On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:34:40 GMT, "Mark Jerde"
wrote:

"Tim W" wrote in message
...

"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.

But when we're talking about Ross & Scott we're not talking about but a
fraction of a geologic tick of the clock. As I understand it Antartica used
to be a tropical place, back when it was closer to Africa and South America.

In my understanding the earth's climate is a lot like the earth's weather --
always changing!

Please explain why I should be concerned that "temporary" features like ice
shelves are freezing and growing and/or shrinking and melting. Based on my
googling it appears the only constant is *change*!

The reason you should be concerned is that if there is a significant
change in sea level there will be economic consequences for a lot of
people, not all of whom live close to the ocean--flood the ports and
no more Chinese tools or exotic woods until new ports are built.

But being concerned about climate change and trying to fix it with a
possibly ill-considered panic-stricken change in industrial policy are
not the same things.

Bejeerks! I'm old enough I was taught in elementary school that the earth's
mountains were formed by the "crinkling" of the earth as it "cooled." What
a load of nonsense that is.

AsbestosUnderware=on
When I read the original article I was impressed by how stupid it is to
rebuild a city that is below sea level like New Orleans, New Lousiana, USA.
I love the city; I've marched in Mardi Gras parades there, but IMO it is
stupid to rebuild it. It appears to me the evidence is that NO will be a
whole lot *more* underwater in the next xxxx years.
/
-- Mark