There is a certain arrogance to climate scientists who presume that the average temperature/sea level today (or in the recent past) is the ideal from which we ought to benchmark all changes, and that such changes are, by definition, both negative and caused by human activity.
Which brings me to this observation regarding the level of the ocean and the nature of certain islands.
Waterworld — I live on an island that is part of an atoll. An atoll is the coral ring around the place where a larger island used to be. Over the eons, the island eroded away but left behind the much sturdier reef, which is very similar to a solid band of concrete. Coral grows only under water, so at the time when this atoll was formed, the land I’m sitting on was at least a few inches under water at low tide. Right now, this land is a few feet above water at high tide.Why is it above water now? Every coral isle dotted around the 154-mile circumference of the ancient island is the same height above water, and this is true for just about every atoll in Micronesia. It’s not likely that tectonic forces lifted the whole thing out of the water while keeping everything else level. The only reasonable conclusion is that sea levels were once much higher than they are now. From where I’m sitting, I’d say they were roughly 10 feet higher. And they had to be that high for quite a long period of time for the very slow-growing coral to build to this point.
While I’d hate for global warming to submerge my home, it does seem that would be the more common state of nature. — Jeff Wrobel
What? You mean that it was necessary for those atolls to have been underwater for them to have formed in the first place, because of the nature of the coral from which they were formed? And that somehow the water level dropped so as to expose these atolls and render them into land for people to live upon? How could this be?
The answer, for anyone who pays attention to the history of climate, is that there is a natural cycle to earth's climate and those atolls will naturally be above and below sea level based upon where the earth is in its natural climate cycle. And just as Greenland was once green land with an exposed coast line rather than a glacier -covered land form with its coastal areas hidden beneath ice, so it will be again in the natural course of things.
Does this mean we should not develop alternate sources of energy or take proper precautions to mitigate the effects of long-term rises in sea level? Of course not! But it does mean that we should be do so based upon valid concerns and not rigged scientific studies that are then manipulated for political purposes.
 |
Trackback Information for A Global Warming Observation
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/269067Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'A Global Warming Observation'.
Comments on A Global Warming Observation
The reason we look at sea levels now is because that is what allows people to live now. When sea levels rise, it will kill people who are alive today. If your child is killed in a flood in Bangladesh next year, it will not be a comfort that a few tens of thousand years ago, the sea level might have been higher.
|| Posted by Donalbain, December 30, 2009 03:11 AM ||The reason we are concerned about sea levels rising from their current height is because we care about people who are alive today. Rising sea levels will kill people. It is not just a matter of inconvenience for a rich guy who will have to buy a new house. It will kill people. If you are a bangaldeshi parent who loses a child in a flood, it will not be a ocmfort that the sea level was higher a few tens of thousands of years ago..
|| Posted by Donalbain, December 30, 2009 03:15 AM ||You guys clearly missed the entire point of the post.
Donalbain -- I'm pointing out that the data showing that human beings are the cause of global warming is crap, and that the warming that may be going on is a part of a natural cycle. As for your typically over-anguished comments about drowning kids in Bangladesh, you clearly missed my statement that nothing in my post is intended to argue against "tak[ing] proper precautions to mitigate the effects of long-term rises in sea level".
Andrew -- you missed the same point that Donalbain did regarding efforts to mitigate the impact of rising sea levels. But you seem to still buy into the notion that human beings are the cause of a natural cycle that clearly existed long before the human races was putting any significant amount of so-called "greenhouse gasses" into the atmosphere. As such, I can't help but write you off as a fool who seems to have adopted a religious faith in the false belief that human beings are the cause of allegedly rising temperatures, despite evidence to the contrary.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, December 30, 2009 01:48 PM ||Well, the data ISNT crap, and the anecdote above does not show that it is crap. After all, the sea level fall that is talked about took place over millenia. What is happening now is UNPRECEDENTEDLY fast. Temperatures have never risen as fast as they are now. Never. And the only reasonable explanation that fits with the data is that increased levels of CO2 in the air are the the cause.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11647
|| Posted by Donalbain, December 30, 2009 02:00 PM ||Thanks for citing the work of one of the conspirators to prove the truth of their fraudulent work.
Sea levels are not rising at an unprecedented rate, and temperatures are actually falling.
The only reasonable explanation for what is actually happeneing is the natural cycle of things -- and the only explanation for your comments is abject stupidity.
On the other hand, perhaps you might enjoy this story in which a young and idealistic believer in climate change bravely proclaims it to the world, convincing others until finding someone who will help get access to government leaders to speak about the issue.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, December 30, 2009 03:33 PM ||Personally, I've always wondered why the climate alarmists, if they truly believe their own theories, don't follow their beliefs to a logical end and voluntarily reduce their carbon emissions to zero via suicide. Not only would they take pressure off the earth's endangered environment, they would also make great mulch for the plants that take CO2 out of the atmosphere.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, December 30, 2009 11:48 PM ||Oh.. sorry. Its all a massive conspiracy. The evolutionists/climatologists refuse to publish the creationists/denialists papers. They are all in it for the money.
Funny how one branch of pseudo science ends up sounding like another
|| Posted by Donalbain, December 31, 2009 04:06 AM ||Doanlbain, the evidence of conspiracy is there in the CRU emails from East Anglia University.
And when respected climate scientists cannot get their papers questioning global warming published because "the science is settled", the the evidence of suppression of dissenting views is quite clear.
Those who have coined the term "denialist" for those whose research leads them to question the consensus on science are the ideological heirs of those who told Galileo that the science was settled on the consensus that the earth was the center of the universe and that his views were heresy.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, December 31, 2009 07:46 AM ||Post a comment