|
Hi Kate and others following this
topic.
The same discussions are going on on other lists I
am following. Just when you think you have a grip on the situation someone will
discover something else on the net that changes the whole perspective. There is
a theory out there that our planet is actually slowly expanding, like a balloon
being blown up, because of phenomena taking place under the crust. The evidence
I saw made me think this could not be discarded off hand.
If there is any truth in this theory this would of
course explain why sea levels are not rising as fast as expected and also that
our planet is catching a little more of the sun's energy as we
expand.
I don't think this new theory is completely
impossible. Because of the speed us humans lead our lives we are nearly blind to
slow geological phenomena. For instance who would notice that the rotation speed
of the planet is slowing down all the time by a few micro seconds per year.
Still over millions of years this meant that a "day" in the dinosaurs era was
several hours shorter than ours is now.
john
In
response to John and Pete V.: Scientists in their commitment to good science
very rarely draw absolute conclusions and I think it is unrealistic to expect
scientists to prove theories the way prosecutors try to convict criminals. In
fact, expecting such absolute evidence could backfire by forcing scientists to
draw premature conclusions due to pressure.
When evidence mounts that a theory is holding true, good scientists
usually phrase their findings in terms of suggestions and probabilities. They
should not be faulted for that. Gathering scientific evidence is like constant
and in-depth observation, probably very similar to the way farmers figured out
that plants need certain nutrients and that ladybugs eat enough aphids to
warrant making an effort to keep them around. Knowledge evolves based on bits
of observation that accumulate over time.
Climate modeling for future predictions is certainly new, but the models
are grounded in basic forecasting science, which has improved significantly in
the past decade or two. If bad weather is on the way, we know about it much
earlier than we did even five years ago. Further, analysis of past climate
trends points to rising global temperatures and rising seas. I don't know the
explanation for subsidence, but I do know it has occurred in Louisiana and
where I live in Southwest Florida. Here, subsidence and sea level rise is
factored into regional planning and hurricane evacuation, so it is taken
seriously by those in power. Erosion occurs from wave action, something to be
expected from water whether it's rising or falling.
On Jun 14, 2011, at 4:57 PM, Pete Vukovich wrote:
This whole trend in science worries me from an
intellectual standpoint for a whole bunch of reasons.
What I
understand, and I understand little is that geology and climate
science are pretty new things, they are much poorer at predicting what
is happening geologically and climate wise than we are at predicting
what will happen if you scatter infrared 90nm light off
CO2.
Geologists still don't know what precisely makes sea
levels rise or fall, or causes reversals in plate movements - etc. The
are better at measuring it than they were 30 years ago, but thats it.
I think its dishonest no matter who funds them to suggest its
successfully predictive - again from what I understand. The problem is
corporate funding which steers debate is largely devoid of scientific
value. Scientific value has no predetermined purpose, corporate
theologies purpose is obvious and antithetical to serious
understanding. A lot is going on within the field that should be
shaken out as serious intellectual debate, not marketing material.
Climatologists still have only vague ideas of how greenhouse
gases work, when a release of energy from a melting ice cap causes
cooling and when it causes warming. They don't factor in things like
solar events, the specific heat of a desalinated ocean, geologic
events etc, very well. There may be no grand unified theory in
physics, but there really isn't much of a unified theory at all in
Climatology from what little I know. They rely largely on statistical
events and 'curve fitting' to predict the future. We do this with lots
of things now days, and I don't feel its not well grounded science.
Its like predicting rain and nuclear war using statistics. You
can say there were days like yesterday which had rain today quite a
few times. You will not be saying much if you say there were days like
yesterday in which global nuclear war occurred today. I think its also
dishonest no matter who is funding them to suggest there's much
ability to predict the future in that field either. Maybe I need to
know more, or maybe its like geology, they've got better at measuring
things but that's about it. If so their measurements should one day
agree, and be shaken out as serious science, not rhetorical marketing
material.
I feel we do know some things which are simple and
need to be addressed soon. We are pretty darn sure (as I understand
it) that we use more petroleum energy than is replaced by nature to
feed ourselves. We know this because it gets more expensive to obtain
it. We know we still handle land poorly in general. Same for water and
most other sources of REAL wealth. We know genetics and biochemistry
are still VERY young sciences and we know much less than we pretend
about them. We know we have and are being cavalier in applying them.
Same for chemistry for the most part. We are beginning I think to know
that silicon technology doesn't hasn't saved anything, that plants are
carbon based, not virtual or digital and we need them to live.
Its my personal view that as quaint as technology its utility is like
a poisson distribution. At some point as we reach our limits
technology reaches its limits - then its primary effect is to
concentrate power and wealth in the realm of people who are less
concerned with their place on the planet at the expense of more people
who are. In short what worries me I guess is that we are concentrating
wealth and arrogance instead of being aware of them.
Its what
how I interpret what I see. Maybe I'm nuts or stupid (its a distinct
possibility). Maybe things have always been like that. Maybe the
weather isn't more unstable than it was 20 or 30 years ago, maybe I
just forgot because I'm brain dead. Maybe sea levels will or wont
rise, maybe acquifers aren't being depleted. Maybe the planet can hold
10 billion people comfortably. Maybe we are smart enough to dig
ourselves out of each and every hole we create. Maybe it doesn't
matter what we do. Of course if it does, we may be committing a sort
of collective propagational and intellectual suicide which we may or
may not feel the affects of in the near future.
It is mildly
interesting that we are willing to place a premium on choice in some
areas and at the same time minimize the inherent risk in making a
choice - no matter what the choice.
Ok, I've babbled enough for
the week.
--pete
--- On Tue, 6/14/11, paul@oneseedling.com <paul@oneseedling.com>
wrote:
From:
paul@oneseedling.com
<paul@oneseedling.com>
Subject:
[Livingontheland] Rising sea levels a myth
To: "Healthy soil and
sustainable growing" <livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org>
Date:
Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 10:01 AM
| _______________________________________________
Livingontheland
mailing list
Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland
_______________________________________________
Livingontheland
mailing
list
Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland
|
