Re: OT:Re: London 'under water by 2100' as Antarctica crumbles into the sea

"Green/Pace" <1wise@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Again the point is Proven.

*What* it "is Proven?"
What's under contention is
not whether there were
natural warming/cooling
cycles before the presence
of modern, industrialized
civilization -- everyone
concedes that afaik -- but
whether the current extent
and ilk of such activity
prematurely initiated and/or
greatly accelerates and
exacerbates the present
warming trend, which might
not even be under way at
this time without the human
"contribution" of greenhouse
gases, deforestation, etc.

NNB

Before, there was no man it happened worse, the cycle is happening again.
Man is here and will have to cope with the change.
But it would have happened anyway.
So it's not irrelevant.

It will happen again, just like it has & is, happening now.
So it's not irrelevant.
Future generations will have to adapt.

Yes we should try for the least amount of pollution & should not clear cut
forests.

But, the Planet will continue to evolve on it's own, from 'Natural" sources.
Just as it "always" has.
Man can only affect certain aspects. But we should limit those, as much as
possible.

We "should" stop giving money to professional students, known as scientists.
They have a "vested" interest in dragging out their conclusions & satisfying
their sponsors. <<< on all sides.

"Bruce Morgen" <editor@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:259822d5euaq12g4sujad5qv8opbcnnsss@xxxxxxxxxx
"Green/Pace" <1wise@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Again, this proves that all this happened before & was worse than these
"predictions".

Irrelevant -- the last time
it happened there was no
industrialized civilization
there to be destroyed!

How old will you be in 2100????????????

Irrelevant -- the proper
question is, "How much of a
mess will we leave our
descendents to struggle with
or can we do something now
to prevent or mitigate such
a major crisis for them?"
Is there any such thing as
inter-generational
responsibility? It's your
call, but the founders of
the American republic sure
seemed to think so!


"timepixdc" <timepixdc@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:timepixdc-DE92F8.09500524032006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
London 'under water by 2100' as Antarctica crumbles into the sea
By Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent
(Times of London)

DOZENS of the world¹s cities, including London and New York, could be
flooded by the end of the century, according to research which suggests
that global warming will increase sea levels more rapidly than was
previously thought.

The first study to combine computer models of rising temperatures with
records of the ancient climate has indicated that sea levels could rise
by up to 20ft (6m) by 2100, placing millions of people at risk.

The threat comes from melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica,
which scientists behind the research now believe are on track to release
vast volumes of water significantly more quickly than older models have
predicted. Their analysis of events between 129,000 and 116,000 years
ago, when the Arctic last warmed to temperatures forecast for 2100,
shows that there could be large rises in sea level.

While the Greenland ice *** is expected to start melting as summer
temperatures in the Arctic rise by 3C degrees to 5C (5.4F-9F), most
models suggest that the ice sheets of Antarctica will remain more
stable.

The historical data, however, show that the last time that Greenland
became this warm, the sea level rise generated by meltwater destabilised
the Antarctic ice, leading to a much higher increase than can be
explained by Arctic ice alone.

That means that the models of sea-level rise used to predict an increase
of up to 3ft by 2100 may have significantly underestimated its ultimate
extent, which could be as great as 20ft.

Such a rise would threaten cities such as London, New York, Bombay and
Tokyo. Large parts of the Netherlands, Bangladesh and Florida would be
inundated, and even smaller rises would flood extreme low-lying areas,
such as several Pacific islands and New Orleans.

³Although the focus of our work is polar, the implications are global,²
said Bette Otto-Bliesner, of the US National Centre for Atmospheric
Research in Boulder, Colorado, who led the study. ³These ice sheets
melted before and sea levels rose. The warmth needed isn¹t that much
above present conditions.²

Her colleague, Jonathan Overpeck, of the University of Arizona, said:
³This is a real eye-opener set of results. The last time the Arctic was
significantly warmer than the present day, the Greenland ice ***
melted back the equivalent of two to three metres (6ft-10ft) of sea
level. Contrary to what was previously believed, the research suggests
the Antarctic ice *** also melted substantially, contributing another
6ft to 10ft of sea level rise.²





................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-






.................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

.

Loading