"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*!

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



And a whole lot more cities to boot.