[extropy-chat] Alleged Climate Collapse
mail at HarveyNewstrom.com
Mon Feb 23 13:39:29 UTC 2004
Mike Lorrey wrote,
> a) there has not been any collapse of Greenland or Antarctic Ice caps
> in millions of years,
Just because it hasn't happened in millions of years doesn't mean it won't
happen again soon. Do you suppose that earth is immune to asteroid impact
because we haven't had one for a while?
> in which time the Earth has seen far more severe
> fluctuations than the 1 degree change we've seen over the past century
> or the 2-6 degree change being predicted for this century (2 degrees
> being more likely).
Fluctuations don't melt ice. Total time above 32 degrees Fahrenheit does.
The above-freezing line is clearly encroaching on very old ice. Very old
ice is melting and collapsing. Historical data is not very useful at
dismissing current observations.
> Without ice cap collapse, there will be no rise in sea levels.
There already are measurable rises in sea levels. There have already been
edge collapses in Antarctica. Ice shelves and peninsulae have collapsed
into the oceans. Some of these have been big enough to see from space and
to require adjustments to modern maps.
> b) It has yet to be proven that CO2 is a causative agent of anything.
Difficulty in finding the root cause does nothing to dispute the problem.
> For example, late 19th century data of global temperatures
> and coal production and consumption shows that temperatures began
> rising BEFORE coal production and consumption rose.
This actually supports the reality that the globe is warming.
> c) CO2 proponents' climate models have consistently been highly
> inaccurate at predicting *current day* climate based on historical
> data, overestimating warming by a factor of 2-10.
Yes, weather prediction has been historically difficult. This does not
dismiss current observations or the most conservative predictions. This is
merely an excuse to ignore science that is inconvenient.
> MOST warming is a result of Malenkovich Cycles in Earth
> orbital dynamics, the rest, a warming of the arctic, is a result of
> northern diesel burning imposing soot on the arctic environment.
Which means you can blame the greens for pushing diesel. But again, this
accepts global warming. It merely reassigns the blame for it on the
environmentalists. Ironic and fun to do, but not really helpful in the
larger scheme of things. Even if environmentalists are to blame, this would
be a human cause of real global warming which is having a real impact.
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS GIAC Certified GSEC
More information about the extropy-chat