subject: Climate Change Discussed In Monterrey Ca [print this page] The science on climate change is up for grabsThe science on climate change is up for grabs. One camp says the sky is falling (or the ocean rising), while the other says everything is as it should be. Both sides have qualified and well-respected scientists advocating for them, which makes it all the more difficult to tell science fact from science fiction. Who is telling the truth? What is the truth? Can we handle the truth?
The bulk of climate change advocacy has been focused on the fading polar ice caps. This focus inevitably results in a set of predictions, some of which project a grim 150 time line. The rising sea level is the crux of this line of advocacy. They predict the seas could rise between 10 and 40 feet above current levels. While no one relishes the idea of swimming to work, the facts of the matter are hard to discern.
Related to the allegedly disappearing ice caps is plate tectonics. The case has been put forth that rising sea levels affect the tectonic plates, meaning as the sea levels rise or fall, we could be in store for more seismic activity, even in places traditionally considered inactive. And so the climate change advocates maintain that sea levels, weather systems, and tectonics are all intimately related.
While there may indeed be a case for this inter-connectivity, again, we're stymied by the lack of reliable data. There is a theory postulated by some in the climate change camp that the presence and course of hurricanes may coincide with significant seismic and volcanic events. So, following any hurricane, they insist there is evidence of increased seismic activity. Intriguing, if verifiable.
During a recent conference regarding seismic activity in Monterrey, CA, this theory of inter-connectivity was discussed and advocated for. Weather, it's maintained, affects seismic activity, which in turn affects the tides, which then affect the polar caps, resulting in higher sea levels and setting off more climate-related changes. The theory is a circular one, implying all changes set off another set of changes, which then set off another chain of events. Convincing, but still contentious.
by: James Pynn
welcome to Insurances.net (https://www.insurances.net)
