J. Clarke wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 01:01:56 GMT, "Tim W"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
. ..
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"?

Okay. we are not looking at a "snapshot of the earth in 1977" That was
my simple point.

Do we know what is normal over geological time-spans? Well yes, we
have a pretty good idea based on ice-cores, sea level changes, fossil
records and the like, but it is a total irrelevance since you and i
are not going to live that long. Global warming is going to happen
this century and rapidly.

And?

Are you just proclaiming doom and gloom or is somebody supposed to do
something about it?


Buy property in the Ozarks before the rush!