Comments on: Seas rise — vast amounts of ice melt for every 1 mm gain http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/07/24/seas-rise-vast-amounts-of-ice-melt-for-every-1-mm-gain/ Global environmental challenges Wed, 16 Nov 2016 08:14:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: John http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/07/24/seas-rise-vast-amounts-of-ice-melt-for-every-1-mm-gain/comment-page-1/#comment-343054 Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:50:30 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/?p=13578#comment-343054 Why do you continue to refer to the term “Global Warming” when NASA and several CREDIBLE scientists have proven the earth has cooled each of at least the last nine years? This is irresponsible journalism at best and outright bias in reporting at worst. Mother Earth worshipers have changed the term to “Climate Change” because they can no longer call it “Global Warming”. But isn’t that just another word for “weather”? Oh, how the politically correct have taken over. Also, it is VERY clear science that even grade schoolers know, that melting ice does not increase water levels. Do the simple science experiment yourself with a glass or bowl of water and some ice cubes. Also, where is the mention that the ice in antartica is actually INCREASING? The only things the scientists have to “predict” the future are overly complex computer models. Who says these models are right? Them? Who funds them? The government? Al Gore? The end result is that those same models FAILED to predict the Global COOLING that has happened in the past few years. That tells me the models and flawed and therefore, the whole argument is questionable. 90% of the scientists? NO! This also is a misstatement and no fact.

]]>
By: Methuselah http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/07/24/seas-rise-vast-amounts-of-ice-melt-for-every-1-mm-gain/comment-page-1/#comment-340635 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:25:32 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/?p=13578#comment-340635 You’re just dead wrong about “most beaches of the world have more than a 3 foot elevation”. The vast majority of humans on the planet live in low-lying areas of less than a meter.

Educate yourself and stop spreading disinformation:
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/space_geodesy  /SEALEVEL/

Sea level predictions vary because:

1) there are multiple factors that will have varying impacts. If Greenland’s ice sheets melt, that is one impact. If Western Antarctica melts, that another. If BOTH Greenland and the Western Antarctica sheets melt completely, we’re talking a 23 foot rise. That would bother even you, I’ll wager.

2) The variations you see might also be due to the fact that current estimates of sea level rise are often calculated under varying scenarios — if we take big or small actions now, versus later, versus doing nothing at all. Those different scenarios are not always clearly defined in new stories.

]]>
By: Troy Shackelford http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/07/24/seas-rise-vast-amounts-of-ice-melt-for-every-1-mm-gain/comment-page-1/#comment-340624 Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:22:05 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/?p=13578#comment-340624 You might want to correct the statement that “human induced climate change is accept(ed) by 90% of scientists in the field. It’s nowhere close to that. And, among others in the engineering and scientific community who understand the complex system of processes that affect our climate, it’s even less. And, there are new studies in technical publications every week that either cast uncertainty on the “settled science” or disprove it completely. There is no such thing as settled science.

]]>
By: Michael Youngblood http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/07/24/seas-rise-vast-amounts-of-ice-melt-for-every-1-mm-gain/comment-page-1/#comment-340616 Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:08:00 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/?p=13578#comment-340616 Sea level is measured by globally averaging data from many places and times. Looking only at where the crust is rebounding just measures your preconceptions. In 9 years, when we have 50 years of satellite data, will the reader consider it?

Human induced climate change is accept by 90% of scientists in the field. Even George Bush now believes it.

Amundsen went to the North Pole in 1926 by air, not in 1903-1906 by boat. The Northwest Passage, open or closed, does not go to the pole.

]]>
By: Michael Moon http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/07/24/seas-rise-vast-amounts-of-ice-melt-for-every-1-mm-gain/comment-page-1/#comment-340613 Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:53:12 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/?p=13578#comment-340613 Measuring sea level is almost impossible at the millimeter scale. The Earth’s crust is actually rising due to the subsidence of the last Ice Age over 20,000 years ago. This produces FALLING sea levels in many places, such as Stockholm where the fall is over 5 mm/year. All credible experts agree that a minimum of 50 years of accurate data would be required to establish any change, and there is no such data.

Let’s worry about this when there is some proof, of any human-induced climate change at all. The satellite ice records date back to 1978. How much was there before that? Well, the Northwest Passage opened in 1905, which is how Amundsen reached the North Pole. Anecdotal data is no data…

]]>
By: Gerald Jones http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/07/24/seas-rise-vast-amounts-of-ice-melt-for-every-1-mm-gain/comment-page-1/#comment-340610 Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:11:06 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/?p=13578#comment-340610 Michael,

Some people read without comprehending.

]]>
By: Michael Youngblood http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/07/24/seas-rise-vast-amounts-of-ice-melt-for-every-1-mm-gain/comment-page-1/#comment-340603 Sun, 26 Jul 2009 16:53:30 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/?p=13578#comment-340603 “DrRebel” misunderstood the original article, which said that the 7.3 km cube of ice would smother most of central Paris, not that the resulting melt water would raise the ocean level enough to inundate the city.

The rest of “drrebel”‘s comment appears to make no sense.

]]>
By: drr http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/07/24/seas-rise-vast-amounts-of-ice-melt-for-every-1-mm-gain/comment-page-1/#comment-340583 Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:55:32 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/?p=13578#comment-340583 correcting my own…30 *cms* a century is 11.81 inches (I missed the decimal point) which is less than one foot. Don’t know the height of the edges of the Seine, but still would hardly “smother” it. Plus, in a century, human beings (if we can ever get around to using these big brains we like to brag about) should be able to figure out a workaround. That might make the streets of Miami a little wet and they might lose some of their beaches. But even most beaches of the world have more than a 3 foot elevation so we might lose some beaches, but hardly enough to move everything inland. And what’s up with the diff between those who say 30 cms a century and 1 meter a century? That’s a 3x diff!! Makes me wonder who’s using what sources for their data.

]]>
By: drrebel http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/07/24/seas-rise-vast-amounts-of-ice-melt-for-every-1-mm-gain/comment-page-1/#comment-340582 Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:36:57 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/?p=13578#comment-340582 Smother? Really? 1 mm will “smother” Paris? I doubt it. I mm wouldn’t even go over the banks to put a little wet slick on the roads. The 30 mms that *might* happen in a century = 1.181 inches, that wouldn’t even rise above the banks of the Seine.

Really. The objective reality, based on your own reporting here, is hardly worth getting in a dither about.

]]>