Slashdot Mirror
Earth Growing Due to Melting Glaciers
Dr. Shim writes "Some interesting (and rather frightening) news over at Space.com tells that the Earth is growing around the equator due to the fact that ice in the Antarctic (and other areas) is melting at an alarming rate."
"seriously, the Kyoto protocol was a joke."
That may be, but it was a step in a direction.
"By most calculations it would have made less than a 1% decrease in total global warming"
'Most' calculations? How about the others?
The thing that's most annoying is the refusal to consider something because of calculations or 'hypotheses' without a willingness to experiment or test the bloody hypothesis, which is kinda essential is 'most' calculations give one result and a lesser number don't.
The actual reason for not signing up to Kyoto was the f**ing expense, not the science.
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
I'm actually concerned that so much fresh water is getting dumped into the ocean, though what matters much more is, is how much is getting dumped around greenland. The problem being that this leads to the possibility of the gulf stream getting blocked up by fresh water, because the fresh water thins the salt water and hinders the sinking of gulfstream water so it can transport in the deepsea back to the gulf. Once it stops it could be centuries or more before it restarts, and lead to many degree's drop in temperature. In europe and I belive the US east coast area.
Consequence of all this would be, that you could live much less far north, meaning many people will have to move to the south, as well as leading to less food productiction, making agriculture much more energy intensive to make up for the difference.
Quickshot
Northern Africa was once a fertile plain that was the breadbasket of Rome. Now it is part of the world's largest desert. (And you cannot blame that on Bush either, greenies)
Climates change. If you own property that turns into a desert, you are screwed financially.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
So, the earth has gained 0.3 percent around the equator, and the glaciers are still retreating. This is in my eyes neither "rather frightening" nor "an alarming rate".
Good god, if sea level had risen to anywhere _near_
Where you got your imaginary number I don't know, nowhere in the article does the numer 3 or the word percent appear. The point being that you quite obviously have no means of determining what's "rather frightening" or "an alarming rate", since
The stupidest thing about this article, however is that it's from December 5, 2002. While the rising sea level is new to me, it seems rather silly to be argueing about a more than year old article when we've no idea if there's been more information released since.
AccountKiller
(Personally, I'm still thinking a couple of degrees warmer will be a net benefit; one should not analyse merely the costs without considering the benefits, and surprise surprise, that's exactly what twitchy, panicky, screamy environmentalists do. Sure, we lose a couple of inches of coastline, but we get a lot more arable land and perhaps more rain will help roll some deserts back.
I'm sure there are some people in Niue who would disagree with you. A rise of only 2 degrees will raise the sea level enough from simple thermal expansion to wipe out Niue and a number of other island nations in the Pacific. Not to mention low-lying coastal areas (five degrees, and we lose Florida).
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.