat as “cheaper”. They got cheaper. Mass production, economies of scale, etc.

    The automobile, personal computers, cellphones. These all started out as things only the wealthiest could afford. But that changed.

    The issue with the tar sands isn’t that they aren’t economically viable for the oil producers. They are. Very. It’s a) that the economic cost from the environmental damage done to extract them costs more to society as a whole.

    And then there’s b)….

    China has an energy strategy. It’s maximizing access to the energy sources of today (oil and gas) while prepping for the future (solar, etc).

    Canada isn’t preparing for the post-oil future. Not in a serious way.

  • 91 Chris Keam // Feb 15, 2012 at 7:00 pm

    “Is this how you define improvement?”

    Compared to the hundreds of thousands of Tibetans who have died due to previous Chinese gov’ts… umm, yeah.

    “This is an insult to all the dissidents in China who are making sacrifices to achieve basic freedoms.”

    Hardly. If you can’t debate with some level of honesty about what was said versus what you twist things to be, there’s no point in treating bizarre conclusions such as:

    “To say that external forces have played any significant role is a joke.”

    as anything other than rhetoric delivered for no purpose other than to perpetuate an argument. Since it takes two to tango, I’ll leave you to dance alone Bill.

  • 92 spartikus // Feb 15, 2012 at 7:14 pm

    Sorry Chris, but both Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have documented a decline in civil liberties in China recently.

  • 93 spartikus // Feb 15, 2012 at 7:15 pm

    But it’s way better than Mao, yes.

  • 94 Chris Keam // Feb 15, 2012 at 7:18 pm

    Ding Mao, Reunited with Family, Thanks Those Who Worked for His Release
    China Aid Association

    (Chengdu, Sichuan—Dec. 6, 2011) Longtime political activist Ding Mao, reunited with his wife and young son after nearly 10 months of detention for forwarding Twitter messages about the Arab Jasmine Revolution, expressed thanks to all those who had contributed to his Dec. 2 release.

    ChinaAid believes that, given the history of how China’s ruling Communist authorities have handled similar cases, and especially in light of Ding’s longtime political activism and the eight years he served in prison for his dissident activities, his sudden release is clearly the result of the intervention of the international community, in particular the U.S. State Department and congressional leaders. This shows that persistent diplomacy can achieve results, and ChinaAid urges the international community to continue its efforts to win the release of all prisoners of conscience in China.

  • 95 Chris Keam // Feb 15, 2012 at 8:19 pm

    I always take the long view Spartikus. That’s why I’m heartened by the long slow move towards the ‘left’ that has even the most hardened conservative supporting positions that the most Red of pinkos would scarcely dare suggest a hundred years ago.

  • 96 MB // Feb 16, 2012 at 9:46 am

    Bill, I think you missed the point that the government of China may be currently wealthy enough to not only be the largest creditor to the US, but to subsidize its own industries to keep their products, and the energy delivered to the factories that make them, artificially low in price.

    Bitumen from the tar sands will be bought at the going rate, but the products that eminate from Chinese refineries * will never be delivered to Chinese industries at the same price as long as they can afford to apply massive subsidies.

    This is not an economic miracle, as so many fawning pundits in the Western media and governments tend to portray it. I can’t see it as anything more than a false economy, and is anything but “free” enterprise.

    China may afford to stay on this path for a while longer, but one day they’ll look into the vaults and notice that they are emptying faster as worldwide commodity prices, especially finite carbon fuels, have increased in price necessitating an increase in subsidies to Chinese industry to keep them competitive in world markets.

    Then there is the question of labour. Chinese workers are not stupid, and millions have started to question how long they can afford to work 16-hour days at minimum wage while their eyesight and joints fail prematurely, and they see their coworkers dropping with cancer from working in hostile, polluted and unsafe conditions.

    When talking about mitigating the effects of climate change over time, like sea level rise in coastal cities, one has to take the long view of everything.

    * Pity the products could’t be refined in Canada. But that’s the Canadian way: give the natural resources that belong to the people away to the highest corporate bidder as fast as possible without adding value, then state it’s unpatriotic to consider any other way.

  • 97 gman // Feb 16, 2012 at 9:59 am

    MB#82 “Just hope the Ross ice sheet in Antarctica doesn’t disintegrate before the end of the century. If it does, then the sheet pile barriers will have to be over 6 metres above ccurrent high tide.” More misinformation from you ,the Ross ice shelf is glacier fed sea ice and if the entire shelf melted it would not raise sea level at all,and for that matter if every piece of sea ice in the world melted it wouldnt have any effect on sea level as most elementary school child knows.Put some ice in a glass fill it with water let the ice melt and see what happens.Antarctic ice has been on the increase for at least the last 30yrs. since we have had satellite data.If the shelf did break off that is further proof the glacier is healthy and growing and the only way that happens is from precipitation, and the ask yourself where that moisture comes from.For you to infer the ice is melting because of CAGW is a joke,right now at the peak of the southern summer temps.are a blistering 40 below zero.So please stop trying to scare the kids.

  • 98 gman // Feb 16, 2012 at 10:15 am

    Antarctic sea ice is presently about 200% above the 30yr.average.

  • 99 Bill // Feb 16, 2012 at 10:18 am

    @Chris Keam #95

    “I always take the long view Spartikus”

    Perhaps if the Tibetans were enjoying the safety and comfort of Canada and crusading for freedom of the roads for cyclists, they too would have the luxury of taking the long view.

  • 100 Bill // Feb 16, 2012 at 10:28 am

    @MB #96

    I agree that the Chinese people will put pressure on the government to transform the economy from mainly export to consumer driven raising standards of living. However, this is just going to increase the consumption of resources and there is not going to be any consideration of climate change.

    You are wrong, though, about the impact of commodity pricing. Commodities are traded globally so increased costs due to commodity prices will affect all manufacturers so will, in itself, not affect competitiveness. Labour costs and, hopefully, higher environmental standards will.

  • 101 MB // Feb 16, 2012 at 11:00 am

    @ gman #98

    I know that you like to puncuate your ridicule with factoids and minutiae, but in this case you’re eliminating some salient information.

    An ice sheet indeed floats on the sea, and indeed, in your words, is fed by land glaciers. That is, as long as it is “grounded.”

    However, warming increases the rate of meltwater, which increases the breakup of the ice sheet (already happenin’, dude), and therein releases the “dam” (i.e. the grounded portion) that holds back land glaciers. Hence a rise in sea level over time caused first by the breakup if ice sheets.

    Moreover, the land-based glaciers have speeded up their transition to the sea in Greenland by the
    meltwater lubricating and floating them from below. I don’t have time to look up info on this trend in Antarctica, but the breakup of large ice sheets there is already well known.

    Future generations living by the sea have indeed a lot to worry about.

  • 102 gman // Feb 16, 2012 at 11:09 am

    China brings a new coal fired powerplant on line every week to support the manufacture of bird choppers and solar panels,none of these plants have any scrubbers on them to control pollution.They own 90% of all rare earth deposits in the world and a full 50% of those deposits are in China.The processing of rare earth is one of the most polluting things done on the planet,a farmer who is brought in to work in these plants has a lifespan of about one year after they begin work.China is the largest market for coal powered electric vehicles,cars and bikes,there is a new study just released from the University of Tennessee that shows in China these electric vehicles are a greater risk to health than a gas powered vehicle,more unintended consequences.The entire world is beholding to China if they want magnets for electric motors and that wont change anytime soon.

  • 103 MB // Feb 16, 2012 at 11:32 am

    @ Bill lucky #100: “Commodities are traded globally so increased costs due to commodity prices will affect all manufacturers so will, in itself, not affect competitiveness. Labour costs and, hopefully, higher environmental standards will.”

    You know Bill, I actually agree with you here. However, I think competitiveness is truer when every playing field and goal is level and equal, though that may be an impossible ideal to realize.

    Fat chance with internal economies like China’s where subsidies are enormous. Saudi Arabia also heavily subsidizes its own economy, as demonstrated by their consumption of oil; drivers there pay unheard of cheap prices at the pump (something like 25 cents a litre) , and their sons and daughters are flown off to foreign universities for free.

    However, their treasuries and cash reserves are suffering noticably with these subsidies to internal consumers, as noted by a few economists, and they’re caught now between depleting reserves of cash, and their own consumers who would revolt if the largesse taps were cinched down even a bit. SA has already invested a lot in stifling revlots.

    Saudi hasn’t been able to ramp up its oil production. In fact, the largest oil field in the world has been in decline since 2006. It’s a slow decline, but this one supergiant source of cheap conventional carbon energy will have a profound effect on the carbon-based global economy.

    Conventional oil comprises about 75% of the entire worldwide oil supply, and every single supergiant field is now in decline. So when you correctly state its traded and price-set on the world market, that price will react very sensitively to supply variations.

    Though higher prices in oil will lead to recessions, the other side is increased demand when economies attempt to grow. And, so far, alleviating demand with alternatives has led to the unsettling conclusion that economic growth will not occur without adequate energy sources. With nothing to adequately replace the bulk of the 75%, the decline curve will get steeper in future.

    So yes, competiveness is relative, but energy is what drives growth, and total energy supplies (inluding unconventional petroleum) will decrease. Therein, competition may well pertain to who will be first to arrive at a low-growth economy divorced enough from finite carbon fuels to be stable, or who will best survive a harscrapple competition for the bottom half of the cup.

  • 104 gman // Feb 16, 2012 at 11:45 am

    MB #102, you are the one who brought up Antarctica and the Ross ice shelf now I see you are referring to Greenland,these are two completely different animals,but I would be happy to address that also if you like.The fact is is that glaciers grow at the source and this is through precipitation that comes from evaporation off the oceans mostly.So most meltwater going into the oceans is recycled back to the source through precipitation.Temps. in area are below freezing as a rule so any melt comes from below such as volcanic action not from less than four one hundredths of one percent of CO2 in the atmosphere and CAGW.

  • 105 spartikus // Feb 16, 2012 at 12:47 pm

    Antarctic sea ice is presently about 200% above the 30yr.average.

    No, it’s not.

    This is from the same website as your own cite:

    Trend, 1979-2008

    Antarctic: Small increase of 0.9% (~100,000 km2; 42,000 mi2) per decade

    Arctic: Significant decrease of 4.1% (~500,000 km2; 193,000 mi2) per decade

  • 106 gman // Feb 16, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    Spartikus #106,you are correct my bad I should have said Antarctic ice not sea ice,thanks for that.Here are the Vostok on this sweltering southern summer day that might help put this in perspective.,106.87000275 What you failed to mention about the loss of arctic ice is that the Bering sea has more ice than,I think they said it rates second since sat. measures.And they attribute the loss of sea ice in other areas to wind and storm surge plus currents not temperature.

  • 107 MB // Feb 16, 2012 at 1:49 pm

    Gman, both Antarctica and Greenland exist in high lattitudes near or on a pole. The ice on both continents are governed by the same laws of physics, which never change, though the physical characteristics of each continent are different, therein their differences in reaction to the same forces.

    Are you a glaciologist? I don’t think so. Neither am I. But I trust glaciologists interpretation of the effects of climate change and its causes more than I do you and the sources you’ve provided.

    I really hope you’re right, and that we don’t have much to worry about. But don’t you agree that the best practice would to strengthen a society’s resiliency, and forge stronger links where there is weakness?

    So far, not one government has gone on record to deny that climate change isn’t caused by a carbon economy operated by humans. So far, not one government has gone on record either to acknowledge — let alone do anything about — the limitations of carbon energy supply.

    Like I said to Bill, there’s no harm in energy refit programs, putting more buses on the roads in our cities, and planning commnuities more intelligently, and lowering our dependencies on a single source of finite energy. These will not break the bank and will make our society stronger with or without China.

  • 108 gman // Feb 16, 2012 at 2:06 pm

    Spartikus in the interest of full disclosure this is where I took the 200% number from and it seems in my haste I was wrong again it is the Antarctic Peninsula sea ice double but later in the short article he refers to “the ice there “which is somewhat confusing,I hope this clears things up,but in my own defense I will require more funding in order to process the data.On the good side though Al Gore,Trenberth and Mr Virgin Airlines are down there on the case,no doubt taking photos of the summer glacier calving season.They probably wont even have to photo shop them in order to produce a very frightening picture .It should be very entertaining. Next time I will stick to the data not a headline,just like I keep preaching to others.

  • 109 spartikus // Feb 16, 2012 at 2:06 pm

    And they attribute the loss of sea ice in other areas to wind and storm surge plus currents not temperature.

    This, according to the website you linked to, is not true.

    This summer’s low ice extent continued the downward trend seen over the last 30 years. Scientists attribute this trend in large part to warming temperatures caused by climate change.

    That’s from your own cite.

  • 110 gman // Feb 16, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    Spartikus I didnt link to that older 2011 article by Serrezze,what I was referring to in my reply was this Feb.15 article. Im not trying to fool anyone Im just trying to show how many different causes that exist besides CO2 that give a better explanation to what is happening in a world that has been warming since the last ice age.

  • 111 gman // Feb 16, 2012 at 2:50 pm

    Spartikus here is 10000 yrs. of ice cores up to 95 yrs. ago,the reason it only goes to 95 yrs. ago is the ice needs 80 yrs. to compress,but we know temps. have risen about .75 degrees over the last 100 yrs. which would still put us below the little ice age temps.

  • 112 Bill // Feb 16, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    @MB #107

    “there’s no harm in energy refit programs, putting more buses on the roads in our cities, and planning commnuities more intelligently, and lowering our dependencies on a single source of finite energy. ”

    If a case can be made for these or any other policies without reference to climate change then we have no disagreement. If climate change is a necessary assumption to make a policy fly then we part company. There is nothing in this discussion to suggest that climate change will be back on the agenda during our lifetimes. In fact, just the opposite would appear to be the case as all economies will be stretched to deal with immediate issues, like health care or funding pensions, and will not be in a position to expend resources solely to “prevent” climate change.

    As an aside, it could very well be the case that we are entering a period of global cooling. I don’t think there is any doubt that this could be much more damaging than an increase in global temperatures.

  • 113 MB // Feb 16, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    @ gman #108 + 110: “I want to confirm that the results of this dye test were included in the civil drawings.” “…murdochonline …”

    May I suggest you apply to Murdoch’s News Corporation Inc. for funding, or to have your research published? His tabloid press gives a lot of column space to the anthropogenic climate change denial commnuity, and they have megatonnes of profit left over even after their multiple bribery and privacy invasion scandal payouts.

  • 114 MB // Feb 16, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    Sorry gman, my work got copied into the last post.

    Here’s the quote I thought I copied from 108:

    “I hope this clears things up,but in my own defense I will require more funding in order to process the data…”

  • 115 MB // Feb 16, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    @ Bill #112, here’s a new post in The Oil Drum that indicates graphically the kind of energy consumption that has driven the global economy since 1950.

    You can imagine the consequences if anything were to happen to that overall supply, like say shortgages in the cheapest stuff.

    Note the huge proportion that is non-renewable. Tell me we’re not blowing our inheritence like drunken frat boys on a binge.

  • 116 MB // Feb 16, 2012 at 3:20 pm

  • 117 gman // Feb 16, 2012 at 3:58 pm

    MB I sure would like to get me some of that Murdoch doe but I wont hold my CO2.Your link to Oil Drum certainly does show a large increase in consumption but unless we compare it to reserves it doesnt really mean anything.New supply is always coming on line though it is in more difficult places,Brazilian off shore finds come to mind.Like Bill said world finances will drive whatever happens and thats not looking to good right now.

  • 118 MB // Feb 17, 2012 at 10:55 am

    @ gman #117: “Your link to Oil Drum certainly does show a large increase in consumption but unless we compare it to reserves it doesnt really mean anything.New supply is always coming on line though it is in more difficult places,Brazilian off shore finds come to mind.”

    There are many comparisons, but many undemocratic countries that supply the majority of the world’s oil aren’t issuing audited stats on their reserves. When they do supply stats, the numbers remain unchanged for a decade or more, which casts doubt on their motives and therein the actual recoverable supplies.

    What we hear on most of the new discoveries are estimates that are often inflated to keep their employer’s / client’s share prices high. It’s left to independent (or retired) geologists to
    inject a little reality into the discussion.

    Offshore Brazil (and anywhere), tar sands in Alberta and Venezuela, fracked shale … all of these in total do not equal the current production of ~ 65 million barrels a day in conventional oil from the supergiants. In fact, they fall far, far short, and the evidence is that the huge expenditures required will only result in spotty production.

    Thomas Homer Dixon:

    >> … concerned analysts usually point to two basic facts. First, each year, the world’s mature conventional fields produce about four million barrels a day less oil than the previous year, a gap that has to be filled just to keep global output constant. In only five years, that gap grows to 20 million barrels a day of production – equivalent to twice Saudi Arabia’s output, which is mammoth. Second, the world’s cheap and easy-to-get oil is disappearing fast. So, on average, each additional barrel requires more work, more complex technology, more environmental risk to get and refine than the last.

    >> These two facts mean that humankind will have to invest staggering resources – many trillions of dollars – to find and produce new oil if global output is to grow steadily for decades into the future. The International Energy Agency in Paris and other analysts have been warning for years that current investment isn’t nearly enough to ensure such a supply. The result is likely to be a critical supply crunch, perhaps within this decade, which could cripple global economic growth. <<

  • 119 Chris Keam // Feb 17, 2012 at 6:29 pm

    If we like our way of life we better start thinking about how we are going to reserve fossil fuels for industrial purposes, because I suspect it’s going to be pretty tough to run heavy equipment on battery power. The energy density of oil is far too valuable to waste on urban car commuters when push comes to shove.

  • 120 Bill // Feb 18, 2012 at 1:52 pm

    “If we like our way of life we better start thinking about how we are going to reserve fossil fuels for industrial purposes”

    Do I detect you are beginning to realize that the AGW story isn’t going to fly so it’s time to try something else? Peak Oil is a more persuasive argument than AGW but it still suffers from the fact that Canada is a small consumer so that whatever we do on the consumption side is unlikely to have a significant impact on worldwide reserves.

  • 121 Chris Keam // Feb 18, 2012 at 3:46 pm

    Sorry Bill, you might want to re-calibrate your detector. Just pointing out the even if you aren’t willing to accept the conclusions of the scientific community, there’s very compelling reasons to slow down oil consumption until other energy sources become viable. In fact the only good reason NOT to slow down oil production would be if you had skin in the game.

  • 122 Bill // Feb 19, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    Chris, in reality we all have “skin in the game” either through direct employment, investments by the CPP, benefits from taxes paid by the industry etc etc. Remember, we have to generate wealth before Progressives are able to redistribute it.

  • 123 West End Gal // Feb 19, 2012 at 3:42 pm

    Chris Keam and comp. of global alarmists… let’s take this comment page over 200!
    Pay attention now: “Bike Lanes!” :-)

  • 124 gman // Feb 20, 2012 at 10:57 am

    Warmists believe in the conspiracy that a small cabal of well educated very successful CEOs are trying to misrepresent science for short term financial gain knowing full well it will destroy the planet,themselves and their customers.How absurd.Yet they are quick to believe this same cabal when they say we are past peak oil which would only increase the cabals profits due to scarcity of their product.

  • 125 gman // Feb 20, 2012 at 11:17 am

    Just some food for thought.

  • 126 MB // Feb 20, 2012 at 12:45 pm

    Thank you, gman, for exposing a little more about your personality by linking in #125 to such a well-written, respectful, fully researched and deeply intelligent gem, like

    “So, the next time you’re accosted by some eco-maniac spewing garbage about “sustainable” energy, assist her with a few facts … shale, thorium, and clathrate just for starters. Of course she’ll toss the whole carbon-green-house-hoax at you, but at least you can crush the “un-sustainable” myth right out the gate.”

    Really appreciate your high level of educated debate. Now, why don’t you go for 200 again?


    For others looking for less invective, rhetoric and commentary with good references, here’s a few headlines from today’s posting of Drumbeat:

    >Motorists hit by record surge in gas prices.

    >Concern high over global oil supplies.

    >Oil rises to nine-month high; Iran halts Europe exports.

    >Russian oil boom ending …

    >Expert: Attack on Iran means $200 per barrel oil.

    >Head of Canadian Navy says climate change boosts need for bigger presence in Arctic.

    >Veteran climate researcher sees threats.

    >Attacks paid for by big business driving science into dark era.

    >Preparing for the flood: visualizations help communities plan for sea level rise.

    >Rising tide of sea rise warnings drowned out by wave of shoreline development.

  • 127 gman // Feb 20, 2012 at 1:31 pm

    This is a very interesting study on peak oil from Citygroup inc.

  • 128 gman // Feb 20, 2012 at 1:42 pm

    MB everything in your poorly thoughtout reply has to do with the political side of supply and nothing to do with world reserves,better luck next time.

  • 129 MB // Feb 20, 2012 at 1:54 pm

    One of the premier climate denial organizations, the Heartland Institute, is currently under fire for its hypocritical stance on having its own inside correspondence made public after years of reveling in the exposure of emails illegally hacked from the University of East Anglia climate research facility. It claimed that anthropogenic climate change was “proven wrong” by the content of the emails exchanged by legitimate climate scientists, and provided a large data upload of the hacked documents on the Heartland web site. The East Anglia scientists were later completely exonerated in six independent investigations.

    Now the tables have turned. It appears an inside employee emailed certain strategy documents to non-inside sources, and the contents – with an abundance of reactionary correspondence from Heartland lawyers — are now posted on De Smog Blog in the public interest. It makes for very interesting reading for those who are concerned about the PR tactics used by Heartland and other “independent” and largely tax-free organizations funded by Big Oil, and who rely on a roster of “scientists” who have been discredited.

    A list of De Smog Blog headlines on this topic since Feb 14th is posted below.

    >Heartland Institute Exposed: Internal Documents Unmask Heart of Climate Denial Machine.

    >Heartland Insider Exposes Institute’s Budget and Strategy.

    >Fake science, fake experts, funny finances, free of tax.

    >Mashey Report Confirms Heartland’s Manipulation; Exposes [leading climate denial “scientist”] Singer’s Deception.

    >Heartland Confirms that it Mistakenly Emailed Internal Documents.

    >It’s a Bird, it’s a Hockey Stick, it’s a Faked Document; Heartland response would be a useful PR tactic.

    >Heartland Demands De Smog Blog remove “Climate Strategy” Document; DeSmog will leave them in place – in the public interest.

    And my favourite:

    Richard Littlemore
    17 February 12

    Climategate Victims Chide Heartland Double Standard

    A group of top-tier climate scientists who were victimized in the email theft known as Climategate has written to the Heartland Institute, sympathizing that the Institute is reading its own confidential documents in the public press, but chiding the “think tank” for how irresponsibly it dealt with the stolen emails.
    In a letter printed in The Guardian, the scientists say,

    As scientists who have had their emails stolen, posted online and grossly misrepresented, we can appreciate the difficulties the Heartland Institute is currently experiencing following the online posting of the organization’s internal documents earlier this week. However, we are greatly disappointed by their content, which indicates the organization is continuing its campaign to discredit mainstream climate science and to undermine the teaching of well-established climate science in the classroom.

    The signatories were Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Ray Bradley, Jonathan Overpeck, Ben Santer, Gavin Schmidt and David Karoly, a relative who’s who of climate science excellence.

    They point out that when the Climategate emails were stolen, Heartland took bits and pieces out of context (and, we would add, advocated for punitive action against the scientists on the basis of these manipulations).

    At no time did the institute suggest that the hackers who breached the East Anglia University security system to steal the emails had been in the wrong to do so.

    In the case at hand, (and as Heartland explains in its own press release) an anonymous “Heartland Insider” asked the Institute to mail the entire briefing package for its January board meeting – and Heartland complied. Having received that package, the DeSmogBlog checked the content against research we had in hand to confirm its authenticity. Then we published it – in its entirety, so there could be no doubt about the context – on our website on Valentines’s Day.

    The scientists conclude their letter by saying:

    “The Heartland Institute has chosen to undermine public understanding of basic scientific facts and personally attack climate researchers rather than engage in a civil debate about climate change policy options.

    “We hope the Heartland Institute will begin to play a more constructive role in the policy debate. Refraining from misleading attacks on climate science and climate researchers would be a welcome first step toward.”

  • 130 gman // Feb 20, 2012 at 2:13 pm

    MB thats a big cut and paste,to bad its false.And if desmog had any ethics they would have done some fact checks before they put this out.The good news is that heartland have already served notice and the perpetrators of this fraud and the creation of the fraudulent document will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.Maybe you should do some due diligence before you post such things as what is now known as “FraudGate”

  • 131 gman // Feb 20, 2012 at 2:25 pm

    MB I would further point out that the climategate e mails were released from publicly funded entities and addresses and phone numbers were redacted,Heartland is privately funded which makes this two completely different incidents.By the way there is no evidence that the climategate e mails were stolen or hacked,it seems more likely they were released by an insider who was fed up with the BS. Better luck next time.

  • 132 MB // Feb 20, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    @ gman #128, I think the articles I linked to have everything to do with supply constraints and climate change.

    Nonetheless, thanks for the good link to the Citigroup piece.

    But in scanning the entire report I see a loss of sight for the big picture: That the supergiants oil fields of the world (i.e. the cheap easy stuff) are in decline, and a lot of praise for tiny (by comparison) new oil production in Kashagan, Nigeria + Angola, and non OPEC countries,, countries that are producing less than 500,000 barrels a day.

    The world demand is currently about 88 million barrels a day which is being met . I have yet to see any reports that indicate alternatives will meet, let alone sustain or exceed, that figure.

    The overrated Bakken produces enough oil to keep the world economy turning for … 54 days. Whoa! Granted, that’s a lot for the US, or even North America, but the world? C’mon.

    The report cites extensively the International Energy Agency, which is the chief adviser organization to governments.

    The IEA itself also warned the world about peak oil. Citigroup failed to pick up on that too.

    There are large estimated reserves of natural gas, but these will surely be exploited a far higher rates once gas becomes the #1 substitute for dwindling cheap oil reserves.

    And that leadds to my last but often made observation that the oil optimists regularly downplay or ignore price. This report did publish one price | demand graph )p.4) that clearly indicates a relationship between higher oil prices and lower economic performance.

    In fact, all the recessions over the past century have this inverse proportionality relationship. So, oil exploration and other inventments are good, economically speaking, but the rising consumer price of oil is bad.

    Just wait ’til the environmental chickens come home to roost on the shoulders of our grandhildren.

  • 133 MB // Feb 20, 2012 at 2:43 pm

    Your issue isn’t with me, gman. It’s with De Smog.

  • 134 gman // Feb 20, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    MB it seems everyone is jump from your sinking ship LOL.

  • 135 spartikus // Feb 20, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    I’d read that Andrew Weaver/Neil Swart article again, gman.

    “It is absolutely essential that we make a rapid transition to renewal energy,” Swart says. “If we continue to commit to this fossil fuel pathway, then the amount of global warming is going to be significant.”

  • 136 gman // Feb 20, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    Spartikus, “In their paper, Swart and Weaver conclude the impact of burning all the economically viable proven reserve of Alberta’s oilsands — all 170 billion barrels — would be negligible. Burning all the proven reserve between 2012 and 2062, they say, would raise global temperatures by just 0.02 C to 0.05″ Two to five one hundredths of a degree,run for your lives the end is nigh.

  • 137 spartikus // Feb 20, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    Yes, they concluded burning coal is the major danger to climate.

    Of note, they only calculated the effect to environment from burning they oil. They didn’t include the effect and cost of extracting it.

    They conclude, per above, that we must transition to renewables as quickly as possible.

    I’m not sure how this constitutes “jumping from sinking ship”.

  • 138 gman // Feb 20, 2012 at 4:42 pm

    Spartikus I would say they are trying to save face but can no longer hide the truth.They are already suffering the wrath of the warmist bloggers.I guess there wont be anymore invites to far off exotic places,and their funding will go the way of the dodo.Coal dosnt really pertain to this conversation,but Im used to the changes of subject when we have these conversations,this one started with sea level rise due to global warming,go figure.

  • 139 gman // Feb 20, 2012 at 5:37 pm

    Heres the mean sea level for Vancouver,its been rising at a blistering rate of 0.27 mm per year.

  • 140 spartikus // Feb 20, 2012 at 7:01 pm

    Perhaps you could be so kind and provide us with an definition of mean sea level and how it differs from other measures of sea levels?

  • 141 gman // Feb 20, 2012 at 11:01 pm

    Spartikus,from the NOAA link,if you go to the bottom and click on “What is sea level ?” The term Mean Sea Level (MSL) can also refer to a tidal datum, or frame of vertical reference defined by a specific phase of the tide. Tidal datums are locally-derived based on observations at a tide station, and are typically computed over a 19-year period, known as the National Tidal Datum Epoch (NTDE). The present 19-year reference period used by NOAA is the 1983-2001 NTDE. Tidal datums must be updated at least every 20-25 years due to global sea level rise. Some stations are more frequently updated due to high relative sea level trends. Tidal datums are the basis of marine boundaries, are used as a vertical reference plane in producing nautical charts, and provide important baseline information for observing changes in sea level over time. MSL as a tidal datum is computed as a mean of hourly water level heights observed over 19-years. Monthly means are generated in the datum calculation process, which are used to generate the relative local sea level trends observed here. Click here for more information on tidal datums.Spartikus I hope this helps and also shows how many different factors are involved.And we havnt even talked about subsidence and the damming of rivers causing the restriction of silt as has happened in Bangladesh.

  • 142 Fred // Feb 21, 2012 at 8:14 am

    The cost of global warming hysteria and fear mongering.

    First it was $millions diverted from School and Hospital budgets to buy Carbon Indulgences, I mean credits.

    Now it is add costs to raise individual building pads by 1000 millimeters to combat oceans that are rising by 300mm per century.

    But that’s not why this is really stuck-on stupid. So we raise our houses and leave our streets flooded?

    Hire a few Dutch Hydraulic Engineers as consultants and they can provide some adult supervision to the greenie-kiddie crew currently infesting city hall planning.


  • 143 Horny toad // Feb 21, 2012 at 9:31 am

    The mayor of Delta was on TV suggesting that if you look at the old farmhouses in Delta they were ALL built on elevated land. Why? Because the land has been prone to flooding forever. And there was lots of land to choose from. Now that housing is more dense they decided to build anywhere.
    GMGW can crowe all he/she likes about globull warming etc. The fact is it isn’t happening nor is the sea level rising.

  • 144 gman // Feb 21, 2012 at 10:01 am

    Looks like this story has made the big time.And shock of all shocks the math dosnt work.

  • 145 Bill // Feb 21, 2012 at 12:06 pm


    “Your issue isn’t with me, gman. It’s with De Smog.”

    So you have no responsibility in passing on a lie? Of course if you are on a crusade to save mankind, what is the problem with a faked memo if it is all in the cause. No doubt it makes the hockey stick graph palatable.

  • 146 MB // Feb 21, 2012 at 12:21 pm

    @ Bill: “So you have no responsibility in passing on a lie?”

    That applies to anyone who proports to be telling the “truth” about climate change while citing sources funded by billionaire fossil fuel executives.

    BTW, I’m not on any crusade. It’s just that I cannot see much solid backing in the references supplied by deniers like gman.

    If there were legitimate data supplied by ligitimate climate scientists that legitimately refutes the published science behind climate change, I’d believe it.

    So far, a lot of rhetoric by the semi-literate PR drones defending special interests, but zip science reviewed by climate scientists.

    And Bill, PR is not science.

  • 147 MB // Feb 21, 2012 at 12:47 pm

    @ gman | ‘What’s Up With That?’

    Once again I don’t see any citations to real research to back the assertion that sea level is not rising in your link (#143). Just one or two cherry picked graphs, a smidgin of cherry picked data, and a lot of pumped up and amateurish negativity in the comments section.

    Where is the extensive list of confirmable references to the research need to refute the extensive research into sea level rise and human-intitated climate change?

    The only thing valid I found was the Segway into seismic issues. But not one peep about the RATE of sea level increase, … or perhaps that was a denial. Denial is cheap.

    A few millimetres this decade may well become a few centimeters by mid-century, with an overall increase possibly topping 2 metres by 2099.

    That, along with the assertions backed by a huge amount of research performed by thousands of real scientists not beholden to the oil industry, saying we are well on the road to exceed 2 degrees average temps by 2100 — these are the things that you and all the other drones have to counter on the same level playing field as the scientists.

    So far you have failed to provide adequate references to support your often outrageous claims, but you get a A+ for ridicule and bluster.

    No one is saying skepticism is not a good thing, least of all climate scientists. But you can expect to be called out when attempting to supplant scientific method with political ideology.

    Can’t you do better than that?

  • 148 spartikus // Feb 21, 2012 at 2:39 pm

    gman #141

    Yes that’s one of it’s meanings in scientific terms, but what does that mean in layman’s terms?

    And perhaps you could explain why the Mean Sea Level was + 0.09 ft 1910-2010 for Vancouver…

    …while +0.19 ft for Victoria…and -0.56 for Tofino…

    …+3.11 for Kushiro, Japan. Etc.

    Hint: Land also moves.

    Perhaps you could enlighten us as why the same organization the data your cite is based on tells us the increase in the global sea level averaged 1.7mm/yr for most of the 20th Century, increasing to 3.1mm/yr in the 1990s.

  • 149 gman // Feb 21, 2012 at 4:06 pm

    MB if NOAA,NASA,The University of Colorado Boulder,Topex,Jason-1,Jason-2 satellite data and UHA aren’t “REAL SCIENTISTS” maybe you could tell me where the real ones are hiding.And yes MB the sea level has been rising since the last ice age thats no big discovery,the big question is why has it stopped and why have temps. been flat for 15yrs. while at the same time CO2 has been increasing?

  • 150 gman // Feb 21, 2012 at 4:25 pm

    Spartikus Im not sure what your problem is I said there are many different factors involved and linked to the site that monitors sea levels.Its obvious you need to do a little more research to educate yourself instead of trying for some silly “GOTCHA” moment.But I will give you another link that shows how it varies around the globe all the time.

  • 151 gman // Feb 21, 2012 at 6:36 pm

    This is just to funny,apparently the criminal fraudster who fraudulently obtained private e mails and also forged documents then released them has turned himself in.It turns out to be Dr.Gleick at the AGU,now heres the kicker,he is the chair of the “Taskforce on Scientific Ethics” .That says it all. :-) ” On Thursday, 16 February, prior to his blog post, Dr. Gleick resigned as chair of AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics, which first convened in November 2011. In his resignation, he cited “personal, private reasons” and expressed concern that he would not be able to fulfill his responsibilities as chair. His resignation was accepted.”

  • 152 MB // Feb 22, 2012 at 11:14 am

    @ gman: “…the sea level has been rising since the last ice age thats no big discovery,the big question is why has it stopped and why have temps. been flat for 15yrs. while at the same time CO2 has been increasing?”

    Is that a joke? I challenge you to email that line to Andrew Weaver at UVic, and post his response. (office manager, School of Earth and Ocean Sciences)

    Be forwarned: He may choose to post your correspondence on his Wall of Hate, on which is pinned many fluttering letters and emails from the denial community … alongside the notes from religious nutbars claiming his admonishment to lower emissions will delay the Apolcalypse and postpone the second coming.

  • 153 spartikus // Feb 22, 2012 at 1:11 pm

    I said there are many different factors involved

    Hi gman,

    Your first comment on the complexity of sea levels (#97) was that it was something elementary school children grasp.

    In #149 you’ve* taken a year dip (and it goes up at the end!) and pronounced it as proof the trendline is over. Interestingly the University of Colorado continues to insist global sea levels are rising 3mm/yr on the front page by a variety of measures.

    Your #150 from the U.S. Navy shows sea levels rising across the majority of the area of the world’s oceans.

    *Actually you’re just repeating former FOX weatherman Anthony Watts.

  • 154 gman // Feb 22, 2012 at 3:38 pm

    MB your an idiot,why dont you e mail Prof.Phil Jones at UEA and he can tell you that there has been no statistically significant rise in temp. for 15 yrs.,because you seem to be incapable of reading a simple graph.

  • 155 gman // Feb 22, 2012 at 3:51 pm

    Spartikus go back and read what I said #97,I was talking about melting sea ice.As for the rest you just dont get it and I dont think you ever will.But you stay scared and keep paying your carbon indulgences.

  • 156 Frances Bula // Feb 22, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    @gman. Just a gentle reminder. It should be written “MB, you’re an idiot,” not “MB your an idiot.”

  • 157 MB // Feb 22, 2012 at 4:32 pm

    Sticks and stone, gman.

    I have a better idea. Let’s encourage Mssrs. Weaver and Jones to talk to each other. Still better, get all the Earth Sciences folks at both Uvic and U East Anglia to talk to each other.

    Wait … they’ve probably already done that, and more than once.

    And your graph (report + author unidentified, unsurprisingly), the trend line is upwards.

    Keep trying, maestro you’ll get to 200 yet.

  • 158 spartikus // Feb 22, 2012 at 4:33 pm

    why dont you e mail Prof.Phil Jones at UEA and he can tell you that there has been no statistically significant rise in temp. for 15 yrs

    Hi Gman,

    That is not correct.

  • 159 MB // Feb 22, 2012 at 4:34 pm

    @ Frances … thank you for caring about proper grammer even when well past #100!

  • 160 Frances Bula // Feb 22, 2012 at 4:39 pm

    @MB. This is the most fun thread in a long time. Can’t believe people are arguing about this when it is the provincial authorities and the city engineer who have adjusted the building regulations for sea-level rise. This is not theoretical stuff. I presume the “grammer” is a joke. Don’t make me start issuing grades.

  • 161 Bill // Feb 22, 2012 at 5:09 pm

    @MB #146

    “And Bill, PR is not science.”

    And advocacy is not science either. But it is clear the AGW lobby is seeing the momentum slip away if someone of the stature of Gleick feels compelled to engage in posting fraudulent and stolen documents.

  • 162 jolson // Feb 23, 2012 at 1:08 pm

    Thanks Frances,
    I am reminded by this e-mail thread of the two bald men who had an argument over the nature of a comb!

    Einstein was famous for his “thought experiments” which were always illustrative of physical laws. Likewise we should “think” about the actions that need to be taken by the City of Vancouver in the “event of Sea Level Rise”. What actions will be required?

    For example take the situation of the False Creek Basin in the year 2100AD. Eighty eight years hence with seas that are predicted to be 2-3 meters higher than they are today. Obviously we cannot wait that long before taking action because sea level rise is an incremental process.

    Where do we begin? Here is a list of some of the stakeholders involved; the Parks and Recreation Department, City Engineering for water, sewer, and storm water infrastructure, BC Hydro, BC Gas, BC Tel, various cable providers, the Coast Guard, the Burrard Indian Band, CMHC for Granville Island, numerous strata councils representing 40,000+housing units, City owned social housing projects, the City of Vancouver School Board, False Creek Marina, Stamps Landing, the 2010 Athletes Village, Telus World, Van City Head Office, Translink, Skytrain, Via Rail, Downtown Streetcar, an assortment of land speculators, PavCorp for BC Place, the Plaza of Nations, the Casino, the Round House Community Centre, more marinas, the False Creek Ferry, the False Creek Port Authority, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada, and perhaps a dozen more groups that I have forgotten or don’t even know about.

    Who do you think will sort this out? Will it be the Planning Department with a focus on the latest developer master planning exercise? I doubt it. Will it be the politicians from three different levels of government, one of which seems to be a climate change denier? Very difficult.

    What are the options? Raise the seaside walk way system? Not all that feasible. Build a high tide sea barrier across English Bay? Not all that palpable but does create opportunities. By the way don’t forget inundation from other directions like Kitsalano and Burrard Inlet, oh and don’t forget to start pumping the False Creek Flats which will be below sea level and filling with storm water, oh and maybe speed up combined sewer separation to avoid effluent flows into the basin, oh and maybe start to worry about the effects of not flushing the Creek with sea water, the loss of salinity, the death of marine critters, back flow into the Hinge Park wetland and up First Avenue……….and so forth.

    Not a pretty picture. Can you imagine the lawsuits? The court cases lasting decades, the billions in costs, the resulting additional carbon emissions using increasingly expensive fossil fuels? We really do not have the luxury of arguing about these things, we need to act now, because it will take decades to identify corridors for dikes, to acquire land rights, to gain approvals from authorities having jurisdiction, to raise funds for constructions. Are we to become the hapless Venetians of the west coast up to our knees in sea water? Or are we to become the leaders in adaptation strategies marketing expertise across the planet? We can be the green economy if we think about it.

  • 163 MB // Feb 23, 2012 at 2:22 pm

    @ Frances, A+ for pointing out regulatory bodies have accepted climate change as real and have already acted. I still believe local government and the people are ahead of senior governments on this issue, including the freeway-building — but carbon-taxing — BC government.

    But I also note that not one government anywhere — not even Harper’s, whose members are acting as though they want to secure positions in Suncor’s board room after retiring from politics — has denied ACC.

    Yes, I was wondering what one-liners Niles Crane would have made to certain postulations made above. Hence, Kelsey GrammEr. I know, pretty lame … but I was tired.

  • 164 MB // Feb 23, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    @ Bill #161: “But it is clear the AGW lobby is seeing the momentum slip away if someone of the stature of Gleick feels compelled to engage in posting fraudulent and stolen documents.”

    Richard Litlemore with DeSmogBlog:

    >>Evaluation shows “Faked” Heartland Climate Strategy Memo is Authentic

    >>A line-by-line evaluation of the Climate Strategy memo, which the Heartland Institute has repeatedly denounced as a “fake” shows no “obvious and gross misstatements of fact,” as Heartland has alleged. On the contrary, the Climate Strategy document is corroborated by Heartland’s own material and/or by its allies and employees.

    >>It also uses phrases, language and, in many cases, whole sentences that were taken directly from Heartland’s own material. Only someone who had previous access to all of that material could have prepared the Climate Strategy in its current form.

    >>In all the circumstances – taking into account Peter Gleick’s explanation of the origin of the Heartland documents, and in direct contradiction of Heartland’s stated position – DeSmogBlog has concluded that the Climate Strategy memo is authentic.<<

    An extensive analysis follows the above introductory paragraphs.

  • 165 MB // Feb 23, 2012 at 2:53 pm

    @ Bill, in case you wanted to debate the Heartland Institute’s well-funded climate denial PR campaign in detail, I urge you to contact Brendan DeMelle, Managing Editor, DeSmogBlog at, or 206 | 588 | 2580.

  • 166 gman // Feb 23, 2012 at 6:15 pm

  • 167 gman // Feb 23, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    Entity USD
    Greenpeace $300m 2010 Annual Report
    WWF $700m ” ($524m Euro)
    Pew Charitable Trust $360m 2010 Annual Report
    Sierra Club $56m 2010 Annual Report
    NSW climate change fund (just one random govt example) $750m NSW Gov (A$700m)
    UK university climate fund (just another random govt example) $360m UK Gov (£234 m)
    Heartland Institute $7m (actually $6.4m)
    US government funding for climate science and technology $7,000m “Climate Money” 2009
    US government funding for “climate related appropriations” $1,300m USAID 2010
    Annual turnover in global carbon markets $120,000m
    2010 Point Carbon
    Annual investment in renewable energy $243,000m
    2010 BNEF
    US government funding for skeptical scientists $ 0

  • 168 gman // Feb 23, 2012 at 6:31 pm

  • 169 gman // Feb 23, 2012 at 7:00 pm

    Finally, Gavin A. Schmidt, the NASA climate scientist who leads the RealClimate blog, echoed these (and my) views in a response to a RealClimate comment on the Heartland saga by one of his readers:

    Gleick’s actions were completely irresponsible and while the information uncovered was interesting (if unsurprising), it in no way justified his actions. There is an integrity required to do science (and talk about it credibly), and he has unfortunately failed this test. The public discussion on this issue will be much the poorer for this – both directly because this event is (yet) another reason not to have a serious discussion, but also indirectly because his voice as an advocate of science, once powerful, has now been diminished

  • 170 MB // Feb 23, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    @ gman: “There is an integrity required to do science (and talk about it credibly), and he [Gleick] has unfortunately failed this test. …”

    Link please. Real Climate is good. But it’s necessary to read that comment in the context of the entire article … if it was even posted on RC.

    And with her dripping sarcasm and ridicule, I’d not rate Joanne Nova’s crediblity very high, or even remotely professional. She cannot be taken seriously,

    Yes, Mr. Gleick was initially sent a document from Heartland by mistake. No issue there. He then posed as someone else to obtain more documents. The posing is the issue, and he has been rightly called out and denounced. But the original document stands.

    Oh yeah, funding. So, let’s get this straight. the Heartland Institute, a non-science PR organization, gets $7 million — er $6.4 million — income from one of the Koch brothers (surmising here, they don ‘t publish the identities of their industrial donors, but it’s an educated guess) AND a tax break?

    Go figure.

  • 171 MB // Feb 23, 2012 at 7:25 pm

    We’re only going in circles here. Do you still want to continue, gman?

    Then be my guest and buzz around the thin warming air with two right wings.

  • 172 spartikus // Feb 23, 2012 at 7:29 pm

    Hi Gman,

    Your #166 – that’s interesting. In fact awhile ago I charted the budget of Greenpeace and the WWF [combined] vs. the annual budget of Exxon and British Petroleum [not combined] on my humble, humble blog.

    It’s a bit like comparing the Earth to Jupiter and Saturn, but so it goes.

    I was wondering, too, if you had any follow-up to your claim about Phil Jones, which as you know I have shown to be in error.


  • 173 spartikus // Feb 23, 2012 at 7:36 pm

    Do you still want to continue, gman?

    gman’s doing Exxon’s God’s work

  • 174 gman // Feb 23, 2012 at 7:53 pm

    Spartikus,I didnt know Exxon and BP spent their entire annual budget on climate realism,thanks for the heads up. And about Phil,was he telling the truth in his first interview with the BBC or the second one that you refer to.This is fun after all.

  • 175 gman // Feb 23, 2012 at 8:22 pm

    At least we know Greenpeace spends our money wisely.!

  • 176 gman // Feb 23, 2012 at 8:36 pm

    MB #171, maybe you should read it again or have someone read it to you.I guess you think others here wont read the link and depend on your misrepresentation.You could be right but it gets a little tired.

  • 177 MB // Feb 24, 2012 at 9:07 am

    Gman, just want some proper context on what is made to appear like a direct quote — without quotation marks.

    Anyway, the issue I have with Heartland is nothing more than accountability and transparency. The “fake” document begs the question, What is their “real” budget, and where does it come from? After all, the US public subsidizes their PR operations with tax breaks.

    All climate science organizations regularly account for their funding as a matter of qualification for public grants.

    Now I just know you’ll have a diversion or a weak comeback to that, like a pink bunny beating a single drum.

  • 178 Bill // Feb 24, 2012 at 9:14 am

    @MB #163

    “I still believe local government and the people are ahead of senior governments on this issue”

    I would say it is the other way around – the senior governments have realized that we cannot afford policies that are developed to reduce carbon emissions and are reversing direction. The collapse of the Western Climate Initiative is just one example. Local governments do not have the same economic pressures as the senior governments since their tax base is much more stable.

    As for the people, any polls I have seen show climate change falling off the radar screens there as well.

    @spartikus #172

    I think you may be comparing apples and oranges again. Are those the lobbying effort budgets of Exxon and BP or their total expenditures?

  • 179 spartikus // Feb 24, 2012 at 10:06 am

    Bill – it’s a straight comparison of the total budgets of all 4 organizations. Greenpeace and WWF have overhead too. Not everything they spend is on advertising. Or even most things. The WWF spends a lot of it’s budget on programs that directly support wildlife. Putting radio collars on tigers, and so on.

    For the record, between January 1, 2010 to October 20, 2010 ExxonMobil spent $32 million on advertising and BP spent $125 million.

    That’s straight up advertising. That does not include lobbying governments. That does not include the funding of foundations.

    The idea that environmental organizations are behemoths in terms of power and influence is not born out by even a cursory examination of the facts.

  • 180 jolson // Feb 24, 2012 at 10:07 am

    Blogging comes at an environmental cost. Servers do not run on thin air, they consume 3% of available energy, most of which is created by burning fossil fuels and thereby producing even more carbon emissions. We don’t all live on mountain tops or on sailing boats, 3.5 billion of us live in cities at sea level. We can adapt to rising sea levels. Go back to #162 and start over because we need you to apply your brilliance to a real problem, after that start thinking about carbon reduction strategies.

  • 181 gman // Feb 24, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    In order for sea level to increase 3meters by 2100,88 yrs. from now,sea level rise would have to increase from the present rate of 3mm per year to 34mm per year.I think they might want to check their models.

  • 182 MB // Feb 24, 2012 at 3:25 pm

    @ jolson #162: “Are we to become the hapless Venetians of the west coast up to our knees in sea water? Or are we to become the leaders in adaptation strategies marketing expertise across the planet?”

    Thanks for engaging the issues, jolson.

    One idea would be to build a sea barrier 10, 50, 100 or ??? metres out from the existing shore using two or three parrallel rows of sheet piles, then reinforcing the barrier with rock. Parts of the existing False Creek seawall was constructed this way.

    This is an affordable solution that could be implemented incrementally over several decades, and designed to be extended outward and vertically with more rows of sheet piles and rock as the sea rises further. It could function as a beautifully designed seawall with a landscaped walkway on top using quality materials, or be left as an industrial scale eyesore like most rip rap sea barriers are. Nevertheless, ideas like this will have to be considered.

    Gates for ships could be installed at intervals with locks, but that implies the existing waterfront industrial, commercial and residential development would remain, and that the economy still functions on globalized growth fueled by cheap fossil fuels.

    But, the increasing volume of evidence points to diminishing and more expensive natural resources and much upheaval in national and global financial resources as they deal with massive debt, so it behoves us to get out of the red-plaid jacket lumberjack mentality and actually get creative about an economy where growth is slower and much more constrained on several fronts.

    Having said that, maintaining the existing waterfront infrastructure may be possible for a limited time, but eventually facilities would have to be rebuilt, possibly by extending the existing piles | caissons structures like Waterfron Centre and Canada Place currently on vertically, but that has to be coordinated with protecting or mitigating older historic districts a little further inland.

    A sea barrier would only be feasible to a maximum height. I can’t predict what that may be, but it will buy coastal cities like Vancouver several decades, perhaps more than a half-century to figure out what to do with the hundreds of billions in urban assets and agricultural soils that would otherwise be inundated.

    Raising existing dikes will be a very short term fix. Thinking beyond that is, as you said, required if not today, then soon.

  • 183 MB // Feb 24, 2012 at 3:31 pm

    @ jolson: “I am reminded by this e-mail thread of the two bald men who had an argument over the nature of a comb!”

    Well, I hope you weren’t referring to me. I’m almost 60 and still have a full head of ungrey hair.

  • 184 MB // Mar 5, 2012 at 3:24 pm

    @ gman, way back in this thread you linked to a CitiGroup report that countered the “theory” of peak oil by iterating there is lots of oil in the shale deposits of North Amercia, enough to offset any concerns about a worldwide peak in cheap conventional oil supplies.

    Well, now we have a report in Forex Pros that directly counters the CitiGroup report.

    Here are the introductory paragraphs and the link:


    >> In its February 15 report ‘Resurging North American Oil Production’, Citigroup’s analysts claimed that the shale gas boom was set to morph into a shale oil boom. The report said: “The concept of peak oil is being buried in North Dakota, which is now leading the US to be the fastest growing oil producer in the world. The belief that global oil production has peaked, or is on the cusp of doing so, has underpinned much of crude oil’s decade-long rally (setting aside the 2008 sell-off)”.

    >> Only 14 days later however the US Energy Department, which in January cut its estimates for likely recoverable shale gas from the USA’s giant Marcellus Basin by 66%, and nationwide shale numbers by 42% from previous EIA estimates, released its report on world oil market trends. This contained an array of peak oil-friendly facts and figures.<<

Leave a Comment