Posted on 12/04/2004 3:48:39 PM PST by Pharmboy
There is quite a lot of water locked up on the Greenland land mass and over Antarctica. If all that ice melted, the Oceans would rise quite a bit.
However, all that I see in the article is that a particular brackish marsh was flooded by sea water. This might have happened in a number of ways. Perhaps a river was diverted that kept the sea water out. Perhaps a natural dike was broken by a hurricane. Claiming that this is evidence for the theory mentioned is quite a stretch.
In any case, all this happened long before any oil drilling or SUV's, so how is it relevant to the current debate?
Yeah, I saw the movie - dopey.
That's true of the North pole but the argument goes that much of the ice mass in Antarctica is on land.
But higher temperatures will cause the water in the oceans to expand.
The Polar ice cap is already salt ice. It is just frozen salt-water ocean. So this crap about fresh water from the ploar ice cap is crap.
The event 8,200 years ago was from the fresh-water glaciers which still existed in northern Quebec and Baffin Island. They have been gone for 4,000 years now.
Now Greenland is mostly fresh-water glacier but it has been calving off ice-bergs into the North Atlantic for (well, for at least 3.5 million years now so that's not it).
Sorry nothing to see here.
The water levels are not part of the theory. This particular chicken little theory states that fresh water in the ocean disrupts ocean currents like the gulf stream.
No it's not. Most of the salt get removed during the freezing process.
Wow! Apparently there were SUVs 8,200 years ago!
See #s 19 and 20.
Major parts of France, Germany and Western Russia will be under water!
How do they explain the relatively ice-free Atlantic when Vikings sailed to North America 1000 years ago and Greenland was green?
Actually, I've heard that Global Warming (TM) would actually INCREASE the amount of precip in the polar regions - despite all the snow on the ground, they're basically deserts now - meaning the caps would grow in size.
The argument presented in this article is the same scare tactic used in the eviro-propaganda film "The Day After Tomorrow". It's crap, and shows how desperate the Global Warming Industry has become.
It's interesting how the statists' theories about global disaster are always changing to fit what is going on in the world. The one constant is that modern technology is always the cause.
The ice on land will never melt.
And if it does, it may expose some human mummies from thousands of years ago.....
just right for Bill Clinton's dating game.
Yuck, LOL.
Thanks for explaining, in simple terms, the accretion process. :-)
Exactly! Just how would a 2 degree increase of temperatures at the south pole do ANYTHING? The average temp is 70 below zero. Also, as everyone knows, water EXPANDS when frozen, and contracts when melted. It doesn't matter that it's over land (SP) or a big chunk (NP) The MASS stays the same. If anything, if it were even theoretically possible to melt the entire polar ice caps, the sea level would fall. But not by much even then. Don't believe me? Take the volume of the south pole ice cap and divide it into the entire oceanic volume.
Wait, you mean Nature has processes that have remained unaffected by Human beings for the last 10,000 years?
Nah, I don't buy it...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.