Re-opening for discussion, as significant additional studies have been conducted on the subject matter in the intervening decade.
That's not a good assessment. Apply .5 kg of pressure to .5 square foot of your body. No pain.1" of water = 929 g / sq ft.
Do you really think that a compressive load of less than 1 kg/ft2 will cause rock to compress, fracture and make mag 7-9 earthquakes? :roll:
Geologists have charted the beaches of the last time that all the Arctic and Antarctic ice melted. It is about twenty meters higher than today. This has happened repeatedly over the last billion years or so.The ocean rise from AGW has been on the order of a 10 cm so far (at most). This is trivial, and will not cause purported increased earthquakes on the ocean floor observed over the decade 2001-2010.
I was saying, if all the icepacks completely melted, say 5000y from today, then the mass of the additional 100m of water might cause earthquakes from rearrangements in crustal elements as they adjust.
The point of citing a 1975 CIA report that got it wrong about climate change escapes me, especially with respect to climate change impacting Earthquakes. I am thinking you reject the current mainstream science based understanding of climate change - why bring this up like it is significant otherwise?KEY ISSUES OF INTEREST TO DOD IN WEATHER AND CLIMATE CHANGE-1975
It seems interesting the unclassified document says from "about 1890 to 1940 North Hemisphere and probably world temperatures rose significantly 0.7C, especially at high latitudes, leading to increasingly favorable world agriculture just as world populations zoomed upwards".
Then on Page 2 it says "a cooling has now set in, with adverse agricultural consequences in spite of today's greatly improved agronomic practices".
So if they were wrong then what makes you think they are not wrong now? They don't seem to have a good track record according to yourself.The point of citing a 1975 CIA report that got it wrong about climate change escapes me, especially with respect to climate change impacting Earthquakes. I am thinking you reject the current mainstream science based understanding of climate change - why bring this up like it is significant otherwise?
In 1975 the top US science agencies, when asked about it, did not consider it possible to make confident predictions about climate change.
From the Foreword of 1975 National Academy of Science/Global Atmopheric Research Program/National Research Council report "Understanding Climatic Change: A Program For Action" -
"We have an urgent need for better information on global climate. Unfortunately, we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without this fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate — neither in its short-term variations nor in its larger long-term changes.
The "Program for Action" was to remedy that lack of information and inability to make confident predictions. Which it did. Thank you Global Cooling hype, for raising the profile of climate science and ultimately revealing the real reasons we need not fear imminent global cooling. It didn't turn out nearly so reassuring as hoped but knowing what to really expect, with confidence, makes that knowledge priceless.
That is exactly why I don't trust anything mainstream because through seeking my truth I found out what mainstream really is. From my studies anything with the word mainstream in it is most of the time a way to control the masses. That is why it is mainstream because it hits the most amount of people so that is where the propaganda, control, fear and false information comes from. It is all fear based.Truthseeker - Not trusting anything mainstream science says must make seeking the truth very difficult for you.
BTW no-one should have to go all stone age to expect their governments and people in positions of trust and responsibility to take seriously something they already know (or should) is genuine and serious. Not that the self appointed hypocrisy police will take anyone who does go without stuff any more seriously because of it. Hypocrites! And the whole point of calling for a non destructive transition to low emissions is to prevent people having to go without stuff. I am constantly amazed that people really think refusing to accept or just not caring about the issue is somehow a morally superior position.
I've encountered too many climate science denying conspiracy theorists to expect you to give up casually slandering honest climate scientists or disparaging the honest concerns of people who - sensibly and reasonably - take decades of consistent top level expert advice on the matter seriously. I am not going to keep arguing this - this is not the place, even if there were any point.