On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:51:20 GMT, "Tim W"
wrote:


"Mark Jerde" wrote in message
news:_BoEh.4251$tR1.2181@trnddc05...
"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
news:i96Eh.4953$Xe1.3534@trndny01...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm

"What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's huge ice
sheets remaining stable."

Huh? Why should they be stable? Why do we assume a snapshot of the earth
in 1977 is the way things are always supposed to be? The earth is still
changing.

Except that Cook saw them in the 18th Century, Ross took a closer look in
the mid 19th century, Scott did detailed land based surveys early in the
20th century followed by a lot of data throughout the 20th century which
says that we are no witnessing a gradual change over a long period but a
sudden dip in temperatures and a possible collapse of the sea-born ice
sheets.

Now let's see, from the beginning of the 18th century to now is what,
3 percent of _one_ glaciation cycle? And on that basis we know what
is "normal"?