"Tunderbar" wrote in message
...
On Mar 26, 1:49 pm, Earl Evleth wrote:
On 26/03/08 19:08, in article
, "silky"

wrote:
How can you possibly get excited about a 10th of
an inch in sea level rise?

Where did you get that figure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_risesays
20 cm since the 1900.

What people are more concerned with is a possible
rise in the rest of the century, a meter can not
be excluded. This is one of the reasons people
are looking at carefully (not the denial community
which treats the whole thing as a hoax), a glaciers
sea ici, ice shelves and the ice mass on Greenland,
West and East Antarctica.

Weasel speak:

"a possible rise"
"can not be excluded"
"looking at carefully"

2.46 millimeter = 0.096 inch. Just about 1/100th of an inch per year.
9.6 inches in 100 years.

Not scary enough, eh?


Another denialist who can't read! lol

On Mar 26, 3:17*pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
"Tunderbar" wrote in message

...
On Mar 26, 1:49 pm, Earl Evleth wrote:





On 26/03/08 19:08, in article
, "silky"

wrote:
How can you possibly get excited about a 10th of
an inch in sea level rise?

Where did you get that figure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_risesays
20 cm since the 1900.

What people are more concerned with is a possible
rise in the rest of the century, a meter can not
be excluded. This is one of the reasons people
are looking at carefully (not the denial community
which treats the whole thing as a hoax), a glaciers
sea ici, ice shelves and the ice mass on Greenland,
West and East Antarctica.

Weasel speak:

"a possible rise"
"can not be excluded"
"looking at carefully"

2.46 millimeter = 0.096 inch. Just about 1/100th of an inch per year.
9.6 inches in 100 years.

Not scary enough, eh?

* * Another denialist who can't read! *lol- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

speakin' o' weasels.....

On Mar 27, 7:56*am, Earl Evleth wrote:
On 26/03/08 20:35, in article
,

" wrote:
Oh dear God, Earl get thee back to AADP. *Of course a meter this
century can be excluded. *There is no way in hell water levels are
going to rise 10 feet in the next 92 years.

A meter is about 3 feet. Rises of one meter per 20 years have been
seen in the last 15,000 years, at one time the levels were going
up at the rate of 3 meters/century.

At one time most of the surface of the Earth was covered in ice. Now
it isn't.

"Mr Right" wrote in message
...
On Mar 27, 7:56 am, Earl Evleth wrote:
On 26/03/08 20:35, in article
,

" wrote:
Oh dear God, Earl get thee back to AADP. Of course a meter this
century can be excluded. There is no way in hell water levels are
going to rise 10 feet in the next 92 years.

A meter is about 3 feet. Rises of one meter per 20 years have been
seen in the last 15,000 years, at one time the levels were going
up at the rate of 3 meters/century.

At one time most of the surface of the Earth was covered in ice. Now
it isn't.

What makes you think so? Since you don't trust scientists and all that.

On Mar 26, 4:22*pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
"Mr Right" wrote in message

...
On Mar 27, 7:56 am, Earl Evleth wrote:

On 26/03/08 20:35, in article
,

" wrote:
Oh dear God, Earl get thee back to AADP. Of course a meter this
century can be excluded. There is no way in hell water levels are
going to rise 10 feet in the next 92 years.

A meter is about 3 feet. Rises of one meter per 20 years have been
seen in the last 15,000 years, at one time the levels were going
up at the rate of 3 meters/century.

At one time most of the surface of the Earth was covered in ice. Now
it isn't.

* What makes you think so? *Since you don't trust scientists and all that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

The present ice age began 40 million years ago with the growth of an
ice sheet in Antarctica. It intensified during the late Pliocene,
around 3 million years ago, with the spread of ice sheets in the
Northern Hemisphere, and has continued in the Pleistocene. Since then,
the world has seen cycles of glaciation with ice sheets advancing and
retreating on 40,000- and 100,000-year time scales. The most recent
glacial period ended about ten thousand years ago.

***

Even your favorite source of info can tell you about ice ages.

"silky" wrote
Roger you are such a kook,on the one hand "total rise in sea level" as
if it has been signifigant then you turn around witht the fact tthat the
rise has
been less than a 10th of an inch......

From the provided reference...
"The reconstructed GSL history accounting for the impact of reservoirs (by
adding back the impounded water volume) shows an essentially constant rate
of rise at +2.46 mm/yr over at least the last 80 years."

2.46 * 80 = 196.8mm = 7.74 inches.

Is "silky" an innumerate fool? Or is "silky" a liar.

Perhaps both.

How can you possibly get excited about a 10th of
an inch in sea level rise?


"Earl Evleth" wrote
Where did you get that figure?

He divided the real answer by a factor of 100

I have never encountered a KKKonservative who wasn't a perpetual and
congenital liar.

Ouroboros_Rex wrote:
"Mr Right" wrote in message
...
On Mar 27, 7:56 am, Earl Evleth wrote:
On 26/03/08 20:35, in article
,

" wrote:
Oh dear God, Earl get thee back to AADP. Of course a meter this
century can be excluded. There is no way in hell water levels are
going to rise 10 feet in the next 92 years.
A meter is about 3 feet. Rises of one meter per 20 years have been
seen in the last 15,000 years, at one time the levels were going
up at the rate of 3 meters/century.

At one time most of the surface of the Earth was covered in ice. Now
it isn't.

What makes you think so? Since you don't trust scientists and all that.




because of the evidence that shows the rocks and carved earth where the
ice receded?


That's evidence not "scientists" consensus.

On Mar 26, 11:08*am, silky wrote:
On Mar 26, 12:39*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:

Glacier Melt Impact on Sea Level Rise Underestimated

The total rise in sea level over the past century is due mostly to
ocean water expanding in volume as it warms up, and ice melt from
mountain glaciers and Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Subtracting
the effect of thermal expansion from the observed rate of sea level
rise should give a reasonable estimate of the rate of ice melting, the
researchers say, but the equation leaves out the amount of water
locked up in reservoirs.

Please see:

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2008/0314ice.shtml

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1154580

Roger you are such a kook,on the one hand "total rise in sea level" as
if it has been
signifigant then you turn around witht the fact tthat the rise has
been less than a
10th of an inch.....

NOPE! YOU SHOULD GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.

-- Rising sea level:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:R...Level_Rise.png

"Mr Right" wrote
At one time most of the surface of the Earth was covered in ice. Now
it isn't.

Impossible, say the KKKonservatives. The earth is only 6,000 years old.