Honestly, do you care?

I know some people take it quite serious. The truth is that if Greenland
were to melt along with the ice caps, that the oceans would rise 19 to 24
feet (depending on which Scientist you believe). All Scientist agree that
the oceans would rise.

With that said, I have wondered if some people look forward to anything
apocalyptic.

I have to question if Liberals really care about the environment or if it is
just politics... Then I have to wonder if conservatives even care, or if
they just look forward to anything apocalyptic...

I ask this because inside of my natural self... I always look forward to the
apocalytic, but the practical part of me wants to preserve what is in our
control (i.e. regardless if we are inducing the current global warming
trend, then we have a responsibility to stop it..)

So, apocalyptic and keep pretending we are not causing any issues? Or do
what we can on our part to keep pollutants out of the air?

Which are you?

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:38:51 GMT, "Mr4701" <NoExists@Earth.net> wrote:

>Honestly, do you care?
>
>I know some people take it quite serious. The truth is that if Greenland
>were to melt along with the ice caps, that the oceans would rise 19 to 24
>feet (depending on which Scientist you believe). All Scientist agree that
>the oceans would rise.

Snip

3/5s of our planet is covered by water. Do you have any idea how much
water it would take to raise the ocean level world-wide by 19 feet?

Given the fact that almost 1/2 of the world's ice is floating and it's
melting would have no effect on water level, the amount of ice melt
needed to raise the ocean levels 1 foot would be tens of miles thick.

You might also remember that the Norse named the island Greenland
because of the lush, green forests and meadows that were growing there
when they discovered it. A case could be made that it is reverting to
it's historical climatic conditions.

Jack

Retired VIP wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:38:51 GMT, "Mr4701" <NoExists@Earth.net> wrote:
>
>> Honestly, do you care?
>>
>> I know some people take it quite serious. The truth is that if Greenland
>> were to melt along with the ice caps, that the oceans would rise 19 to 24
>> feet (depending on which Scientist you believe). All Scientist agree that
>> the oceans would rise.
>
> Snip
>
> 3/5s of our planet is covered by water. Do you have any idea how much
> water it would take to raise the ocean level world-wide by 19 feet?
>
> Given the fact that almost 1/2 of the world's ice is floating and it's
> melting would have no effect on water level, the amount of ice melt
> needed to raise the ocean levels 1 foot would be tens of miles thick.

You might want to read the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. They looked at this in depth. It's available online.

I don't recall how much the sea level would rise. I think it is about 1
m, not 6 m (19 ft).

> You might also remember that the Norse named the island Greenland
> because of the lush, green forests and meadows that were growing there
> when they discovered it. A case could be made that it is reverting to
> it's historical climatic conditions.

To do that, you need to remove all the CO2 man has put into the atmosphere.

The increased CO2 concentration in the air do affect plant life as well
as sea life when the CO2 dissolves into the ocean and lowers the pH.

Jeff

> Jack

"Mr4701" <NoExists@Earth.net> wrote in message
news:vDUlj.46$d9.41@trnddc08...
> Honestly, do you care?
>
> I know some people take it quite serious. The truth is that if Greenland
> were to melt along with the ice caps, that the oceans would rise 19 to 24
> feet (depending on which Scientist you believe). All Scientist agree that
> the oceans would rise.
>
> With that said, I have wondered if some people look forward to anything
> apocalyptic.
>
> I have to question if Liberals really care about the environment or if it
> is just politics... Then I have to wonder if conservatives even care, or
> if they just look forward to anything apocalyptic...
>
> I ask this because inside of my natural self... I always look forward to
> the apocalytic, but the practical part of me wants to preserve what is in
> our control (i.e. regardless if we are inducing the current global warming
> trend, then we have a responsibility to stop it..)
>
> So, apocalyptic and keep pretending we are not causing any issues? Or do
> what we can on our part to keep pollutants out of the air?
>
> Which are you?

There's a middle ground section to the subject: A segment of people who get
a thrill from claiming that **ALL** environmental causes are a wrong.
Gradually, these people will die (hopefully sooner than later). Or, as polar
bears move south to adjust to a new diet, perhaps they'll run across people
who didn't care about the ice caps, and SNACK TIME!

Honestly, I'm 50/50 about how much of the warming is our fault. But, I'd
still like to see cleaner vehicles for selfish reasons: The stink.

"Retired VIP" <jackj.extradots.180@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:ro9hp3hp4phkp8odi95cnhv3cudrpou0rb@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:38:51 GMT, "Mr4701" <NoExists@Earth.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Honestly, do you care?
>>
>>I know some people take it quite serious. The truth is that if
>>Greenland
>>were to melt along with the ice caps, that the oceans would rise 19
>>to 24
>>feet (depending on which Scientist you believe). All Scientist agree
>>that
>>the oceans would rise.
>
> Snip
>
> 3/5s of our planet is covered by water. Do you have any idea how
> much
> water it would take to raise the ocean level world-wide by 19 feet?

Yes, see below

> Given the fact that almost 1/2 of the world's ice is floating and
> it's
> melting would have no effect on water level, the amount of ice melt
> needed to raise the ocean levels 1 foot would be tens of miles
> thick.

No, a mile thick over a large enough area would do it. Again, see
below.

> You might also remember that the Norse named the island Greenland
> because of the lush, green forests and meadows that were growing
> there
> when they discovered it. A case could be made that it is reverting
> to
> it's historical climatic conditions.

I doubt if the Norse explored the frozen interior of Greenland. I do
agree with your basis premise - climates change all the time without
the interference of Humans. But to be honest, just because parts of
Greenland were warmer in the second millennia, you can't make any
claims about the globe as a whole. It may very well have been at the
same time that Antarctica was cooler and stored more ice than today.
We just don't have enough information to know. But for sure we know
that the world was much colder in the not so distant past and that it
warmed significantly without the interference of mankind. One more
thing about the Norse - If you were trying to sell property to suckers
back home, would you have named your newly discovered land,
Coldashellland?

Depending on who you believe, the Greenland ice cap can be several
miles thick in places. I think it would be reasonable to assume there
are at least 502,400 cubic MILES of ice sitting on Greenland. The
surface area of the oceans on the earth is 140,000,000 square miles.
If you spread 504,400 cubic miles of water over this area, the sea
level would rise by around .004 miles which is about 19 feet. So, I'd
say the claim is reasonable IF you believe global warming will melt
the entire Greenland Ice Cap (very very unlikely). Of course there is
much more ice stored on the continent of Antarctica. Since my farm is
only about 14 feet above sea level at the highest point, I'd be in
real trouble if all the ice on Greenland melted. Personally I am not
concerned.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/reso...olar-ice_x.htm
or http://tinyurl.com/dkh9f

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/...leStJean.shtml

Ed

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4798b057$1@kcnews01...
>
> "Retired VIP" <jackj.extradots.180@windstream.net> wrote in message
> news:ro9hp3hp4phkp8odi95cnhv3cudrpou0rb@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:38:51 GMT, "Mr4701" <NoExists@Earth.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Honestly, do you care?
> >>
> >>I know some people take it quite serious. The truth is that if
> >>Greenland
> >>were to melt along with the ice caps, that the oceans would rise 19
> >>to 24
> >>feet (depending on which Scientist you believe). All Scientist agree
> >>that
> >>the oceans would rise.
> >
> > Snip
> >
> > 3/5s of our planet is covered by water. Do you have any idea how
> > much
> > water it would take to raise the ocean level world-wide by 19 feet?
>
> Yes, see below
>
> > Given the fact that almost 1/2 of the world's ice is floating and
> > it's
> > melting would have no effect on water level, the amount of ice melt
> > needed to raise the ocean levels 1 foot would be tens of miles
> > thick.
>
> No, a mile thick over a large enough area would do it. Again, see
> below.
>
> > You might also remember that the Norse named the island Greenland
> > because of the lush, green forests and meadows that were growing
> > there
> > when they discovered it. A case could be made that it is reverting
> > to
> > it's historical climatic conditions.
>
> I doubt if the Norse explored the frozen interior of Greenland. I do
> agree with your basis premise - climates change all the time without
> the interference of Humans. But to be honest, just because parts of
> Greenland were warmer in the second millennia, you can't make any
> claims about the globe as a whole. It may very well have been at the
> same time that Antarctica was cooler and stored more ice than today.
> We just don't have enough information to know. But for sure we know
> that the world was much colder in the not so distant past and that it
> warmed significantly without the interference of mankind. One more
> thing about the Norse - If you were trying to sell property to suckers
> back home, would you have named your newly discovered land,
> Coldashellland?
>
> Depending on who you believe, the Greenland ice cap can be several
> miles thick in places. I think it would be reasonable to assume there
> are at least 502,400 cubic MILES of ice sitting on Greenland. The
> surface area of the oceans on the earth is 140,000,000 square miles.
> If you spread 504,400 cubic miles of water over this area, the sea
> level would rise by around .004 miles which is about 19 feet. So, I'd
> say the claim is reasonable IF you believe global warming will melt
> the entire Greenland Ice Cap (very very unlikely). Of course there is
> much more ice stored on the continent of Antarctica. Since my farm is
> only about 14 feet above sea level at the highest point, I'd be in
> real trouble if all the ice on Greenland melted. Personally I am not
> concerned.
>
>
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/reso...olar-ice_x.htm
> or http://tinyurl.com/dkh9f
>
> http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/...leStJean.shtml
>
> Ed
>
>
The rise in water might not be that great since in the process, low-lying
land will be covered, essentially increasing the area of the oceans. But I'm
sure I saw a map of what all will be covered, and the middle of the USA
around the Mississippi became quite a large shallow sea - - not a pleasant
prospect as it would decimate a lot of farm land. Maybe if it happens slowly
enough, dikes will be built to keep the sea from covering the land.

As to the question do I care - - certainly, but not for myself as I live at
235 ft altitude in the Santa Clara Valley, CA.

"Retired VIP" <jackj.extradots.180@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:ro9hp3hp4phkp8odi95cnhv3cudrpou0rb@4ax.com...
> Snip
>
> 3/5s of our planet is covered by water. Do you have any idea how much
> water it would take to raise the ocean level world-wide by 19 feet?

There is enough frozen water above seal level to make the oceans rise at
least 19 feet. That's documented fact.




> You might also remember that the Norse named the island Greenland
> because of the lush, green forests and meadows that were growing there
> when they discovered it. A case could be made that it is reverting to
> it's historical climatic conditions.

False! It was named Greenland to be more attractive to bring immigrants to
the land. Greenland is about 81% ice-capped

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4798b057$1@kcnews01...
>
> "Retired VIP" <jackj.extradots.180@windstream.net> wrote in message
> news:ro9hp3hp4phkp8odi95cnhv3cudrpou0rb@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:38:51 GMT, "Mr4701" <NoExists@Earth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Honestly, do you care?
>>>
>>>I know some people take it quite serious. The truth is that if Greenland
>>>were to melt along with the ice caps, that the oceans would rise 19 to 24
>>>feet (depending on which Scientist you believe). All Scientist agree that
>>>the oceans would rise.
>>
>> Snip
>>
>> 3/5s of our planet is covered by water. Do you have any idea how much
>> water it would take to raise the ocean level world-wide by 19 feet?
>
> Yes, see below
>
>> Given the fact that almost 1/2 of the world's ice is floating and it's
>> melting would have no effect on water level, the amount of ice melt
>> needed to raise the ocean levels 1 foot would be tens of miles thick.
>
> No, a mile thick over a large enough area would do it. Again, see below.

In some areas the ice caps reach 2 miles thick... plus the island is 81%
covered in ice on average.



>
>> You might also remember that the Norse named the island Greenland
>> because of the lush, green forests and meadows that were growing there
>> when they discovered it. A case could be made that it is reverting to
>> it's historical climatic conditions.
>
> I doubt if the Norse explored the frozen interior of Greenland. I do agree
> with your basis premise - climates change all the time without the
> interference of Humans. But to be honest, just because parts of Greenland
> were warmer in the second millennia, you can't make any claims about the
> globe as a whole. It may very well have been at the same time that
> Antarctica was cooler and stored more ice than today. We just don't have
> enough information to know. But for sure we know that the world was much
> colder in the not so distant past and that it warmed significantly without
> the interference of mankind. One more thing about the Norse - If you were
> trying to sell property to suckers back home, would you have named your
> newly discovered land, Coldashellland?
>
> Depending on who you believe, the Greenland ice cap can be several miles
> thick in places. I think it would be reasonable to assume there are at
> least 502,400 cubic MILES of ice sitting on Greenland. The surface area of
> the oceans on the earth is 140,000,000 square miles. If you spread 504,400
> cubic miles of water over this area, the sea level would rise by around
> .004 miles which is about 19 feet. So, I'd say the claim is reasonable IF
> you believe global warming will melt the entire Greenland Ice Cap (very
> very unlikely). Of course there is much more ice stored on the continent
> of Antarctica. Since my farm is only about 14 feet above sea level at the
> highest point, I'd be in real trouble if all the ice on Greenland melted.
> Personally I am not concerned.
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/weather/reso...olar-ice_x.htm
> or http://tinyurl.com/dkh9f
>
> http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/...leStJean.shtml
>
> Ed
>

> The rise in water might not be that great since in the process, low-lying
> land will be covered, essentially increasing the area of the oceans. But
> I'm
> sure I saw a map of what all will be covered, and the middle of the USA
> around the Mississippi became quite a large shallow sea - - not a pleasant
> prospect as it would decimate a lot of farm land. Maybe if it happens
> slowly
> enough, dikes will be built to keep the sea from covering the land.
>
> As to the question do I care - - certainly, but not for myself as I live
> at
> 235 ft altitude in the Santa Clara Valley, CA.

What would cause the most severe trauma would be the imporant costal
cities... i.e. New York, Miami, Houston, Los Angeles, Oakland/SF, etc...

"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:J42mj.2656$Sa1.32@news02.roc.ny...
> Honestly, I'm 50/50 about how much of the warming is our fault. But, I'd
> still like to see cleaner vehicles for selfish reasons: The stink.

I am 50/50 as well... with that said, I agree... might as well take care of
our part if it is our doing.