Huge parts of Antarctic and Arctic ice have already melted. Key
Antarctic glaciers like Brown Glacier increased their melting rate 4
times in 4 years (between 2000 and 2004).

See ABC news article: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1060459.htm

4 times in 4 years !

I always assumed the melting rate would be constant, what happens if the
melting rate continues to increase 4 times every 4 years or faster?

My view on global warming was that it didn't matter as I would be dead
long before any serious consequences were felt.


Maybe not !

John

Top Bombing !!

Sorry John, couldn't resist it :-)

Keith (Southend)

********************************
'Weather Home & Abroad'
http://www.southendweather.net
********************************
COL Station for Southend-on-Sea
http://www.wunderground.com/weathers...p?ID=IESSEXSO1
********************************
Reply to: kreh'at'southendweather'dot'net
All mail scanned for virus's using Norton 2003

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 15:26:12 +0100, John Smith wrote:

Huge parts of Antarctic and Arctic ice have already melted. Key
Antarctic glaciers like Brown Glacier increased their melting rate 4
times in 4 years (between 2000 and 2004).

See ABC news article: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1060459.htm

4 times in 4 years !

I always assumed the melting rate would be constant, what happens if the
melting rate continues to increase 4 times every 4 years or faster?

My view on global warming was that it didn't matter as I would be dead
long before any serious consequences were felt.


Maybe not !

John

In article ,
John Smith writes:
Huge parts of Antarctic and Arctic ice have already melted. Key
Antarctic glaciers like Brown Glacier increased their melting rate 4
times in 4 years (between 2000 and 2004).

See ABC news article: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1060459.htm

4 times in 4 years !

Yes, but - reading the article - only from half a metre a year to 2
metres a year, i.e. the melt rate is still small. Also 4 years is a very
short period, and this might just turn out to be a random short-term
fluctuation.

I always assumed the melting rate would be constant, what happens if
the melting rate continues to increase 4 times every 4 years or faster?

Then within a few decades we would be in big trouble.
--
John Hall "He crams with cans of poisoned meat
The subjects of the King,
And when they die by thousands G.K.Chesterton:
Why, he laughs like anything." from "Song Against Grocers"

John Hall wrote in
:

In article ,
John Smith writes:
Huge parts of Antarctic and Arctic ice have already melted. Key
Antarctic glaciers like Brown Glacier increased their melting rate 4
times in 4 years (between 2000 and 2004).

See ABC news article: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1060459.htm

4 times in 4 years !

Yes, but - reading the article - only from half a metre a year to 2
metres a year, i.e. the melt rate is still small. Also 4 years is a very
short period, and this might just turn out to be a random short-term
fluctuation.

I always assumed the melting rate would be constant, what happens if
the melting rate continues to increase 4 times every 4 years or faster?

Then within a few decades we would be in big trouble.




If it isn't a short term fluctuation and melting continues at this pace...

Ever heard of the story of wise mathmatician who requested just one grain
of rice on the first square of the chess board, double that number of
grains of rice on the second square, and so on: double the number of grains
of rice on each of the next 62 squares on the chess board...

After just 64 terms, thats 18,446,744,070,000,000,000 metres of melting

But that is just double, not 4 times the increase!


Barry

"Barry" wrote in message


If it isn't a short term fluctuation and melting continues at this pace...

Ever heard of the story of wise mathmatician who requested just one grain
of rice on the first square of the chess board, double that number of
grains of rice on the second square, and so on: double the number of grains
of rice on each of the next 62 squares on the chess board...

After just 64 terms, thats 18,446,744,070,000,000,000 metres of melting

But that is just double, not 4 times the increase!

The rice of course being supplied by the wealthy ruler of the kingdom.
Wasn't the moral of that story that it couldn't be done?

Have you ever heard the story of the 7 rich harvests and the 7 bad ones?

According to that one, you'd get the idea of a cyclical nature.




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG