Let me preface this discussion with the statement that I am not questioning whether global warming is happening or not.
The reason I bring this topic forward is that I think that the global warming discussion has drawn everyone away from what is the root cause of this and many other problems.
Overpopulation and pollution.
The current world population is around 6.5 billion. It is generally estimated that around 2050 it will be near 9 billion. If this trends continue, year 2100 will see about 12 to 14 billion.... easily double what we have now. 100 years may seem long to us, but civilization wise or, even worse, compared to the natural evolution of life on Earth, it's an eye blink. If you double our populace ever 50 years, in less than 500 years (a period that would have taken us from the Renaissance til now), there won't be any standing room, since humans will be standing cheek by jowl on every single foot of the planet.
One of the reasons why this growth has been sustainable has been the development of massively increased yields in agriculture. However, this increase has been the source of an enormous increase in pollution of all types. An easy comparison can be made between the material comforts of a country and it's level of pollution... similarly this goes with population levels as well.
The more populated and comfortable a country becomes.. the more polluted it becomes.
People have been arguing over global warming often without referencing at all that this is simply one aspect of a much more concerning phenomenon. As a species, we are far too successful.
There have been many solutions suggested. War, disease and famine are often on the menu as ways of reducing population growth, but this is always more fun to discuss than to experience... to say the least.
At this time I do not see many practical solutions that could be implemented. What sort of world we will have in 200 years, I do not know. However I can tell you for certain that global warming will be the least of our concerns if we do not solve a number of issues first.
If everyone could have what is North America's average standard of living then the population would naturally go down.
In very technologically advanced areas, the birth rate is below sustainability.
Unfortuneately there is not enough energy in the world to do that.
In very technologically advanced areas, the birth rate is below sustainability.
Unfortuneately there is not enough energy in the world to do that.
The UN forecast for North America...
348,139 in 2010
447,931 in 2050
348,139 in 2010
447,931 in 2050
Rob, your last post is unclear. Are the figures birthrate per million?
buttershug, remember Asimov's 'Robot' series?
Come to the Joint and discuss it!
buttershug, remember Asimov's 'Robot' series?
Come to the Joint and discuss it!
Yes... sorry. That should have been in thousands. So read 348, 139 and add 3 zeros... 348, 139, 000.
People who worry about how CO2 may possibly affect the temperature of Earth in 100 years should pause to consider how government spending, hyper-inflation, increasing taxes, bankrupt states, worthless investments, corrupt politicians, dishonest leaders, homosexual solons, felonious businessmen, fuel shortages, medical costs, food costs, ubiquitous criminals, illegal aliens, perpetual wars, Muslim extremists, Islamic Jihadists, and inevitable nuclear war will surely impact their own life within 10 years.
James T. Conklin
James T. Conklin
Wow... that was a particularly bizarre post.
Not sure what a solon is but I can't see any kind of homosexuality having any impact on my life within ten years or even within a thousand. Considering that I pointed out that overpopulation is likely one of the major problems of the future... it might even help.
QUOTE
homosexual solons
Not sure what a solon is but I can't see any kind of homosexuality having any impact on my life within ten years or even within a thousand. Considering that I pointed out that overpopulation is likely one of the major problems of the future... it might even help.
I agree with your premise, RobDeGraves. I think global warming is a distraction from the very serious issues of pollution. Ground water contamination and superfund sites used to be a big rallying cry of environmental groups, but now all that makes the headlines is global warming. A lot of groundwater is contaminated though, and superfund sites still exist. But people(and big corporations) can argue about global warming in a way that you cant argue about high levels of mercury in your fish.
RobDegraves: One particular homosexual Solon (Barney Frank) contributed enormously in Congress to set up the inevitable collapse of Freddie & Fannie, the resulting mortgage meltdown, financial collapse, bank failures, stock market collapse, bailouts, TARP, stimulus spending, government take-overs, and the hyper-inflation to come. At least that one homosexual Solon has affected you.
Hmmm... one more from the local bigot.
You haven't noticed obviously that a whole bunch of non homosexuals have also been screwing you.
Hmmm.. well.. financially at any rate.
You haven't noticed obviously that a whole bunch of non homosexuals have also been screwing you.
Hmmm.. well.. financially at any rate.
QUOTE
conklin:
homosexual Solon
homosexual Solon
LOL, way to discredit you self.
Does the term solon come from the Athenian Solon?
The use of the expression "homosexual solons" was purely clinical. However, you homosexuals should not be offended by people who detest homosexual solons for the following reasons:
Homosexuals have an irresistible tendency to have sex in public toilets. Senator Larry Craig was arrested for soliciting fellatio in a toilet at an airport. A Florida solon was arrested for paying an undercover cop to perform fellatio in a public park toilet frequented by children.
Homosexual solons have been caught in several sex scandals. Barney Frank let his male lover, a hustler, run a prostitution ring out of his D.C. apartment.
Rep. Gerry Studds had sex with a 17-year-old boy and then turned his back on fellow House Members during the censure vote against him.
Rep. Mark Foley targeted young boys working in the U.S. Capitol.
Rep. Bob Bauman was charged with soliciting a 16-year-old boy for sex.
Eleven homosexual congressmen introduced a bill that would add “sexual orientation” to the list of protected categories for federal employees.
Homosexual toilet sex: The CDC reported that 71 percent of male HIV/AIDS cases are men who have sex with men. The homosexual lifestyle also leads to domestic violence, substance abuse and psychological disorders.
The Center for Disease Control warns that homosexuals have large numbers of anonymous partners resulting in rapid, extensive transmission of STDs.
Homosexual organizations promote public homosexual sex. Lambda Legal, a homosexual legal group, has a ‘Little Black Book’ which gives instructions on safe cruising.
According to the AP, as reported in Christian News (July 23, 2001), the seven worst serial killers in US history were ALL homosexual deviates:
Donald Harvey - 37 murders
John Gacy - 33 murders
Patrick Kearney - 32 murders
Bruce Davis - 28 murders
Dean Corll, Elmer Henley, David Brooks - 27 murders
&etc. &etc. &etc.
Wow.... what a bigoted and stupid post.
It fails on almost every level.. particularly in the logic dept or even basic humanity.
Let's look at these fallacious claims.
1.
Hmmm... I think that is a made up BS statistic. Any actual evidence to back up that ridiculous claim of yours?
2.
Hmmm... I think that is a made up BS statistic. Any actual evidence to back up that ridiculous claim of yours?
2. Homosexual solons have been caught in several sex scandals
So... non homosexuals don't get caught in sex scandals? Maybe something to do with Clinton?
Ever notice how a fair number of those politicians caught in homosexual sex scandals were ones that tended to be the most anti-homosexual themselves?
I also note that you are quite homophobic.... let's look at that shall we...
In 1996, a controlled study of 64 heterosexual men (half claimed to be homophobic by experience and self-reported orientation) at the University of Georgia found that men who were found to be homophobic (as measured by the Index of Homophobia)[32] were considerably more likely to experience more erectile responses when exposed to homoerotic images than non-homophobic men.[33]
This might go a long ways to explaining the hate coming from your post. Don't you think?
Lastly...
So much for your BS statistics. I suggest you look at yourself for a while before condemning others.
So much for your BS statistics. I suggest you look at yourself for a while before condemning others.
Luke 6:41-42 (New International Version)
41"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
I agree, it’s a great fear tactic to distract form a number of problems. Addressing topics like, the slave class we (the U.S.) have made out of illegal immigrants, the ever present religious groups pushing there beliefs into the government despite our so called “separation of church and state”, the failing economy, our sub par education system, and overpopulation don’t make politicians popular. It’s much safer to attack the global climate change issue because it doesn’t isolate any group of people or point out any of our government’s problems. It’s a great tool for politicians when you think about it.
Something that seems to me to be missing form the global climate change issues are these simple questions: (they are repeat questions from my other post but I thought it would be more appropriate if I asked them on in this post.)
Is global climate change a natural event and if so why are we trying to stop it?
Can we realistically stop it if only a small fraction of its effects are because of humans?
It fails on almost every level.. particularly in the logic dept or even basic humanity.
Let's look at these fallacious claims.
1.
QUOTE
Homosexuals have an irresistible tendency to have sex in public toilets.
Hmmm... I think that is a made up BS statistic. Any actual evidence to back up that ridiculous claim of yours?
2.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Homosexuals have an irresistible tendency to have sex in public toilets. |
Hmmm... I think that is a made up BS statistic. Any actual evidence to back up that ridiculous claim of yours?
2. Homosexual solons have been caught in several sex scandals
So... non homosexuals don't get caught in sex scandals? Maybe something to do with Clinton?
Ever notice how a fair number of those politicians caught in homosexual sex scandals were ones that tended to be the most anti-homosexual themselves?
I also note that you are quite homophobic.... let's look at that shall we...
QUOTE
Internalized homophobia (or egodystonic homophobia) refers to homophobia as a prejudice carried by individuals against homosexual manifestations in themselves and others.[29] It causes severe discomfort with or disapproval of one's own sexual orientation. Internalized homophobia is thus a form of cognitive dissonance; the individual cannot reconcile the conflicting conscious or unconscious sexual desires with values and tenets gained from society, religion or upbringing.
Such a situation may cause extreme repression of homosexual desires.[30] In other cases, a conscious internal struggle may occur for some time, often pitting deeply held religious or social beliefs against strong sexual and emotional desires. This discordance often causes clinical depression, and the unusually high suicide rate among gay teenagers (up to 30 percent of non-heterosexual youth attempt suicide) has been attributed to this phenomenon.[31]
Such a situation may cause extreme repression of homosexual desires.[30] In other cases, a conscious internal struggle may occur for some time, often pitting deeply held religious or social beliefs against strong sexual and emotional desires. This discordance often causes clinical depression, and the unusually high suicide rate among gay teenagers (up to 30 percent of non-heterosexual youth attempt suicide) has been attributed to this phenomenon.[31]
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Internalized homophobia (or egodystonic homophobia) refers to homophobia as a prejudice carried by individuals against homosexual manifestations in themselves and others.[29] It causes severe discomfort with or disapproval of one's own sexual orientation. Internalized homophobia is thus a form of cognitive dissonance; the individual cannot reconcile the conflicting conscious or unconscious sexual desires with values and tenets gained from society, religion or upbringing. Such a situation may cause extreme repression of homosexual desires.[30] In other cases, a conscious internal struggle may occur for some time, often pitting deeply held religious or social beliefs against strong sexual and emotional desires. This discordance often causes clinical depression, and the unusually high suicide rate among gay teenagers (up to 30 percent of non-heterosexual youth attempt suicide) has been attributed to this phenomenon.[31] |
In 1996, a controlled study of 64 heterosexual men (half claimed to be homophobic by experience and self-reported orientation) at the University of Georgia found that men who were found to be homophobic (as measured by the Index of Homophobia)[32] were considerably more likely to experience more erectile responses when exposed to homoerotic images than non-homophobic men.[33]
This might go a long ways to explaining the hate coming from your post. Don't you think?
Lastly...
QUOTE
Gary Leon Ridgway (born February 18, 1949), known as the Green River Killer, is an American serial killer. Ridgway murdered numerous women in Washington during the 1980s and 1990s. He strangled them with rope, fishing line and anything else he could find. He also engaged in forms of torture, rape, and necrophilia.
On November 30, 2001, as he was leaving a Renton, Washington factory where he worked, he was arrested for the murders of four women whose cases were linked to him through DNA evidence.[1] In November of 2003 he pleaded guilty to 48 counts of aggravated murder, although he says he actually killed 90 women or more, almost all prostitutes. The murders occurred in the early 1980s. As part of a plea bargain, he was spared the death penalty and received a sentence of life imprisonment without parole.
On November 30, 2001, as he was leaving a Renton, Washington factory where he worked, he was arrested for the murders of four women whose cases were linked to him through DNA evidence.[1] In November of 2003 he pleaded guilty to 48 counts of aggravated murder, although he says he actually killed 90 women or more, almost all prostitutes. The murders occurred in the early 1980s. As part of a plea bargain, he was spared the death penalty and received a sentence of life imprisonment without parole.
So much for your BS statistics. I suggest you look at yourself for a while before condemning others.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Gary Leon Ridgway (born February 18, 1949), known as the Green River Killer, is an American serial killer. Ridgway murdered numerous women in Washington during the 1980s and 1990s. He strangled them with rope, fishing line and anything else he could find. He also engaged in forms of torture, rape, and necrophilia. On November 30, 2001, as he was leaving a Renton, Washington factory where he worked, he was arrested for the murders of four women whose cases were linked to him through DNA evidence.[1] In November of 2003 he pleaded guilty to 48 counts of aggravated murder, although he says he actually killed 90 women or more, almost all prostitutes. The murders occurred in the early 1980s. As part of a plea bargain, he was spared the death penalty and received a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. |
So much for your BS statistics. I suggest you look at yourself for a while before condemning others.
Luke 6:41-42 (New International Version)
41"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
QUOTE
The reason I bring this topic forward is that I think that the global warming discussion has drawn everyone away from what is the root cause of this and many other problems.
I agree, it’s a great fear tactic to distract form a number of problems. Addressing topics like, the slave class we (the U.S.) have made out of illegal immigrants, the ever present religious groups pushing there beliefs into the government despite our so called “separation of church and state”, the failing economy, our sub par education system, and overpopulation don’t make politicians popular. It’s much safer to attack the global climate change issue because it doesn’t isolate any group of people or point out any of our government’s problems. It’s a great tool for politicians when you think about it.
Something that seems to me to be missing form the global climate change issues are these simple questions: (they are repeat questions from my other post but I thought it would be more appropriate if I asked them on in this post.)
Is global climate change a natural event and if so why are we trying to stop it?
Can we realistically stop it if only a small fraction of its effects are because of humans?
Back to the OP,
Although I do agree, and something needs to be done lets not forget that in 1968 Paul R Ehrlich published "The Population Bomb" which predicted mass starvation due to over population as soon as the 70's or 80's, but we learned new agricultural techniques that equalled the balance.
I don't exactly agree with some of the kinds of mass farming production now used, but it shows how we can overcome these problems, (there may be hope). I do realise that if it carries on with shrinking infant mortality and rising life expectancy it will not be sustainable but just thought I'd mention it, it is a biggy, thats for sure.
Although I do agree, and something needs to be done lets not forget that in 1968 Paul R Ehrlich published "The Population Bomb" which predicted mass starvation due to over population as soon as the 70's or 80's, but we learned new agricultural techniques that equalled the balance.
I don't exactly agree with some of the kinds of mass farming production now used, but it shows how we can overcome these problems, (there may be hope). I do realise that if it carries on with shrinking infant mortality and rising life expectancy it will not be sustainable but just thought I'd mention it, it is a biggy, thats for sure.
Part of the thing that gets me about people whom complain about carbon is this, while the percentage of seems to remain low, the ppm (parts per million) off the freaking charts. The same thing is basically the argument for the current economic fiasco and comparing it to the great depression.
The first thing you will hear is this, "No way, the great depression had an unemployment rate of 25% floating around 8-10% is no where near that margin of problem. Debunk, go to actual numbers.
Lost link (oops)
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
The number of unemployed persons (14.7 million) and the unemployment rate (9.5 percent) were little changed in June.
14.7 million people unemployed is a bigger problem than 11.4 million. What would happen if the the percentages were the same ... what a nightmare. 37 million + people unemployed. No, that wouldn't be a huge problem.
Same thing with carbon ... carbon isn't the worst thing that contributes to warming, methane is worse, and where frozen tundra/permafrost is stating to thaw, methane is being released. Carbon is the the butterfly effect? I mean 2-3% per year ... times how many years, and for how many years has carbon production been on the increase? Percentages are all that important or are they? The ocean is becoming over acidic from carbon ... that is already starting to limit some marine species ability to reproduce. Whether or not we are part cause (my stance) or sole ... is not the freaking problem anymore more. The problem is what are we going to do, because whether or not how it happens (like it has many times in history for various theoretical reasons - cyclical climate change) ... it is happening right now the data supports it. What do we do?
Like New Orleans? And along the entire coastline?
The first thing you will hear is this, "No way, the great depression had an unemployment rate of 25% floating around 8-10% is no where near that margin of problem. Debunk, go to actual numbers.
Lost link (oops)
QUOTE
At the height of the Depression in 1933, 24.9% of the total work force or 11,385,000 people, were unemployed.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| At the height of the Depression in 1933, 24.9% of the total work force or 11,385,000 people, were unemployed. |
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
The number of unemployed persons (14.7 million) and the unemployment rate (9.5 percent) were little changed in June.
14.7 million people unemployed is a bigger problem than 11.4 million. What would happen if the the percentages were the same ... what a nightmare. 37 million + people unemployed. No, that wouldn't be a huge problem.
Same thing with carbon ... carbon isn't the worst thing that contributes to warming, methane is worse, and where frozen tundra/permafrost is stating to thaw, methane is being released. Carbon is the the butterfly effect? I mean 2-3% per year ... times how many years, and for how many years has carbon production been on the increase? Percentages are all that important or are they? The ocean is becoming over acidic from carbon ... that is already starting to limit some marine species ability to reproduce. Whether or not we are part cause (my stance) or sole ... is not the freaking problem anymore more. The problem is what are we going to do, because whether or not how it happens (like it has many times in history for various theoretical reasons - cyclical climate change) ... it is happening right now the data supports it. What do we do?
Meem,
I’m not sure what you’re saying? If I’m correct than your saying that we are headed for a major global climate change and taking actions to prevent it is futile, what we need to do is decide what we are going to do when it comes. If I’m correct in determining your meaning then, I agree.
I see the climate change as a snow ball effect. If we simply stop pushing the snow ball down the hill it doesn’t mean that it will stop it from rolling into our cabin at the base of the hill. So the only two options we have is 1. create something to stop the snowball, or 2. brace for impact.
As it stands now I don’t think anyone is taking action that would realistically maintain the current environment. We would need a Sci-fi mad genus weather machine, which I am all for! I would much rather the government spends billions on that than green tokens.
I’m not sure what you’re saying? If I’m correct than your saying that we are headed for a major global climate change and taking actions to prevent it is futile, what we need to do is decide what we are going to do when it comes. If I’m correct in determining your meaning then, I agree.
I see the climate change as a snow ball effect. If we simply stop pushing the snow ball down the hill it doesn’t mean that it will stop it from rolling into our cabin at the base of the hill. So the only two options we have is 1. create something to stop the snowball, or 2. brace for impact.
As it stands now I don’t think anyone is taking action that would realistically maintain the current environment. We would need a Sci-fi mad genus weather machine, which I am all for! I would much rather the government spends billions on that than green tokens.
To be rather honest, I'm not really sure either. If we are part of the problem, and the current "problem" is a result of what "little" we do, can we do "more" to try and fix it? Is it possible that if there where no catastrophic events, that we would be able to influence, tip, or "control" our environment? It seems like it would be possible to me ... but I can't be certain. Is it possible for man to speed up a natural process? It seems so on smaller scales, why not larger ones? I don't have that answer. Either way, nature will eventually correct itself and the problem ... one way or another. Where is the point of no return? Is it behind us, or in-front of us?
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 20 2009, 01:11 PM)
To be rather honest, I'm not really sure either. If we are part of the problem, and the current "problem" is a result of what "little" we do, can we do "more" to try and fix it? Is it possible that if there where no catastrophic events, that we would be able to influence, tip, or "control" our environment? It seems like it would be possible to me ... but I can't be certain. Is it possible for man to speed up a natural process? It seems so on smaller scales, why not larger ones? I don't have that answer. Either way, nature will eventually correct itself and the problem ... one way or another. Where is the point of no return? Is it behind us, or in-front of us?
From what I understand, we're pretty f**ked. It's beyond the point of no return. Even if it wasn't, we aren't exactly passing drastic measures in the government. All we can hope for is that nature has a counterbalance. If the land ice of Greenland melts, and the ocean rises by even a meter, we will have a world-wide disaster. All we can hope for is that Greenland takes a long long time to melt.
(edit)
Sea level rise
Ok, looks like it won't be that bad after all.
From what I understand, we're pretty f**ked. It's beyond the point of no return. Even if it wasn't, we aren't exactly passing drastic measures in the government. All we can hope for is that nature has a counterbalance. If the land ice of Greenland melts, and the ocean rises by even a meter, we will have a world-wide disaster. All we can hope for is that Greenland takes a long long time to melt.
(edit)
Sea level rise
Ok, looks like it won't be that bad after all.
Something just occurred to me….
Why wouldn’t the ice melt (of Greenland or the North Pole) in a post Ice Age environment? Am I missing something? Even if we (humans) make it melt faster, that doesn’t mean it’s not going to melt.
Why wouldn’t the ice melt (of Greenland or the North Pole) in a post Ice Age environment? Am I missing something? Even if we (humans) make it melt faster, that doesn’t mean it’s not going to melt.
QUOTE (Nihilist+Jul 20 2009, 02:37 PM)
Something just occurred to me….
Why wouldn’t the ice melt (of Greenland or the North Pole) in a post Ice Age environment? Am I missing something? Even if we (humans) make it melt faster, that doesn’t mean it’s not going to melt.
It is possible that without human interference the glaciers and ice caps could have persisted. They have for thousands of years after all. Even if this is just a natural cycle, that doesn't mean that nature cares much for us humans. Luckily, we will all be long-dead before sea levels begin to rise to dangerous levels. If sea levels go up even 1 meter, most coastal cities will be flooded at high tide.
Why wouldn’t the ice melt (of Greenland or the North Pole) in a post Ice Age environment? Am I missing something? Even if we (humans) make it melt faster, that doesn’t mean it’s not going to melt.
It is possible that without human interference the glaciers and ice caps could have persisted. They have for thousands of years after all. Even if this is just a natural cycle, that doesn't mean that nature cares much for us humans. Luckily, we will all be long-dead before sea levels begin to rise to dangerous levels. If sea levels go up even 1 meter, most coastal cities will be flooded at high tide.
Some people think it's possible to see a 1-3 meter rise by 2050 maybe slightly more by 2100.
Why does a meter of water cause so much damage? I would suspect that it would be costly for us to combat it but I think we would do something to combat it before it destroyed cities. Like building a wall around the waters edge and adding concreter breakers, like the Japanese have in a lot of areas… Then again the U.S. government seems to really not care much about its people.
QUOTE
Like building a wall around the waters edge and adding concreter breakers
Like New Orleans? And along the entire coastline?
Although I think sea level rise will be a major concern, I believe there will be other more immediate problems caused by climate change. For example, large scale crop failure would be devastating. So would tropical diseases like malaria moving into new areas where people have no resistance.
Man made or not, it seems clear that the earth is undergoing a change. Preparing for that change seems more prudent than continuing to argue about it.
Man made or not, it seems clear that the earth is undergoing a change. Preparing for that change seems more prudent than continuing to argue about it.
Another thing that bothers me with these estimates or sea level rise, relates to the estimates made of Ice Melt, like ones of the Arctic. It was thought to possibly be ice free in the summer .. originally till near 2100, then it changed to 2070ish, then 2040, and now people are thinking the correct estimate is 2013. This estimation error and reevaluation has taken place since the late 90's and really didn't get started until the 21st century started, because it was just a bunch of stupid hippies talking nonsense.
If we were so wrong about Ice Melt (it's happen faster, and more widespread), what makes the estimates about sea-level rise any more "perfect?" The two are related so I would just have to take an "uneducated" guess and say sea level rise estimates are probably off as well, and it could happen faster and more extensively than previously thought.
Keep in mind land based ice does not have to totally melt to have an effect on sea level rise. All that is required is that the ice makes it to the sea, it doesn't have to totally melt. A lot of research shows there are several glaciers vulnerable to this. When melts have been occurring, the run-off tunnels through the ice to the bottom and essentially lubes glaciers as well carving away structure, and they start to slide on land. Some of the ones in the Antarctic are held back by sea ice, which has been thinning, and west Antarctica has been seeing a small warming trend.
If we were so wrong about Ice Melt (it's happen faster, and more widespread), what makes the estimates about sea-level rise any more "perfect?" The two are related so I would just have to take an "uneducated" guess and say sea level rise estimates are probably off as well, and it could happen faster and more extensively than previously thought.
Keep in mind land based ice does not have to totally melt to have an effect on sea level rise. All that is required is that the ice makes it to the sea, it doesn't have to totally melt. A lot of research shows there are several glaciers vulnerable to this. When melts have been occurring, the run-off tunnels through the ice to the bottom and essentially lubes glaciers as well carving away structure, and they start to slide on land. Some of the ones in the Antarctic are held back by sea ice, which has been thinning, and west Antarctica has been seeing a small warming trend.
I think that maybe, that "global warming/climate change" argument against it happening is the red herring.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.