Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe that additional Co2 over the next 60 years will warm the planet (to some extent). I don't believe that it will cause some apocalyptic warming and dying of the planet in the next 60 years... Sanspuer thinks that man adding co2 into the atmosphere is evil and can only harm the planet. Of course, that is pure lunacy.
I believe that additional Co2 over the next 60 years will warm the planet (to some extent). I don't believe that it will cause some apocalyptic warming and dying of the planet in the next 60 years... Sanspuer thinks that man adding co2 into the atmosphere is evil and can only harm the planet. Of course, that is pure lunacy.
Are you psychic? If not how do you know what I think?....I'll tell you....I think that if we keep adding CO2 eventually (not in your time or mine, but in our grandchildren's time) at the very least, there will be a large cost to pay as the seas continue to rise and flood cities all over the planet....That is the legacy we are leaving for them.
I am Canadian and us Canadians generally don't have a "the me first attitude" that seems to prevail in the US.
I believe that additional Co2 over the next 60 years will warm the planet (to some extent). I don't believe that it will cause some apocalyptic warming and dying of the planet in the next 60 years... Sanspuer thinks that man adding co2 into the atmosphere is evil and can only harm the planet. Of course, that is pure lunacy.
Sea level rise is going to be expensive. A lot of people live within a few miles of the coast. Imagine the cost of relocating all our port cities inland about 25 miles. As Ben Franklin told us "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
Just read the OP... I usually deny any case of sea rise because sea rise because of melting ice just doesn't show up in Norfolk, VA and nowhere else.
At least the article in the OP mentioned a rise in Antarctica, where the ice is located. That makes sense.
What the article actually says is that the rise in sea-level has been higher in parts of the Antarctic where salinity levels are lower. The reason is that fresh water isn't as dense as saltwater(even though it has the same mass).
Basically it means, if you had a balloon full of freshwater and a balloon full of saltwater of exactly the same weight, the freshwater balloon would be larger in diameter. What that means in relation to this article is that sea-level rise will be greater in the areas where the salinity level is lower than where it is higher.
Thus the increased sea-level rise in Antarctica relative to the rest of the world by itself is completely and utterly meaningless. What we actually need to know is whether or not the salinity level near Antarctica is staying the same or going down. If it is staying the same then this article is completely meaningless. If the salinity level is going down, that means there is a significant increase in freshwater. Which would mean a significant increase in either precipitation on and/or near Antarctica(which we already know is happening), or a significant increase in melting ice.
The truth is, both of these are what is happening, but you need to be careful about jumping to any conclusions about why it is happening and what it means. The truth is, the ice-sheets have been melting a long time, and will continue to melt regardless of the existence of humans. The only real argument is about how much faster the ice is melting as a result of human activity, and what that means to life on Earth.
This article doesn't really add anything to that discussion because it says nothing and explains nothing. The data it provides cannot be used to draw any meaningful conclusions whatsoever.
The ocean temperature is rising, which is the cause of the increase of sea ice in the Antarctic. (Warm water freezes more readily than cold water.)
thank you thank you thank you....
I am soo very happy that you have said this. Not because you are right (you arent).... but because being wrong, you show just how little you know about physics..... which means you are quite equal to the average CAGW freakout artists....
giggle. warm water freezes more readily than cold water... hahahahaha....
Actually one of the reasons sea ice is growing in the Antarctic is because of the huge influx of fresh water from land ice entering the ocean...Fresh water is less dense than sea water so remains on the surface for a time, and freezes at 32 degrees, compared to sea water that freezes at -28 degrees.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
