On 02/06/2014 6:39 PM, kefischer wrote: > On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 13:16:29 -0500, "Jim G." > <email@example.com> wrote: > >> cloud dreamer sent the following on 5/31/2014 6:26 AM: >>> On 31/05/2014 2:13 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 30.05.2014 02:36, schrieb R Kym Horsell: >>>>> Oh, sure. 1-2 mm/yr c1900, 2-3 mm/yr c2000 -- It's starting to compare >>>>> favourably to the last time the ice sheets melted. >>>>> >>>>> www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101201120605.htm >>>>> 4 Dec 2010 ... Southampton researchers have estimated that sea-level >>>>> rose by an average of >>>>> about 1 metre per century at the end of the last Ice Age, ... >>>> >>>> >>>> E.g. this article: >>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140528133151.htm >>>> >>>> Quote: >>>> "A new study has found that the Antarctic Ice Sheet began melting about >>>> 5,000 years earlier than previously thought coming out of the last ice >>>> age -- and that shrinkage of the vast ice sheet accelerated during eight >>>> distinct episodes, causing rapid sea level rise." >>>> >>>> How can they call this 'science'? >>>> >>>> The Antarctic is NOT melting AT ALL! >>>> >>>> The average temperatures are well below melting point of water, so there >>>> is little chance for ice to melt. >>>> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Antarctica >>>> >>>> Icebergs are already floating, hence have no influence on the sea-levels. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> So your rebuttal is Wikipedia's list of AVERAGE temperatures in Antarctica? >>> >>> Are you on drugs? >>> >>> http://www.grida.no/publications/et/pt/page/2559.aspx >>> >>> Though, I doubt you'll read it. You'd rather live in ignorance then >>> educate yourself. >> >> Am I the only one getting a kick out of these increasingly obscure >> sources? This one, once again, gives no indication of any official link >> to anything or anyone credible on its "About" page even as it tosses >> about lots of feel-good generalities. I like this bit, in particular: >> >> QUOTE >> Our staff consists of a diverse team of international professionals. >> Through a dynamic portfolio of projects, we partner with various >> organizations to facilitate free access to and exchange of information >> in support of decision making and to promote a sustainable future. >> END QUOTE >> >> Odd how it doesn't provide specific names and doctoral degrees in >> science fields, or any such thing. Or maybe not.
Odd how you can whine about who runs a site but have yet to provide a single piece of data to disprove what they're saying.
> > Yeah, a lot of Global Warming supporters > have degrees in literature, or economics, > but you won't find many geologists that > support it, they see too much evidence > that it has been a lot warmer before, way > before any IC engines or coal mines existed.
Ummm....no. Climatologists are climatologists not lawyers or historians.
"Supporters" can have any education. The difference is that those of us with an education are more open to learning.
Oh, and this "oh it was a lot warmer before" argument is pretty lame. I mean, seriously, are you that limited that you think only burning coal or oil can raise temperatures???? Seriously????
If you truly understood how the climate of this planet works, you'd know that is irrelevant.
And here's a hint...you can't compare the climate of the planet over the last 3 million years to any epoch before that. The rise of the Panama land bridge completely altered the climate of this planet. Altered it to one that saw the rise of homo sapiens.
What is happening now is going to be completely outside the climate that has existed over those three million years. The level of CO2 alone is already 100 ppm above the natural high and continues to increase at a rate of 2 ppm per year minimum....a rate that takes nature almost 1000 years to replicate. Atmospheric temperatures are following.
But you won't believe us until the supermarket shelves are empty.