How global warming might transform Vancouver’s shoreline

Bing Thom Architects has investigated how global warming might transform Vancouver’s shoreline if no dikes are built.

Granville Island, Kitsilano and Jericho beaches, the Stanley Park seawall, the Downtown Eastside, and the port all help to define Vancouver in the eyes of the world. But try to imagine what this city would look like if all of these local landmarks were underwater.

Ridiculous, you say? Perhaps. But it’s not so far-fetched if all of Greenland’s glaciers were to disappear, causing sea levels to rise—and if Vancouver didn’t take steps to ameliorate the effects.

Media outlets regularly report on the impact of global warming on polar-bear habitat in northern Canada. Occasionally, there’s a startling news story about melting ice in Antarctica or raging forest fires in Greece or Spain. But most Vancouver residents don’t see climate change having a huge impact within city limits.

Bing Thom Architects is trying to change that. The firm’s executive director, Michael Heeney, sustainability expert Eileen Keenan, and planner Andy Yan have researched the effects of a rising sea level on Vancouver’s land mass. And they’ve discovered that different levels have radically different effects.

The firm was able to conduct this research thanks to the city’s open-data catalogue, which makes information about the shoreline available on the city’s Web site. Heeney, Keenan, and Yan recently visited the Georgia Straight office to talk about their work, which examined the impact of sea level rising in one-metre increments up to seven metres. Yan described their research as a “tool kit and an atlas for discussion”.

They began with a slide showing an 1898 map of Vancouver. At that time, the waterline of False Creek extended far east of Main Street, almost reaching what is now Clark Drive. The area now called False Creek Flats was later reclaimed. “Cities in history have seen changes in their shorelines, whether you’re in London or whether you’re in Greece,” Yan commented. “That change is inevitable.”

Another slide indicated what would happen to Vancouver’s land mass with a one-metre rise in sea level. The effects were relatively modest: a loss of waterfront over the city’s entire shoreline. There was also a sizable patch of lost land in tidal flats on the southwest side of the city.

Keenan, who chairs the Vancouver planning commission, pointed out that sea levels are based on average tide, but climate change will be accompanied by increased storm surges. “You have to add on high tide and the impact of a storm to look at the development area that will be impacted,” she said.

The firm’s next slide showed what would happen with a two-metre increase in sea level. It revealed the loss of Musqueam land southwest of the UBC campus, along with a slightly expanded band of lost land along the shoreline. At a three-metre rise, there are more noticeable effects: Kitsilano Beach, waterfront area along Point Grey Road, Jericho Beach, much of Southlands, and parts of South Vancouver between Marpole and Knight Street vanish into the sea.

More dramatic impacts appear on the next slide, which shows the city with a four-metre rise in sea level. Stanley Park becomes an island separated from the West End. Granville Island and part of the port disappear. And in an echo of the past, False Creek extends across Main Street.

Yan explained that, historically, Vancouver buildings have usually been placed at least two metres away from the water. But if sea levels rise higher than that, the impact will be great. “How do you reset the city and actually rebuild another two metres back from the new shoreline?” he said. “Again, perhaps that’s one of the biggest challenges.”

Things start looking a little surreal with a five-metre rise in sea level. False Creek now extends almost to Clark Drive. A tiny isthmus connects East Vancouver with the downtown peninsula. The port, along with most of the Downtown Eastside and Gastown, no longer exists. The beach at Spanish Banks and the nearby park are gone.

At a six-metre rise, the downtown peninsula becomes a second large island beside Stanley Park. With a seven-metre rise, the northeast side of the city forms another island, creating an archipelago effect.

Heeney and Keenan emphasized that these projections assume that no measures will be taken to reduce the impact of a rising sea. They pointed out that governments can easily take steps to adapt to these changes, but it will require smart planning. “For sure, people are going to be building dikes,” Heeney said. “So you don’t want to be overly alarmist.”

Keenan noted that the Netherlands has successfully dealt with being below sea level at a relatively low cost. She said she attended a conference where a Dutch delegate told her that flood-protection measures cost less than 0.2 percent of the country’s gross domestic product. “They’ve had to build dikes and pumps and things like that,” she said. “We’re perfectly capable of doing that.”

The City of Vancouver has exerted enormous effort to mitigate climate change by reducing overall emissions, achieving the percentage reduction allotted to Canada in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. For that, Vancouver was named the most sustainable city in Canada by Corporate Knights magazine. However, the city has not focused as much attention on adapting to climate change, with council receiving a single report on the topic, in 2008.

Bing Thom Architects has demonstrated that under most of the rising-sea-level scenarios the greatest loss would be to industrial land and to the limited agricultural land in Southlands if no measures were taken to turn back the tides. If sea level were to rise by three metres, the city would lose four percent of its total land base but 16 percent of its industrial land. At a four-metre rise in sea level, 30 percent of the industrial land would disappear, and this would rise to 55 percent with a five-metre rise in sea level.

Heeney, a member of the Vancouver Economic Development Commission, said that the city’s industrial-land base provides a large number of well-paying jobs, which is why planners should pay attention to this issue. “We have an affordability problem,” he said. “That affordability problem has two sides—one is the cost of real estate, the other is median salaries. We have to be working at both ends.”

So what is the likelihood of dramatically higher sea levels? According to Hadi Dowlatabadi, a professor at UBC’s Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, a key consideration is what happens to the glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. In a phone interview with the Straight, Dowlatabadi explained that as the oceans absorb more heat, they will expand. “Our current thoughts are that the amount of heat that is being absorbed by the oceans has already committed us to a sea-level rise of 40 or 50 centimetres this century,” he said.

That’s infinitesimal compared to a seven-metre sea-level rise that would result from the melting of all the glaciers in Greenland, and a 70-metre rise in sea level if all the glaciers disappeared from Antarctica. Dowlatabadi, a mathematician who creates quantitative models, said the UN–mandated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relied on an older model to assess the melting of all glaciers around the world. He estimated that using this approach would add another 50-centimetre rise in sea level by the end of the century.

However, he said that scientists who have measured Greenland’s glaciers more carefully have discovered that water is flowing to the bottom, creating a lubricant between the ice and rock and facilitating more rapid movement of ice toward the ocean. He said that the people who have done this measurement have concluded that this could lead to a 1.5- to 3-metre increase in sea level by the end of the century. But Dowlatabadi emphasized that it’s still unclear if this lubricating process is occurring in all the glaciers in Greenland or in just those that have been studied.

“The people who like the new method took their stuff to NASA,” Dowlatabadi said. “So if you go to the Web, you’ll see pictures of Florida with a three-metre sea-level rise. It’s all visualized.”

He described those doing the measurements in Greenland as “good scientists”, but he added that there are other complicating factors. For example, there are questions about whether the clouds act like a good thermostat and attenuate the impact of rising carbon-dioxide levels, which can alleviate climate change. He also said that he wonders if any processes that might keep the global temperature from rising have their own impacts on the Earth. “One of the things you would be doing is evaporating a lot more water,” Dowlatabadi said.

That water vapour, which is a greenhouse gas, is normally transported away from the equator and toward the poles. If it turns into snow falling on Greenland, this will delay the net melting of the glaciers.

Regardless, Dowlatabadi said he expects False Creek Flats to experience flooding eventually in the absence of any dikes. “If you put people there, you will be putting them in harm’s way in the same way as Dutch people living below sea level,” he added.

In addition, he predicted that Point Grey Road will disappear if there isn’t a dike built within 50 years. He thinks it’s likely that the city will address the issue by raising the roadbed. “That will protect it for a while,” Dowlatabadi remarked.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Geological Survey reported last month that ice shelves are retreating from the southern section of Antarctica because of climate change. This area contains five major ice shelves, including the Wilkins Shelf, which has lost more than 4,000 square kilometres since 1998. The Larsen B ice shelf, which was in the same area, collapsed in 2002.

“As the ice shelves break off, it is easier for outlet glaciers and ice streams from the ice sheet to flow into the sea,” the USGS stated in a February 22 news release. “The transition of that ice from land to the ocean is what raises sea level.”

With a two-metre rise in sea level and no new dikes (left), Vancouver will lose land in Southlands. With a seven-metre rise (right), downtown and Stanley Park could become islands. Bing Thom Architects maps.

UVic climate scientist Andrew Weaver is one of the IPCC’s lead authors. In a phone interview with the Straight, he noted that the international organization of climate scientists suggested in 2007 that sea levels would increase by up to 59 centimetres by the end of the century. However, he acknowledged that this didn’t take into account new research about what has taken place in Greenland and Antarctica, both of which are contributing more to a rise in sea level than previously understood.

“A better assessment on global sea-level rise would probably be something like an upper bound of one-and-a-half metres by the end of the century,” Weaver said. “That’s probably a better ballpark assessment as an upper bound, but it doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.”

He noted that there are strong regional changes in sea levels. For example, the Gulf Stream will probably amplify the effect on the east coast of the United States, whereas this won’t happen on the west coast. Changing wind patterns can also have an impact, he added.

“A one-metre sea-level rise is hardly significant for large parts of B.C.,” Weaver said, citing Richmond and Delta as exceptions to the rule. “It’s a huge issue in many parts of the world: China, many low-lying islands, places in the southern U.S.”

Two Metro Vancouver municipalities have already taken steps to deal with rising sea levels. West Vancouver has been working on shoreline adaptation since 2005, according to a report that went to council on March 15. The district’s Climate Action Working Group’s recent report, “Towards Fossil Fuel Freedom”, recommends assessing climate-related vulnerabilities and conducting a cost-benefit analysis of dealing with them. In addition, the report asks the district to prioritize actions to prepare for rising sea levels and to assign responsibility to the appropriate departments.

Meanwhile, Richmond city council has already approved a flood-protection management strategy through to 2031. According to a 2009 report to council by the city’s director of engineering, John Irving, the city owns and operates 49 kilometres of dikes on Lulu Island.

“While there currently is not a Provincial sea level rise policy in place, the Province has indicated in recent correspondence that current construction around dikes should allow for future dike raising to address a 1.2 metre sea level rise by the year 2100,” Irving wrote.

Later in the report, he added: “Given the fact that sea level rise is taking place in the absence of a Provincial policy, staff have been proactively proceeding with dike upgrades since 2005 based on an allowance of 0.5-metre over and above the current Provincial requirement.”

The cost of doing this would be $28.2 million, according to Irving’s report, which noted that raising the dikes to address a sea-level rise of 1.2 metres would increase the cost.

There has also been some research at the regional level. Metro Vancouver commissioned consulting engineers at Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. to study the vulnerability of Vancouver’s sewerage infrastructure to climate change. In its 2008 report, it stated that a rise in sea level “will affect discharge hydraulics at outfalls, though negative effects will be marginal”. It also pointed out that seawater intrusion into the collection system at the plant could have an impact on the relative concentration of ions in the wastewater, which could affect performance. Kerr Wood Leidal concluded that the probability of this has been “judged to be remote”. But an increase in storm surge will have a negative effect on the effluent outfall. In addition, the plant “is also potentially at risk from increases in average sea level from a site flooding perspective”, according to the report.

The federal and provincial governments published a document in December 2008 listing three scenarios for sea-level changes in B.C. The “extreme low” analysis estimated that the Fraser River Delta will see a 35-centimetre rise by the end of the century. The “mean” estimate was a 50-centimetre increase, and the “extreme high” prediction was for a 1.2-metre jump in sea level by 2100.

The report pointed out that estimating sea level is a fairly complex task because there are several variables, including changes in global ocean volumes due to the melting of glaciers and expansion of oceans due to warming. The earth’s plates also move—rising two to three millimetres per year on western Vancouver Island and sinking one to two millimetres per year in the Fraser River Delta. And, the report notes, strong southeasterly winter winds combined with a low-pressure system and poleward coastal currents can increase sea level by more than a half-metre.

“Of particular concern will be extreme weather events, such as storm surges, occurring at the same time as these high sea levels,” the report states. “These extreme events can add as much as one metre to sea levels, regardless of local shoreline features and waves.”

The trio from Bing Thom Architects said they’re not climate scientists, and their intention isn’t to provide all the answers. Instead, they hope that their maps tracking the impact of sea-level increases will lead to better planning decisions in the future. “This is to aid in the discussion so that people can see these implications,” Heeney said.

{poll node='298867'}{/poll}
Comments (41) Add New Comment
Birdy
Maybe instead of planning how to build fancier shoreline amenities and super-leveraged carbon-based financial derivatives, we could plan how to stop dumping human waste, garbage and chemicals in the ocean. We could also consider asking France to stop nuking the ocean.

"The trio from Bing Thom Architects said they’re not climate scientists" Well here's an interview with someone who is, and has been studying sea level changes for 35 years. Check it out:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview.pdf
23
18
Rating: +5
miguel
I used to do topographical surveys on the dikes and canals in Surrey. Any of the land in Richmond, Delta, and flat parts of Surrey, are no more than a few feet above the existing high tides. Combined with a storm and you get the destruction that hit Crescent Beach in the mid-80's.
Miguel
23
23
Rating: 0
COV got the award for trying and not for results
Yes, COV does have many initiatives to reduce GHG emissions. The Burrard bridge lane allocation for cyclists according to the COV has increased travel times for drivers by 10% and has resulted in 10% more GHG emissions. However, we don't have people smart enough to understand and the COV wins awards anyways.
19
32
Rating: -13
ChrisB Critter
Hey Birdy, about the Mí–RNER piece. What a guy, first he spends the first 1.5 pages telling the world how wonderful he is then he goes on to debunk some empirical studies that weren't very persuasive in the first place, in an effort to debunk sea level rise. Surely some land rises and some sinks and the Tuvalu Islands are replacing their fresh water with salty. The fact remains, the global temperature is rising which is melting the ice over land-masses such as Antarctica, Greenland, Siberia and Canada which is flowing into the sea and raising global sea levels. Maybe not 6 meters, but measurably. So Mr. Mí¶rner should maybe take his head out of the sink-hole before he drowns, or dies of thirst!
19
19
Rating: 0
Cooley
Well now we can make new roads around the perimeter of the seashore, wait we already are building the south perimeter road.
23
21
Rating: +2
sean
global warming is a myth used to control YOU.
24
27
Rating: -3
John G
Reminds me of what Vancouver's shoreline used to look like before developers land-filled all the tidal and marsh lands.
28
32
Rating: -4
ChrisB Critter
Oh sean, I guess you think thousands of scientists are wrong, not only wrong, but trying to control YOU. True, there are those who would control US, but they ain't most scientists. There are none so blind as those who *will* not see.
29
24
Rating: +5
Birdy
Hey ChrisB, ok let's go crazy and assume you're right. Do you also agree with the UN's plan of action? Derivative scams designed to transfer what's left of middle class wealth to a few hundred insanely rich families? Giving billions to genocidal 3rd world dictators? What about the methods described in "Ecoscience" is that cool too?
28
17
Rating: +11
RickW
20
20
Rating: 0
WeAreAllMelting!!!
"The fact remains, the global temperature is rising which is melting the ice over land-masses such as Antarctica, Greenland, Siberia and Canada"

Hummm. Now let me get this straight. Greenspeace exec. admitted on BBC their comments about the glacial cap on Greenland was not true. Micheal Mann (hockey stick fame) has been discredited by McIntyre's Report...Mann has been suspended by Penn State. Phil Jones...yes the famous Professor Phil Jones from the UK...told the BBC the medieveil warm period did exists, oh and by the way mentioned he has misplaced his source data related to several of his global warming papers and can't accommodate freedom of information requests. The IPPC's claim about Himalaya Mountains has been exposed as pure rubbish. Gore being sued for fraud by an outfit claiming to respresent 9000 Phds. Dick Lindzen report! Anyone here read it! I guess not. Let's just say it has ben a rough year for the golbal warming theory...climate change.. or whatever they call it next. See I didn't even mention Phil Jones' emails about world temperatures cooling in the past 8 years. Science is a funny thing. Perhaps I can get a ride to the next Carbon Credit Confreneces on one of Travolta's many airplanes. I love Al Gore's cardon credit ventures with Jack Blood. Is it call Blood and Gore?
21
21
Rating: 0
science based decision-making please
This was published on Monday, March 15: "CO2 at new highs despite recession": http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=co2-highs-economy.
Beyond the predictions that this increase will result in more flooding, heatwaves, sea level rise, sandstorms and mudslides the most disturbing part of the above article for me is the statement from Kim Holmen, director of research at the Norwegian Polar Institute who says that despite the evidence "we continue to emit as if there was no tomorrow".

This follows Environment Canada announcing last week that 2009-2010 was the warmest and driest Canadian winter on record (http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/ccrm/bulletin/national_e.cfm), which is consistent with the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration findings (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100316_globalstats.html) that despite cooler weather in the US, Mexico, Europe and Russia, most of the rest of the globe's land masses were warmer than average in February, especially Alaska, Canada, the Middle East and North Africa. They conclude that globally this winter has been the fifth warmest on record.

Also a new study out of the Met Office at the beginning of March concludes that the evidence what we do impacts the climate is stronger than ever. This quote is from a current issue of Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1971702,00.html#ixzz0ieu9...): "We can say with a very high significance level that the effects we see in the climate cannot be attributed to any other forcings [factors that push the climate in one direction or another]," says study co-author Gabriele Hegerl of the University of Edinburgh.

What I find amazing is people continue to deny in the face of the onslaught of more and more evidence. Often they'll do as 'WeAreAllMelting!!!' above has done and try to use a blend of character assassination, of which Al Gore is an common target, conspiracy about one world government and a bunch of allegations about the integrity of the science, which have been refuted one by one. The website 'Skeptical Science' is great for compiling these allegations and demonstrating the science debunking them. Denials also often quote non-peer reviewed studies and bring out fake experts like Lord Monkton from the UK who is not a scientist but rather a business consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, puzzle inventor and hereditary peer. They might outright deny it as 'Sean' has done, alleging conspiracy again. Or they might do as 'Birdy' has done and attack the purported plan to address climate change. The thing that they don't do is refute the fundamental science connecting us humans to climate change.

It's true climate scientists and the IPCC have admitted there were mistakes in the 2007 report regarding the Himalayan glacier predictions but what is confirmed over and over is that the overall science connecting us humans to climate change is getting stronger, not weaker. A very disturbing and unwelcome reality, for sure but it is what we and our kids and grandkids going to have to deal with. The sooner we accept it and start working constructively to mitigate and adapt to it the better off we'll be down the road.
21
28
Rating: -7
Cassandra22
There are really only two types of global warming denier: Those who are funded by industry to sow doubt and confusion regarding an issue that 98 percent of the world's climate scientists agree on and those who are ignorant or deluded enough to believe the former.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frances-beinecke/climate-change-is-a-scien...
25
29
Rating: -4
Birdy
Re: "science based decision-making please"

I'm not denying that we are polluting and destroying and changing the earth. I've already stated that repeatedly, but here we go, one more time: I believe humans are changing the earth in every way imaginable, and space too, like when Obama launched "impactors" at the moon last year.

What I AM completely denying is your fantasy solution where we continue to trash everything, continue literally nuking the whales, continue ripping apart polar bears and selling their parts, and spend 90% of our "eco-energy" attacking the middle class while turning pollution into a tradable commodity.

I notice you have no response to that, other than to basically call me names and assign me to various "isms" "ists" and "iers"? I'm not on a side here, so stop trying to put me in a box. The world is not black and white.

If you noticed in my first comment I proposed that we stop dumping human waste, garbage and chemicals in the ocean. Obviously GM should be dismantled and sued into oblivion for what they did to the electric car. We could also stop launching silver-iodide missiles into clouds to create snow. Gee let me guess your response. I'm a dirty conspiracy theorist. Feel free to read the Popular Science article: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2009-11/chinas-weather-manipulatio...
Oh yeah, they do it here too: http://www.weathermodification.com

Your "with us or against us" mentality reminds me of Bush. Don't you get it? I'm not "against" you or the earth, I just want to help you get over your "my international government loves me" psychosis. I totally agree that we have to start working constructively to stop pollution, but changing my light bulbs will not change what Monsanto is doing. It won't change the surge of deformed babies in Iraq and Gaza caused by white phosphorus. I also know that deep down you understand this. The concept of the consumer being responsible for the actions of business only makes sense in a transparent and open market, and our markets are owned and controlled by cartels, who are allowed to dominate by the very government (UN) that you believe wants to save the planet.

This isn't a hockey game, but most "greenies" and "deniers" act like they're on a team. Rah Rah Go Team BS... it's counterproductive to humanity and the planet, and it makes it INCREDIBLY difficult to have a logical discussion on the subject.
28
30
Rating: -2
science based decision-making please
My apologies Birdy. You're right. I agree with you that we are trashing our home. I mistakenly included you with the people who are working to confuse the public about climate change, people who I have engaged over and over and often use the 3rd world despot argument as part of their campaign against a binding international agreement. I don't dispute that the idea is very problematic and to be honest I don't have a solution for it. The international process seems very broken and I don't really have faith it will be fixed or lead to meaningful emissions reductions anytime soon. But I am very frustrated with the degree to which the deniers and governments beholden to carbon intensive industries (http://news.globaltv.com/money/story.html?id=2684065) have succeeded in reducing public concern about climate change. They, and I do use they intentionally, have waged a coordinated campaign that is frustratingly effective in sowing doubt about the urgency of this problem or whether the problem even exists.It's been documented by SFU's Donald Gutstein (http://thetyee.ca/Books/2009/12/10/ClimateDeniers/) and local PR person James Hoggan (http://www.straight.com/article-265275/taking-goliath) among others.

I appreciate and recognize that all of the other destructive activities you mention are occurring and that we need to wake up to them but the way in which climate impacts agricultural production, human habitats, fresh water supplies, ecosystems, ocean acidification and intensifies "natural" disasters, etc makes it particularly urgent. I do believe, perhaps naively, that if we start accepting the reality of climate change and start figuring out what we can do at the levels where there is some willingness to change (e.g. individual, local, regional and sometimes provincially) we may see a greater level of consciousness with regard to how we treat our home and that of other species generally. If that occurs we might actually evolve as citizens and as a species. Not a bad thought. US economist Jeremy Rifkin calls it an 'empathic civilization' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-rifkin/the-empathic-civilization_b_...). We'll see.

So, once again, my apologies for putting you in a box. It's just bloody frustrating that it seems we humans doing our best attempt at testing the boiling frog theory.
23
27
Rating: -4
Aphool Imnaught
Will anyone with artistic photographic skills consider doing a before & after series on the still relatively natural, lovely Vancouver shoreline, if only as a eulogy? Please hurry! Record our beloved shoreline for posterity before enviro-mutilation based on Climategate denial & greenwash faux hysteria disfigures our world class beautiful city of Vancouver forever. NOt for nothing is a realtor our greenwashed Premier. BTW: Anyone else notice how consistently wind farms, dikes & other natural blights to the landscape pretend not to be tax predator schemes masquerading as short sighted pseudo enviro fixes which prove to consistently materialize as the worst kind of effrontery to anyone with any aesthetic or creative sensibility - or even just to anyone with a true love of nature. I am a conservationist. I am NOT an environmentalist. The very concept has been dragged into the gutter. In spite of the environmentalists, I spent my life savings to acquire untouched acreage specifically for protection of wildlife. I do what I can to protect this land from excess runoff erosion I absorb the loss of income, pay for all trees I plant. Unlike environmentalists who suck dry the tax teat of others, I refuse government subsidies for conservationist choices. A large pond on the land would assure a constant supply of water for a variety of wildlife. But only a fool would dare to create one on private property. Why? Because the new breed of environmentalists lobbyists pushed through legislation which puts all land within 500' of any such pond under government jurisdiction. The new environmentalism is Marxism & Darwinism rolled into one, truly predatory, a venal variation on expropriation via eco-highjacking, under the banner of moral high ground high jinx.
25
22
Rating: +3
Judy Cross
As a taxpayer, I want my dollars to pay for things which are needed. The facts are that Vancouver 's rate of sea level rise is quite low. "The mean sea level trend is 0.37 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of ± 0.28 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1910 to 1999 which is equivalent to a change of 0.12 feet in 100 years."
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml

It is not accelerating:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/maps.ph
Although we may need remedial work done in low areas like Delta and Richmond, we do not need work done on the basis of a failed hypothesis.

The very best discussion of this is Richard Lindzen's Colloquium at Fermilab, "The Peculiar Issue of Global Warming."
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/100210Lindz...

Warmists may try to dismiss Lindzen as a shill for Big Energy, but even Sourcewatch can't find anything more than guilt by association on him. He publishes here because other doors are shut to what he has to say. I doubt if the supposedly authoritative Huffington Post would ever interview him.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
Judy Cross
23
26
Rating: -3
Emily Bond
Oh birdy you`re so easily fooled... Do you believe in everything some retired (and probably retarded) old man in Sweden bubbles? The Morner study you quote is based on incorrectly calibrated satellite measurements - when the measurements were repeated, sea level rise was obvious. Stop confusing the public by posting wrong studies and shut up.
25
23
Rating: +2
Emily Bond
Judy Cross = paid PR fake

Judy Cross is a paid PR guy paid to see doubts and mistrust in favour of the old fossil fuel companies, lying and linking to fake science. Vancouver IS in danger of sea level rise and if the city doesn`t invest into adaptation measures, lots of people will loose their homes. Don`t believe the lies, she is selling here, she is just paid to do this.
23
27
Rating: -4
Mia Nony
Is that Emily Bond or James Bond? Consider that once again we see the usual knee jerk ad hominen attack against someone who, by the sounds of it, does their research homework (check it out it is solid stuff) & attacks no one. Slagging is slumming, Bond. Besides, who but Bond would KNOW that fossil fuel companies had this kind of hiring policy?
27
30
Rating: -3

Pages

Add new comment
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.