There’s an interesting debate going on about the extent to which melting glaciers contribute to the rise of sea levels; here’s an article at Scientific American that tries to make sense of the conflicting opinions: A Deep Thaw: How Much Will Vanishing Glaciers Raise Sea Levels?
Advertisement
286 comments
Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.
Ice is mostly air. Net sea level rise equals... zero.
You ever put ice in a glass of water and let it melt? Often the level drops. Jeesh.
That doesn't really apply, honestly.
Ice displaces water in a glass, so when it melts, the level remains the same. The glaciers being discussed -- on Greenland -- aren't in water, but on land. Ergo, the water will rise. The question is how much.
I think if the sea rises and one of these things with a diamond hard beak washes up anyway near my house in Galveston I am moving to high ground...Diamond Beak squid...
Ice displaces water in a glass, so when it melts, the level remains the same. The glaciers being discussed -- on Greenland -- aren't in water, but on land. Ergo, the water will rise. The question is how much.
we'll see how fast anything goes as the sun activity drops... maybe government subsidies for releasing Carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - Tax credits for Hummers?
The largest contributor to CO2 emissions is... the ocean. If the ocean rises, will that make for more CO2 emissions? Where's that petition to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide? I'm ready to sign up.
Give me a break. If you melt the ice in a glass of water, does the water overflow out of the glass? No? does the level drop? According to green peace, all hope is lost. Global warming and Al Gore,
/Carbon footprints you can take to the bank!
Famous Reagan quote--point being that there is no reason not to believe that a warmer climate (such as obtained during the best days of the Roman Empire) would not be an improvement.
Give me a break. If you melt the ice in a glass of water, does the water overflow out of the glass? No? does the level drop? According to green peace, all hope is lost. Global warming and Al Gore,
/Carbon footprints you can take to the bank!
loflyer - I'm afraid i got schooled on this already :) See responses to my post above.
Can't wait to shake up Manual's. Never been there.
OK- I read this twice now, and my take is... they really don't know what the hell is going to happen, nor at any point was cooling in the future taken into account. They're not even sure how the earth's wobble might affect this. It just really reaffirms my position that climatology is chaos in motion- good luck making predictions.
When Henry VIII was King of England he built numerous forts around the South Easter coastline in order to protect England from the Spanish and French. At the time they were built dead on the water. However, now you have to travel quite a ways from the water to the forts and in one case you have to travel a full mile. The water level has receded that significantly.
How does this play in the entire "global warming", glaciers melting, and rising ocean levels? Really just curious.
OK- I read this twice now, and my take is... they really don't know what the hell is going to happen, nor at any point was cooling in the future taken into account. They're not even sure how the earth's wobble might affect this. It just really reaffirms my position that climatology is chaos in motion- good luck making predictions.
You can best predict by decoding the past. And the past says buy a good coat.
loflyer - I'm afraid i got schooled on this already :) See responses to my post above.
Can't wait to shake up Manual's. Never been there.
U R kidding me! Never been to Manuals? A rite of passage amongst metro-ATL liberals. I have been throwing out hints and not getting many takers on LGF, we need to crank this thing up for metro-ATL lizards!
When Henry VIII was King of England he built numerous forts around the South Easter coastline in order to protect England from the Spanish and French. At the time they were built dead on the water. However, now you have to travel quite a ways from the water to the forts and in one case you have to travel a full mile. The water level has receded that significantly.
How does this play in the entire "global warming", glaciers melting, and rising ocean levels? Really just curious.
That would be your Medeaval warming period (or whatever it was called). Natural warming and cooling periods... check out this
3. When Florida disappears, let me know... until then the beach I've been going to for 28 years has the same water level it has always had.
/Humans used to know how to adapt to change, don't let the Goracle talk us out of millions of years of practice!
I would think Holland would be the first to go if this was happening. The only place I've heard of that has encountered rising waters is Venice, and I'm convinced the water isn't rising-the city is still sinking, as it has been for a long time.
U R kidding me! Never been to Manuals? A rite of passage amongst metro-ATL liberals. I have been throwing out hints and not getting many takers on LGF, we need to crank this thing up for metro-ATL lizards!
Crazy, huh? I could walk there it's so close, but my girlfriend is afraid of the place. That's why I'm stoked about going on Sunday. :)
OK- I read this twice now, and my take is... they really don't know what the hell is going to happen, nor at any point was cooling in the future taken into account. They're not even sure how the earth's wobble might affect this. It just really reaffirms my position that climatology is chaos in motion- good luck making predictions.
Agree. The article is very brief and several commentators have pointed out flaws. Also SciAm, IIRC, has been called out before for heavy bias in favor of AGW.
I would think Holland would be the first to go if this was happening. The only place I've heard of that has encountered rising waters is Venice, and I'm convinced the water isn't rising-the city is still sinking, as it has been for a long time.
Venice is sinking, no doubt. You'd never know it if the Dutch were getting ready to submerge... they'd build the dykes higher and put in more pumps first.
I care about the environment. I do.
But why can't I be worried about Jihad and Islamism as much as liberals do about global warming? It always seems as if there's a car bomb parked running in Bagdad, liberals will yell about the exhaust of it polluting.
~smiling~...they sure do, nobody ever had to flip my bunk to get me outta bed, but it sure was funny to see it happen to others. My son told me (its his 3rd week) that they flip bunks, toss the metel garbage cans down the hall at wake-up.
He had to go to the Gas chamber Saturday...the exact same one I went into 27 years ago at Ft. Knox.
That would be your Medeaval warming period (or whatever it was called). Natural warming and cooling periods... check out this
Interesting.
I've never bought this. I remember last year they were bitching about a melting glacier in the Alps that had been there "forever". Then some fool archeologist went and discovered Roman armor and weapons under the ice. Guess it hadn't been there that long eh?
I recommend everyone check out economist Bjorn Lomborg's ideas about the climate crisis. His position is that even if you grant the doomsayers everything they claim will happen to the climate, it is far more cost effective to use our resources to combat the known human ills (like malaria and HIV) and simply adapt to the climate change rather than try to prevent it from happening. Very interesting.
OT
The state poll updates are finally in at RealClearPolitics
Tuesday, September 09
Race Poll Results Spread
Pennsylvania FOX News/Rasmussen Obama 47, McCain 45 Obama +2
Ohio FOX News/Rasmussen McCain 51, Obama 44 McCain +7
Florida FOX News/Rasmussen McCain 48, Obama 48 Tie
Virginia FOX News/Rasmussen McCain 49, Obama 47 McCain +2
Colorado FOX News/Rasmussen Obama 49, McCain 46 Obama +3
National ABC News/Wash Post McCain 49, Obama 47 McCain +2
National CBS News McCain 46, Obama 44 McCain +2
Washington SurveyUSA Obama 49, McCain 45 Obama +4
Virginia SurveyUSA McCain 49, Obama 47 McCain +2
Better than I hoped, still lots of work to do, especially in PA but this looks good.
I'd look more at the trends than any specific numbers. Things have definitely improved since Palin came on the scene and stole Obama's mojo.
Maybe that's what this campaign is about - maybe that's what Obama will claim next - that Palin really is Dr. Evil in a fembot uniform. Heck, with all the other DKos nonsensical ravings, they might actually float that idea. /
Obama has to figure out how to straighten things out quick, or else it will continue to look like his campaign is out of control and flailing. That's already the case, and it will get worse unless they turn it around. Throwing out more inanities isn't going to help. Time is not on their side.
McCain needs to keep hammering Obama on the economy and taxes, but needs to truly hammer things home on energy policy, tying Obama to the do-nothing Democrats in the House and Senate.
Agree. The article is very brief and several commentators have pointed out flaws. Also SciAm, IIRC, has been called out before for heavy bias in favor of AGW.
Where are the studies showing how warming might actually be beneficial? Why is it assumed it's a bad thing? Wouldn't it actually create longer growing seasons and reduce oil used for home heating?
Other than the hysteria over sea levels, why is warming bad?
So with the sunspots and the coming Ice Age, we should expect all those glaciers to run right back up to Mammoth size sooner than you can say "on the rocks." Right?
Off the top of my head, sea level would rise by about 110 meters if all the freshwater ice in the world melted. This has actually happened a number of times in geological history and there was one period (ca 600 million year ago) when an icecap covered the entire planet.
~smiling~...they sure do, nobody ever had to flip my bunk to get me outta bed, but it sure was funny to see it happen to others. My son told me (its his 3rd week) that they flip bunks, toss the metel garbage cans down the hall at wake-up.
He had to go to the Gas chamber Saturday...the exact same one I went into 27 years ago at Ft. Knox.
Ah the gas chamber. I went through that in Orlando in '76. Hide in the back and repeat the 10 general orders without choking. Nothing to it!
If the ocean levels rise, I could easily see Humans living on artificial Islands that are self sustaining and that have underwater apartments.
I saw a show on discovery yesterday about ocean cities. One is in the works right now with other more ambitious ones in development. It was incredibly neat. Countries like Japan are naturally very interested.
Agree. The article is very brief and several commentators have pointed out flaws. Also SciAm, IIRC, has been called out before for heavy bias in favor of AGW.
Who Let the Dogs Out at Scientific American?
by Patrick J. Michaels
This article appeared on cato.org on January 17, 2002.
Scientific American has sicced the big dogs on Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg for having the audacity to publish a highly referenced book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist," which argues that global warming and many other environmental "threats" are overblown. What gives?
Scientific American now joins the magazines Science and Nature in blasting Lomborg. They all editorialize that his "book is a failure" and call out four well-traveled attack dogs from the Washington big government/greenie/lefty establishment in support. They include:
~smiling~...they sure do, nobody ever had to flip my bunk to get me outta bed, but it sure was funny to see it happen to others. My son told me (its his 3rd week) that they flip bunks, toss the metel garbage cans down the hall at wake-up.
He had to go to the Gas chamber Saturday...the exact same one I went into 27 years ago at Ft. Knox.
I just got this.
SAVE THE DATE:
Governor Sarah Palin comes home!
Join us for a McCAIN/PALIN 2008 rally as we welcome Governor Palin home to Alaska!
The rally will take place THIS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10TH at
The Sadler Business Center
5904 Old Airport Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Doors open at 4:30 PM. Please R.S.V.P by sending an email to PalinAlaska@gmail.com or leave a message at either (907)575-7256 or (907)575-7257. Please include the number of people in your party with your R.S.V.P.!
All are welcome -- come show Governor Palin your support for the McCain/Palin ticket!
Greetings from wonderful Vicksburg Ms. 80 degrees and 87% humidity. I think I will worry about more immediate problems. Like will Ike interfere with the ratio of water to alcohol in my drinks over the next 20 days. Other than that what else is happening tonight?
We are going to have one of the coldest winters in years this year. It has been very cool through most of the summer. It will be fun to see the Global Warming crowd try and spin that.
Ancient melting events suggest that glaciers can disappear in a hurry, however, and raise sea levels by more than half an inch a year.
OK, I'll take a 100 foot of wall. If we all get togrther we can keep back a half inch a year. Hell, I'll probably lay a foot of wall, that will last me more than twenty yaers.
I saw a show on discovery yesterday about ocean cities. One is in the works right now with other more ambitious ones in development. It was incredibly neat. Countries like Japan are naturally very interested.
I saw the article in a science magazine, but its geared towards city dwellers...I would get cabin fever being cooped up on a little island.
Famous Reagan quote--point being that there is no reason not to believe that a warmer climate (such as obtained during the best days of the Roman Empire) would not be an improvement.
Not true. Warmer climates have seen a flowering of cvilizations throughout human history. That's why so much of this global warming hysteria is total crap.
Incidentally dramatic cooling in northern and central Europe (coupled with overpopulation) fueled to the barbarian migrations which ultimately destroyed the Roman Empire. If you trace the migration patterns of the various Germanic peoples, it becomes apparent that they were looking for warmer real estate.
A dramatic cooling in the 6th century (possiby caused by the eruption of Krakatoa) weakened the Byzantine Empire and created chaos and anarchy throughout the Middle East. Guess what historical figure used that chaos and anarchy to create a new religion?
0bama was up in PA by +7 at one point. Now it's close and he'll have to spend time and money there just to hold on to it. Bwahahahahahaha!
sharmuta -
Better Yet - the "Big O" has NOT been doing very well under "Private Financing" - AND - WATCH the Under $200 Contributions - I suspect MANY are fron Offshore.
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good,
Now, cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good,
When the levee breaks, mama, you got to move.
We are going to have one of the coldest winters in years this year. It has been very cool through most of the summer. It will be fun to see the Global Warming crowd try and spin that.
That's what bugs me. No matter what happens they just point and says, "See!" As if everything that happens is living proof.
OK, I'll take a 100 foot of wall. If we all get togrther we can keep back a half inch a year. Hell, I'll probably lay a foot of wall, that will last me more than twenty yaers.
Unfortunately it doesn't quite work that way. That sort of rise in the ocean would be absolutely devastating to mankind. The question is whether it would happen that way.
We need an Adopt-a-Bucket-of-Sea-Water campaign! If every person just took a bucket of water out of the ocean and took it home, we wouldn't have to worry about rising sea levels!
I've never bought this. I remember last year they were bitching about a melting glacier in the Alps that had been there "forever". Then some fool archeologist went and discovered Roman armor and weapons under the ice. Guess it hadn't been there that long eh?
Warm... cold... warm... cold... just keeps happening. Warm = Romans, Cold = Dark ages, Warm = Late middle ages, beginning of modern period, Cold = early to mid 1800's (read Charles Dickens and Little Ice Age).
We are coming out of the Little Ice Age and entering a new warming cycle.
Fallen Angels, by Jerry Pournelle, Larry Niven, and Michael Flynn.
This 1993 novel has Greens ruling the world during a resurgent ice age, and steadfastly ignoring their own role in causing it, while science minded dissidents and stranded astronauts carry on a campaign of passive resistance.
It overstates the case (glacial front in Minnesota by 2010) but it is a fun romp for SF fans and takes scores a number of deadly hits on Naderite eco-wackies.
So, if sea level rises even a couple of feet, how about we refill the Dead Sea, Great Rift Valley, and Qattara Depression? Maybe extend the Gulf of California back up into the California desert? Should take care of things for a couple of thousand years.
Yah, the glaciers in Glacier Park are shrinking as well. Anybody quess where they came from? THE ICE AGE.
Al Gore ought to make it a point to go up there when they're clearing Going to the Sun Highway. Might thin him out around the middle just watching it happen.
During the Medieval Warm Period, it was actually warm enough in England for there to be a wine industry.
For reasons that are probably too complex for chit-chat in the comments section -- or rather, too complex for my lazy self -- England isn't expected to warm up due to climate change. It's due to freeze.
The argument is framed so that no matter what happens, Algore is right. If the climate doesn't warm up like they are predicting, then it's bcause Algore warned us and we stopped driving our SUVs. If the climate does change, then it's because we didn't listen to Algore. It's all baloney IMO.
Was hoping to tie my hijacking back to the thread topic with a youtube showing how tropical conditions can reduce El Magnifico Leader to a melting incompetent. Wanted to find a clip from the old Gregory Peck movie Captain Horatio Hornblower. Those who remember the flick can easily see Obama as the enraged tyrant wannabe God as his ship crumbles around him.
Looks like the child soldiers somewhere in Africa. They would get stoned and wear trinkets or costumes thinking that it will make them invisible or impervious to bullets.
Usually, it would make 'em quite dead. Or prey for older men to rape.
For reasons that are probably too complex for chit-chat in the comments section -- or rather, too complex for my lazy self -- England isn't expected to warm up due to climate change. It's due to freeze.
Oh, good. Cover it with glaciers a mile thick, problem solved.
The argument is framed so that no matter what happens, Algore is right. If the climate doesn't warm up like they are predicting, then it's bcause Algore warned us and we stopped driving our SUVs. If the climate does change, then it's because we didn't listen to Algore. It's all baloney IMO.
Ah the gas chamber. I went through that in Orlando in '76. Hide in the back and repeat the 10 general orders without choking. Nothing to it!
There was a guy in my group that panic'd and attacked the exit door and when the DI tried to stop him, he started punching the DI and they started rolling around that puke/snot covered floor while we were chocked...we stayed in the gas chamber an extra couple of minutes because of that fight. It felt like 20m minutes.
Ah the gas chamber. I went through that in Orlando in '76. Hide in the back and repeat the 10 general orders without choking. Nothing to it!
CS was easy. I could walk around in there without the mask for quite awhile with little discomfort. Except for the ~ONE~ time I forgot I had my contacts in. I came out of the chamber pretty fast that day and liked to ripped my eyeballs out.
That is only good for ice floating on water. Most of the ice in the world (Greenland, Antarctica) is sitting on land.
Note that the land itself is floating -- not on water, but on molten magma -- and if the glaciers on Greenland and Antarctica melt, those two land masses will very gradually rise. But I'm not 100% sure how (or whether) this would in turn affect global sea levels.
When I was a kid in high school, I read an essay by Isaac Asimov -- or maybe it was Carl Sagan -- discussing "degrees of falsehood." Once upon a time, even educated people thought the Earth was flat; later on, educated people came to understand that that the Earth is actually a sphere; still later, it was understood that the Earth is an "oblate spheroid" that bulges at the Equator while being slightly flattened from pole to pole. And nowadays we can measure our planet's shape with enough precision to know that the pole-to-pole flattening is not perfectly symmetrical, since the Antarctic ice mass depresses the southern pole and thus makes the Earth very very slightly pear shaped, instead of very very slightly M&M-shaped. (An M&M being an extreme form of the "oblate spheroid" shape, in contrast to a "prolate spheroid," which is exemplified by an American-style football.)
Anyway, the point of the essay was that although the people who called the Earth an "oblate spheroid" were slightly incorrect, they were LESS incorrect than those who thought it was a perfect sphere, and MUCH LESS incorrect than those who thought the Earth was a flat disc.
And my only point in bringing all that up was to explain why I happened to know that the weight of glacial ice causes Antarctica to "float lower" on the magma sea compared with other parts of the Earth's crust.
Looks like the child soldiers somewhere in Africa. They would get stoned and wear trinkets or costumes thinking that it will make them invisible or impervious to bullets.
Usually, it would make 'em quite dead. Or prey for older men to rape.
Sick stuff.
There's a big part of me that wishes I had just passed your post by without reading it... lol
Good thinking. It's gotten so bad in GA over the years. You'd be better off killing someone than having a beer and driving home.
Its not about drinking and driving in GA, its about revenue enhancement. When you hit DUI roadblocks at 9 AM Saturday morning, and all you see is people pulled to the side looking for insurance papers, the issue is not DUI but revenue...
CS was easy. I could walk around in there without the mask for quite awhile with little discomfort. Except for the ~ONE~ time I forgot I had my contacts in. I came out of the chamber pretty fast that day and liked to ripped my eyeballs out.
We need an Adopt-a-Bucket-of-Sea-Water campaign! If every person just took a bucket of water out of the ocean and took it home, we wouldn't have to worry about rising sea levels!
Sharmuta -
AND - if we do it like GHANDI - we will also have - Lots of Salt.
Its not about drinking and driving in GA, its about revenue enhancement. When you hit DUI roadblocks at 9 AM Saturday morning, and all you see is people pulled to the side looking for insurance papers, the issue is not DUI but revenue...
Word, but... you're not drunk by 9? You must have some tolerance.
The bottom line: sea levels will rise much more than predicted by the IPCC, based on both present understanding of current glacial melt as well as evidence from the geologic record. "The IPCC noted that their estimates should be seen as minimum estimates," Carlson notes, "and they are right."
Ice displaces water in a glass, so when it melts, the level remains the same. The glaciers being discussed -- on Greenland -- aren't in water, but on land. Ergo, the water will rise. The question is how much.
It may have some. Anyone know how the buoyancy of land masses effects sea level?
Yesss. I just figured out how to make any song, any mp3, any digital music I have into the ringtone on my jailbroken iPhone. Only took me 15 minutes! My phone now has the coolest ring-sound in the entire world.
Too bad nobody ever calls! (Telling people my phone number would be a good start.)
Word, but... you're not drunk by 9? You must have some tolerance.
/joke
No, but some of my camping buds are! I like to watch the sunset sober, and then I'll get trashed! Its difficult to get in trouble when you are in the middle of woods with a bunch of happy drunks!
Not like there is a damn thing we can do about it happening, but we sure as hell can deal with it however devastating. I'm amazed by what we deal with already. Every year fire, floods, blizzards, mud slides, and hurricanes wreck havoc but we cope. We lost a whole damn major metropolitan city and the GDP barely burped!
OT
The state poll updates are finally in at RealClearPolitics
Tuesday, September 09
Race Poll Results Spread
Pennsylvania FOX News/Rasmussen Obama 47, McCain 45 Obama +2
Ohio FOX News/Rasmussen McCain 51, Obama 44 McCain +7
Florida FOX News/Rasmussen McCain 48, Obama 48 Tie
Virginia FOX News/Rasmussen McCain 49, Obama 47 McCain +2
Colorado FOX News/Rasmussen Obama 49, McCain 46 Obama +3
National ABC News/Wash Post McCain 49, Obama 47 McCain +2
National CBS News McCain 46, Obama 44 McCain +2
Washington SurveyUSA Obama 49, McCain 45 Obama +4
Virginia SurveyUSA McCain 49, Obama 47 McCain +2
Better than I hoped, still lots of work to do, especially in PA but this looks good.
Speaking as a private citizen Coloroodian, I am baffled by the polling results.
I've seen other photos of this rally, and the crowd was HUGE.
Some reports say there were 20,000+ standing outside.
No, but some of my camping buds are! I like to watch the sunset sober, and then I'll get trashed! Its difficult to get in trouble when you are in the middle of woods with a bunch of happy drunks!
I think it's time to conduct my own experiment. Got the glass, got the ice cubes, got the tequila, got a football game, yada, yada, yada. Have a great evening, all.
Look at it this way:
McCain: 42 each month for two months
RNC: 100 million each month..at least for September.
Now that is at least 142 million that can be spent by McCain or in support of McCain. I realize not all of the RNC can go to him but a big chunk so lets say half.
McCain: 42 + 50 = 92 million
All without lifting a finger to fundraise.
Has Obama EVER had a month that high, including the DNC take?
We need an Adopt-a-Bucket-of-Sea-Water campaign! If every person just took a bucket of water out of the ocean and took it home, we wouldn't have to worry about rising sea levels!
I wonder if there's some money to be made in this idea. Gullible people out there will do almost anything... Hmmm...
Is that a fact. I suggest this as a ring tone (Metallica doing Morricone)
No way. A good ringtone's got to grab you from the first instant, be short and catchy and memorable and distinct. Remember that most of the time you'll only ever heard the first ten seconds of it at most before answering.
Looks like the child soldiers somewhere in Africa. They would get stoned and wear trinkets or costumes thinking that it will make them invisible or impervious to bullets.
Usually, it would make 'em quite dead. Or prey for older men to rape.
Sick stuff.
My wife and I watched Tears of the Sun on DVD two years ago ... I told her things were not much better nowdays, in some parts of Africa.
It was one of those movies she thought was really great, and won't watch again.
So, if sea level rises even a couple of feet, how about we refill the Dead Sea, Great Rift Valley, and Qattara Depression? Maybe extend the Gulf of California back up into the California desert? Should take care of things for a couple of thousand years.
Here's one. This attributes a 61.1 meter rise to the hypothetical melting of the Antarctic ice sheet and 7.2 to Greenland, so I might have misremembered the exact amount (though glaciers would add several more meters to the total).
God, was that a s***ty little room. snot and puke all over the floor from the previous walk-throughs and that gas made every pore in your body start pouring liquids.
No way. A good ringtone's got to grab you from the first instant, be short and catchy and memorable and distinct. Remember that most of the time you'll only ever heard the first ten seconds of it at most before answering.
By that criteria, "Ice Ice Baby" is the finest ringtone ever written.
That's why, when my phone rings, it sounds like Sheriff Taylor is calling from Mayberry.
My wife and I watched Tears of the Sun on DVD two years ago ... I told her things were not much better nowdays, in some parts of Africa.
It was one of those movies she thought was really great, and won't watch again.
Despite 1) really cool small unit tactics, and 2) Monica Bellucci, I really didn't think the movie was great. Okay, but not great. The writing was kind of trite.
No way. A good ringtone's got to grab you from the first instant, be short and catchy and memorable and distinct. Remember that most of the time you'll only ever heard the first ten seconds of it at most before answering.
Prelude to Cello Suite No. 1 (J.S. Bach). Works for me.
Speaking as a private citizen Coloroodian, I am baffled by the polling results.
I've seen other photos of this rally, and the crowd was HUGE.
Some reports say there were 20,000+ standing outside.
Not very. The name Greenland was invented by the Patron Saint of Real Estate Agents, Erik the Red. He noticed that Scandinavians were hesitant about moving to his homeland just because it was named Iceland. So when Erik became a principal in a development company luring people to new time shares on the big island to the North he nixed the first suggestion that it be called Frozen Waste. There is no truth to the rumor that it was going to be called Melts and It Becomes White Water, beautiful as that undoubtedly sounds in Old Norse.
The place was habitable when the Icelandic colonists arrived, but green seems a stretch. Over the the next few hundred years the bones of each generation grew smaller as the colonies slowly starved into oblivion.
BUt the gas chamber is the best (and worse) part of the basic/boot camp training. Watching all your buds come outof the chamber with 3 ft long snot trails. another one trailing a lung. AHHH Fun Times!
Yeah, maybe a better debate would ask why the Bush administration is planning to sell the United Arab Emirates an advanced U.S. missile defense system valued at up to $7 billion ...
Apparently the unprecedented climate change we are witnessing today isn't quite as unprecedented as we had thought. The article does it's best to spin out a conclusion that this should make us even more concerned about the 'extra' effect of man-made global warming, which could be a valid point, but the reader can't fail to notice another of Al Gore's assumptions bite the dust.
As the glaciers melt the deep Ocean currents will change and the transfer of heat from the middle of the planet toward the poles will shift. We might even see Northern Europe fall into a deep freeze if the glaciers melt too much. .
Yeah, yeah, yeah... Glaciers have been melting since the end of the Little Ice Age. Check out the historical glacial terminus points for Glacier Bay, Alaska, for example.
OK- I read this twice now, and my take is... they really don't know what the hell is going to happen, nor at any point was cooling in the future taken into account. They're not even sure how the earth's wobble might affect this. It just really reaffirms my position that climatology is chaos in motion- good luck making predictions.
All true. But notice what the author concludes anyway:
"The bottom line: sea levels will rise much more than predicted by the IPCC, based on both present understanding of current glacial melt as well as evidence from the geologic record."
The Laurentide ice sheet that stretched as far south as New York State and Ohio some 20,000 years ago had retreated to eastern Canada, just across the water from Greenland, by roughly 11,000 years ago thanks to increased sunlight (due to the periodic wobble in Earth's axis known as precession)
Well the oceans get heavier so that forces the land masses up. Probably not as much as the water rises though earth being denser than water. The land mass under Greenland and Antarctica would rise a lot if the ice came off. Which gives the answer, when the low lying areas flood we move to Greenland. Actually it is really complicated because the low lying land are mostly river deltas that are there because that is where the water stops flowing and dumps the dirt. If sea level rises slow enough it is a self compensating system. New Orleans has two problems, one they do not allow annual floods to add silt to the city and raise the ground level and the Mississippi river is channelled so the dirt from the midwest is not dumped in the delta but further out in the Gulf of Mexico. The US has really no issues there is plenty of land for us to retreat to even for large increases in sea level and plenty of money to pay for it.
We need an Adopt-a-Bucket-of-Sea-Water campaign! If every person just took a bucket of water out of the ocean and took it home, we wouldn't have to worry about rising sea levels!
Does anyone else remember The Man Who Stole the Atlantic Ocean? The title character (and a few dozen accomplices) manages his colossal act of theft by sipping up the ocean with straws and spitting it into empty pickle jars, one mouthful at a time.
Hilariously absurdist kid's book, but long out of print because of its un-PC treatment of obesity. (The ringleader of the thieves, Mr. Fudgeripple Pouchhappy, is an enormously fat man who decides to steal the ocean because he looks ridiculous in a bathing suit.)
Floating ice has no effect on sea level, even if it melts. It's only glaciers, or ice on land, that has an effect. Most of the Arctic is floating ice. The Greenland glacier has grown in some places and shrunk in others, and it's hard to determine the net amount of melting/growth.
The Antarctic, otoh, is frozen solid, save for a small peninsula jutting out from it.
Anyway, AGW is so much hype. The foremost atmospheric scientists in the world aren't buying it, such as Lindzen.
can someone answer this.millions of cubic feet of snowmelt flow into rivers all over the world that flow into the oceans.Does that raise sea levels?
Spring melts in the north are match by fall snows in the south and vice versa. I'm not sure if there is a seasonal trend to oceans levels or not, maybe a small one.
Well yeah. The next 9/11 is planned for the beginning of November, then Chimpy McDeathwhore suspends the elections and assumes Dictator for Life status.
I've never bought this. I remember last year they were bitching about a melting glacier in the Alps that had been there "forever". Then some fool archeologist went and discovered Roman armor and weapons under the ice. Guess it hadn't been there that long eh?
Nobel-prize winning IPCC are "deniers" about the Medievel Warming Period (and other warm periods). It's that whole "hockey stick" graph scam.
Well yeah. The next 9/11 is planned for the beginning of November, then Chimpy McDeathwhore suspends the elections and assumes Dictator for Life status.
Minimally, I should think, and only over very long periods of time.
has to be more than significant. were the mona loa would be 30,000 ft high if all above sea level and would not stand.
Cognito - the fact that something sinks does not mean there is no buoyancy effect. everything outside of a vacuum is effected by its buoyancy in the air / liquid / amorphous solid / etc.. it is in
Ice is mostly air. Net sea level rise equals... zero.
You ever put ice in a glass of water and let it melt? Often the level drops. Jeesh.
Ice is all water, not mostly air. Snow if fluffy and airy, but the ice in an icecap is quite solid. As to ice in a glass of water, we're not talking about melting sea ice. If and when that melts, it makes the earth darker and so more of the incoming sunlight is absorbed as heat, but there is no direct effect on sea level.
We're talking about ice that now sits above the sea in ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica. If you want an analogy, what if you put a stack of ice cubes on a tray that drains into that glass of water? As the ice cubes melt, yes, Virginia, the water level in the glass rises.
It's just astonishing how people who insist on believing X reject any and all reasons pointing to Y.
Well yeah. The next 9/11 is planned for the beginning of November, then Chimpy McDeathwhore suspends the elections and assumes Dictator for Life status.
They need to get Sarah out to Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Colorado with a serious energy speech when she comes back from Alaska. Play to her depth of experience strengths, which has to do with energy and reform.
I saw an interview today (can't remember who with, dangit) with someone out in California, and it looks like the CA republicans are going out in full force, led by the campaign folks who helped Arnold turn around his campaign. And from what the CA Rep guy said, McCain is around 9-13 points behind in what should be a heavy Dem state with a sizable lead.
They also need to see if they can put Washington State in play. Reform might play well there.
Earth - 71% water, 29% land.
Ice occupies 9% more volume than water.
To raise ocean levels by 200 feet, we'd need 218 feet of ice.
Gotta stack that up on the LAND...
There's 2.4 times more ocean than land, so we'd need 530 feet of ice on every square inch of land.
Earth - 71% water, 29% land.
Ice occupies 9% more volume than water.
To raise ocean levels by 200 feet, we'd need 218 feet of ice.
Gotta stack that up on the LAND...
There's 2.4 times more ocean than land, so we'd need 530 feet of ice on every square inch of land.
I think we're safe...
Even more than that. As the ocean rises, it inundates land, which if the rise is enough can very significantly change the area of the oceans. That means you need more water.
The Bible doesn't say anything about the effects of climate change, thus pure logic insists that it's all a liberal atheist European conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
Well, it might be - if it was actually supported by the rest of the article.
Read critically, my man...
From the article:
"Given that Greenland's glaciers are not presently moving anywhere close to that pace—Kangerdlugssuaq Glacier, the fastest, reached speeds above nine miles (14 kilometers) per year in 2005—the researchers also looked at ice that could contribute from the rest of the world. Assuming that the largest remaining ice shelves in East Antarctica—Filchner-Ronne and Ross—will remain intact, sea level rise from all other melting ice and the expansion of seawater as the weather gets warmer over the next century would be somewhere between 2.6 feet (0.8 meter) and six feet (two meters)—or nearly twice as much as projected last year by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
This does not take into account how much sea level might swell from the metldown of the numerous small glaciers in Alaska, Argentina, Canada and Russia, which already contribute 60 percent of sea level rise from glacial melt. (In fact, Pfeffer notes that they are melting faster and therefore adding to sea levels more rapidly than Greenland and Antarctica combined currently do.) Nor is it clear whether something might suddenly occur to change that upper estimate. "If those two big ice shelves [in Antarctica] go out, then it's an entirely different situation," Pfeffer says. "But there's no good evidence that that's going to happen over the next century."
The article does support that claim, in fact it represents it as conservative. Whether you agree with the temperature projections that support depends on is another matter.
can someone answer this.millions of cubic feet of snowmelt flow into rivers all over the world that flow into the oceans.Does that raise sea levels?
Here's one of the not-so-obvious flaws in the article. The thing is, glaciers only flow into rivers and oceans, etc. if they're GROWING. If they were melting, they would simply recede. If they are growing, then you're not necessarily even looking at a net loss of ice. Also, the water for the growth of the glacier condenses after evaporating from the ocean. So how does this make the ocean level change?
If you realize this, some of the Global Warming alarmism gets comical.
Rising water levels? I think Tool sums it up best:
Some say a comet will fall from the sky.
Followed by meteor showers and tidal waves.
Followed by faultlines that cannot sit still.
Followed by millions of dumbfounded dipshits.
Some say the end is near.
Some say we'll see armageddon soon.
I certainly hope we will cuz
I sure could use a vacation from this
Stupid shit, silly shit, stupid shit...
One great big festering neon distraction,
I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied.
Earth - 71% water, 29% land.
Ice occupies 9% more volume than water.
To raise ocean levels by 200 feet, we'd need 218 feet of ice.
Gotta stack that up on the LAND...
There's 2.4 times more ocean than land, so we'd need 530 feet of ice on every square inch of land.
I think we're safe...
Wrong. You didn't actually do the math. There's like ten thousand feet of ice above much of Antarctica. That makes up for the fact that most of our land has no ice on it.
That Antarctic icecap is not going to melt any time soon. It's a theoretical point. But theoretically speaking, if it did melt, the oceans would indeed rise by 100 feet or more. A more realistic possibility is that much of the Greenland icecap would melt. If that happened, sea levels could well go up 10 or 20 feet.
It won't do to pop off and sneer at every last thing the other side says. Some of it is correct. By rejecting it all, skepticism verges over into denialism, and that wins no points with open-minded fence sitters. Bjorn Lomborg has the right approach. Think it through. Then reply.
It's funny how some people who are so sceptical about the ability of super computers running complex models to tell us anything of significance have so much faith in these kind of ad hoc off the top of the head calculations in their own brains. Like scientists are really THAT stupid.
I'm pretty sceptical myself about a lot of the claims made by global warming alarmists, but I'm equally sceptical of the (equally politically motivated) and often knee jerk reactions of the other side as well. Politics doesn't add much to scientific discourse, as far as I can see.
Floating ice has no effect on sea level, even if it melts. It's only glaciers, or ice on land, that has an effect. Most of the Arctic is floating ice. The Greenland glacier has grown in some places and shrunk in others, and it's hard to determine the net amount of melting/growth.
The Antarctic, otoh, is frozen solid, save for a small peninsula jutting out from it.
Anyway, AGW is so much hype. The foremost atmospheric scientists in the world aren't buying it, such as Lindzen.
Also, the Antarctic ice has expanded in recent years, but they don't like to talk about that.
There was some hype a couple of months ago that the North Pole might freeze "for the first time ever". Funny thing is, people first ventured to the North Pole about a hundred years ago, and I doubt they kept very good track of what goes on up there for decades after that. So - if it happened - it would really be "for the first time in decades". Nobody really knows whether it happens, say, every 70 years (for example). BTW, it didn't happen this year, and the sea ice is about the same as last year, but they managed to work a "Global Warming proved" story out of it anyway.
Also, as you're alluding to, it remains to be shown how the North Pole melting would make any difference. If you want to talk about polar bears, let's talk about when their habitat MUST HAVE BEEN warmer than today - when Greenland was habitable. Unless you want to claim they evolved into being in a few centuries, apparently they can take it. If you want to talk about sea level, it wouldn't have any effect anyway.
Of course, if you believe in Santa Claus, well - that IS a problem...
... end of the century, ... next century, ... yada-yada-yada.
Given that glaciers have been melting at least 3 years according to the article (they mention data from 2005) what was the rise of sea level so far? ... yearly data? ... total data? ... in last 10 years? ... 20 years?
The articles is speculatively alarmist. I remember a hype several years ago about falling sea level with ideas for melting icebergs to rise sea level, something like covering glaciers with powdered coal, yada, yada, yada
They need to get Sarah out to Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Colorado with a serious energy speech when she comes back from Alaska. Play to her depth of experience strengths, which has to do with energy and reform.
I saw an interview today (can't remember who with, dangit) with someone out in California, and it looks like the CA republicans are going out in full force, led by the campaign folks who helped Arnold turn around his campaign. And from what the CA Rep guy said, McCain is around 9-13 points behind in what should be a heavy Dem state with a sizable lead.
They also need to see if they can put Washington State in play. Reform might play well there.
You would think PA would go for their Energy schtick. The world petroleum industry was born there in 1859. Local people still have oil wells in their backyards. The problem is there's too many citydwellers, I guess. Many probably don't even know about their state's history.
Anyway, maybe McCain/Palin will swing by PA, and I could make it down to see the Maverick Duo.
Ice displaces water in a glass, so when it melts, the level remains the same. The glaciers being discussed -- on Greenland -- aren't in water, but on land. Ergo, the water will rise. The question is how much.
The article does speak about two of the ice shelves in Antarctica. Ice shelves are floating icefields that are attached to the shore. Their melting will have zero net effect.
Frankly, I'd like to see the math that "proves" melting of the Greenland ice sheet would raise ocean levels by 7 meters. I'm not at all convinced that is true. Much of the actual interior land mass of Greenland has been depressed below sea level by the weight of the ice upon it, so whatever fraction of the current ice that is now below sea level will not act to increase sea level elsewhere. Additionally, there is the principle of "isostatic rebound". This means, that once relieved of its burden of ice, Greenland will bob up like a rowboat once Rosie O'Donuts has climbed out of it. Both continents and ocean basins alike are floating upon the mantle, that great sea of semi-liquid dense rock beneath the crust of the Earth.
Now isostatic rebound doesn't happen overnight. North America is still rebounding from the weight of the Laurentide ice sheet. But that rebounding commenced as the ice sheet began to melt, as indeed it will if the Greenland ice sheet begins to melt. And as more water fills the ocean basins, they will burdened more heavily, and settle a little deeper into the mantle upon which they too, float.
I expect that, planet-wide, sea level will remain in equilibrium with the continents, but there may be local disruptions. In any case, changes that may take place will be slow enough that we can adapt. Instead of throwing money away in a futile attempt to stop climate change which might be induced by CO2 emissions, we'd be better off preparing our infrastructure to deal with possible adverse effects of any untoward planetary or cosmic disasters that might befall us.
"Satellite measurements from space and speed measurements on land confirm that Greenland's glaciers are melting and on the move."
I heard that some parts are melting, and others growing thicker, with the result being pretty even. And they wouldn't be "on the move" (at least in the forward direction) if they weren't getting thicker.
"And although the picture is less clear in Antarctica, the global warming seems to be having an impact there, too."
Very dishonest. The "impact" is that the warmer ocean water surrounding Antactica is making it snow more, increasing the thickness of the ice. But that doesn't support the alarmist story about oceans rising, so they spin it.
The next paragraph tells us this article is about a guy studying how fast glaciers are flowing into the sea to estimate sea level changes. I've already explained how silly that is in previous comments on this thread.
The next paragraph explains how these glaciers would supposedly have to move 70 times faster to raise sea level by only 2 meters. The next one makes the presumption of warmer climate in this century (causing thermal expansion), despite the climate models having been shown to be invalid.
They pull an estimate of 2.6 to 6 FT out of their butts, basically. 90% of the world's ice is on Antarctica, and 9% is on Greenland. If all of Greenland's ice melting would raise the oceans 23FT, then if all the remaining ice outside of Greenland & Antarctica melted it would only move 23FT/9 = 2.5 FT. So where do they get this number, while discounting G & A? And they add "This does not take into account how much sea level might swell from the meltdown of the numerous small glaciers..."
It doesn't get better later on. "...much more than predicted by the IPCC"? Gimme a break! They're talking about a difference of up to 3 FT per century. BFD.
BTW, NO speed-up in the rising of the oceans (which has been going on since the last Ice Age at less than 1 FT/century) has been detected, anyway. In fact it's been in a bit of a stall in recent years. So much for the end of the world.
Wrong. You didn't actually do the math. There's like ten thousand feet of ice above much of Antarctica. That makes up for the fact that most of our land has no ice on it.
That Antarctic icecap is not going to melt any time soon.
That's the key point. And I'm sure I read from reputable sources it's actually been growing, except on the peninsula.
Not to mention, global temperatures have dropped quite a bit over the last year.
Also, the Antarctic ice has expanded in recent years, but they don't like to talk about that.
There was some hype a couple of months ago that the North Pole might freeze "for the first time ever".
That's a trick they employ quite frequently. When the say "warmest year on record", that's actually not very long, goes back to the 1800s. They don't really have the science behind them, so they have to use smoke and mirrors.
Btw, for a great lecture on Global Warming I recommend this one by geologist Bob Carter. He is a great speaker and a top notch scientist:
The interesting fact is that global sea level measurements have shown no change in the rate of sealevel rise for the last hundred years. Yes, the seas are rising at about 1mm per year, as they have since accurate measurements have been made. If the global warming alarmists were right, this trend should be increasing. It is decidedly NOT.
What do you call it when a theory predicts a specific, quantifiable, physical effect to occur, and that effect is not forthcoming?
DISPROVEN!
This article appeared on cato.org on January 17, 2002.
Scientific American has sicced the big dogs on Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg for having the audacity to publish a highly referenced book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist," which argues that global warming and many other environmental "threats" are overblown. What gives?
Scientific American now joins the magazines Science and Nature in blasting Lomborg. They all editorialize that his "book is a failure" and call out four well-traveled attack dogs from the Washington big government/greenie/lefty establishment in support. They include:
You can also add National Geographic and Smithsonian magazines (as well as the National Geographic channel), to the list of AGW propagandists.
I have cancelled my subscriptions. Too bad. I remember when they used to be at least somewhat objective and would ask questions and show evidence. Not anymore.
It's funny how some people who are so sceptical about the ability of super computers running complex models to tell us anything of significance have so much faith in these kind of ad hoc off the top of the head calculations in their own brains. Like scientists are really THAT stupid.
I'm pretty sceptical myself about a lot of the claims made by global warming alarmists, but I'm equally sceptical of the (equally politically motivated) and often knee jerk reactions of the other side as well. Politics doesn't add much to scientific discourse, as far as I can see.
Most of these AGW scientists aren't stupid. They can see the easy grant money flowing as long as they "fudge" the science. Apparently, truth and honor takes a backseat to money for them.
And it's the Left that politicized this, for the express purpose of gaining power and raising taxes.
Think about it, climatologists and meteoroligists can't even predict the weather with much accuracy (if at all) for one week, let alone, months, years, and decades.
And all of their short range dire predictions of the 90's have failed to come to pass (worse and more frequent hurricanes, rising sea levels, rising temps, worldwide famine, etc..) and they have to keep "revising" their numbers.
Hell, they don't even take into account any historic climate patterns without lying their asses off.
I recommend you read Michael Chricton's "State of Fear," to get a better idea how the Left has politicized this bamboozle, as well as a good story to boot.
Hi .. long time lurker in trubble. I am using a proxy in able to post. Since yesterday when I try to get to littlegreenfootballs, I get this.
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access / on this server.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Apache/1.3.41 Server at littlegreenfootballs.com Port 80
Have I been blocked, has Hughes blocked this site?
"And although the picture is less clear in Antarctica, the global warming seems to be having an impact there, too."
That is SciAm's way of saying that the ice mass in Antarctica is increasing, and that the interior or the continent (away from ocean currents) has been cooling for the last 40 years. So, it doesn't fit the models. Something must be wrong. It's less clear. Right.
Information is not knowledge, Knowledge is not wisdom, Wisdom is not truth, Truth is not beauty, Beauty is not love, Love is not music and Music is THE BEST.