<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:'bookman old style', 'new york', times, serif;font-size:10pt"><div>What would you consider a realistic scenario for sea level rise over the next, say, 50-100 years? About 17 percent of Bangladesh is at an elevation of one meter or less; a sea level rise of even have that this century (which is entirely realistic) would still displace millions and destroy a large area of food-producing land. </div><div><br></div><div>And of course we shouldn't limit that consideration to Bangladesh, it provides the most striking example, but low-lying coastal regions around the world are subject to the same risks.</div><div><br></div><div>Is it perhaps that you believe that there are no "realistic scenarios related to manmade climate warming" at all, and therefore that which will never exist will pose no threat? Otherwise I really can't understand how
you can discount it.</div><div style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt"><br></div><div style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt">> Name the climatologists who claim that changes in Arctic sea ice can cause </div><div style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt">> disruptive rises in sea level</div><div><br></div><div>If I had made that claim, I would be happy to provide evidence. Again, please read carefully.</div><div><br></div><div>> I didn't make the claims you implied I did. I didn't claim that Bangladesh<br>> had already been losing land, and I didn't claim that global sea ice cover<br>> had been shrinking. Again, please read carefully.<br><br>### Yeah, that's the point of innuendo - not making any clear claims.<br><div style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt"><br></div><div
style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt">No, Rafal, I never implied (or used innuendo to suggest) that global sea ice was already shrinking, or that Bangladesh was already losing land area.</div><div style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt"><br></div><div style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt">It's utterly pointless for you to ascribe to me a position which I have not claimed, argue against it, and insist that I secretly do hold it when I very explicitly explain that I do not. I half-expect you to next start explaining my role in the conspiracy.</div><div style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt"><br><div style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> Rafal Smigrodzki
<rafal.smigrodzki@gmail.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> ExI chat list <extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Thu, March 4, 2010 12:53:27 AM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled<br></font><br>
2010/3/4 Christopher Luebcke <<a ymailto="mailto:cluebcke@yahoo.com" href="mailto:cluebcke@yahoo.com">cluebcke@yahoo.com</a>>:<br><br> You cannot possibly mean that<br>> no change in sea level, no matter how great, would put Bangladeshis at risk,<br>> can you? Would one meter per day do it? One meter per year? One meter per<br>> decade? Per 50 years? Per century? You may not believe that a sea level rise<br>> rapid enough to put them at risk is likely, but to simply state that they<br>> are not at risk is careless.<br><br>### We are talking about realistic scenarios related to manmade<br>climate warming, not about sea level changes caused by lasers fired at<br>the Antarctic by mischievous aliens, or other such situations. In<br>realistic scenarios Bangladesh is not at risk.<br><br>--------------------<br><br>> Regarding sea ice: It is not at all clear that world sea ice cover is more<br>> important than Arctic ice.<br><br>###
Of course it is. World sea ice cover is more of a global<br>phenomenon, it is better correlated with global temperatures. Arctic<br>ice cover is more likely to be influenced by local phenomena, like<br>prevailing winds.<br><br>--------------------<br><br>>I don't give a damn about the average temperature<br>> of the ocean (or anything else).<br><br>### You should. If the ocean warms, it expands and could flood.<br><br>---------------------<br><br>I care about events that indicate an<br>> increased potential for disruptive (read: suffering-generating) climate<br>> change. I'm sure you're aware of the significants climatologists place on<br>> the more-rapid-than-expected Arctic melt, so I can only assume that you feel<br>> that you're right, they're wrong and there's no problem.<br><br>### Name the climatologists who claim that changes in Arctic sea ice<br>can cause disruptive rises in sea level. Just give me references
to<br>peer-reviewed literature making this claim.<br><br>You seem care about the wrong events.<br><br>---------------------------<br><br>> I didn't make the claims you implied I did. I didn't claim that Bangladesh<br>> had already been losing land, and I didn't claim that global sea ice cover<br>> had been shrinking. Again, please read carefully.<br><br>### Yeah, that's the point of innuendo - not making any clear claims.<br><br>Rafal<br>_______________________________________________<br>extropy-chat mailing list<br><a ymailto="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br><span><a target="_blank" href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a></span><br></div></div><div style="position:fixed"></div>
</div></div></body></html>