The sinking islands

H

Harry Hope

Guest
From The Associated press, 12/3/07:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-bali-sinking-islands,0,3895892.story

By CHARLES J. HANLEY | AP Special Correspondent


KILU, Papua New Guinea -

Squealing pigs lit out for the bush and Filomena Taroa herded the
grandkids to higher ground last week when the sea rolled in deeper
than anyone had ever seen.

What was happening?

"I don't know," the sturdy, barefoot grandmother told a visitor.

"I'd never experienced it before."

As scientists warn of rising seas from global warming, more and more
reports are coming in from villages like this one on Papua New
Guinea's New Britain island of flooding from unprecedented high tides.
It's happening not only to low-lying atolls, but to shorelines from
Alaska to India.

This week, by boat, bus and jetliner, a handful of villagers are
converging on Bali, Indonesia, to seek help from the more than 180
nations gathered at the U.N. climate conference.

The coastal dwellers' plight -- once theoretical -- appears all too
real in 2007, and is spreading and worsening.

Scientists project that seas expanding from warmth and from the runoff
of melting land ice may displace millions of coastal inhabitants
worldwide in this century if heat-trapping industrial emissions are
not sharply curtailed.

A Europe-based research group, the Global Governance Project, will
propose at the two-week Bali meeting that an international fund be
established to resettle "climate refugees."

Summarizing the islanders' plight, Ursula Rakova said:

"We don't have vehicles, an airport. We're merely victims of what is
happening with the industrialized nations emitting `greenhouse
gases.'"

The sands of Rakova's islands, the Carteret atoll northeast of
Bougainville island, have been giving way to the sea for 20 years.

The saltwater has ruined their taro gardens, a food staple, and has
contaminated their wells and flooded homesteads.

The remote islands now suffer from chronic hunger.

The national government has appropriated $800,000 to resettle a few
Carteret families on Bougainville, out of 3,000 islanders.

"That's not enough," Rakova told The Associated Press in Papua New
Guinea's capital, Port Moresby.

"The islands are getting smaller. Basically, everybody will have to
leave."

In a landmark series of reports this year, the U.N. climate-science
network reported seas rose by a global average of about one inch every
10 years between 1993 and 2003.

But a 2006 study by Australian oceanographers found the rise was much
higher, almost one inch every year, in parts of the western Pacific
and Indian oceans.

"It turns out the ocean sloshes around," said the University of
Tasmania's Nathaniel Bindoff, a lead author on oceans in the U.N.
reports.

"It's moving, and so on a regional basis the ocean's movement is
causing sea-level variations -- ups and downs."

Regional temperatures and atmospheric conditions, currents, undersea
and shoreline topography are all factors contributing to sea levels.

On some atolls, which are the above-water remnants of ancient
volcanoes, the coral underpinnings are subsiding and adding to the
sinking effect.

The oceanic "sloshing" is steadily taking land from such western
Pacific island nations as Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Marshall Islands.

In Papua New Guinea, reports have trickled in this year of
fast-encroaching tides on shorelines of the northern island province
of Manus, the mainland peninsular village of Malasiga and the Duke of
York Islands off New Britain.

International media attention paid to the Carteret Islands, the
best-known case, seems to have drawn out others, said Papua New
Guinea's senior climatologist, Kasis Inape.

"Most of the low-lying islands and atolls are in the same situation,"
Inape said in Port Moresby.

Here in Kilu on the Bismarck Sea, on a brilliant blue bay ringed by
smoldering volcanoes, swaying coconut palms and thin-walled homes on
stilts, the invading waves last year forced some villagers to move
their houses inland 20 or more yards -- taking along their pigs,
chickens and fears of worse to come.

It did, on Nov. 25, when the highest waters yet sent them scurrying.

"We think the sea is rising," said 20-year-old villager Joe Balele.

"We don't know why."

The scene is repeated on shores across the Pacific, most tragically on
tiny island territories with no "inland" to turn to.

Preparing to head to Bali to present her people's case Tuesday at the
U.N. climate conference, Rukova searched for words to explain what was
happening back home.

"Our people have been there 300 or 400 years," she said.

"We'll be moving away from the islands we were born in and grew up in.
We'll have to give up our identity."

_________________________________________________

Harry
 
> In a landmark series of reports this year, the U.N. climate-science
> network reported seas rose by a global average of about one inch every
> 10 years between 1993 and 2003.


Uh, "every 10 years between 1993 and 2003"? That is ten years.

>
> But a 2006 study by Australian oceanographers found the rise was much
> higher, almost one inch every year, in parts of the western Pacific
> and Indian oceans.
>


Well, is it every one year, or every 10 years?

> "It turns out the ocean sloshes around," said the University of
> Tasmania's Nathaniel Bindoff, a lead author on oceans in the U.N.
> reports.
>


"turns out"? I thought the science was "settled"!?

> "It's moving, and so on a regional basis the ocean's movement is
> causing sea-level variations -- ups and downs."
>
> Regional temperatures and atmospheric conditions, currents, undersea
> and shoreline topography are all factors contributing to sea levels.
>
> On some atolls, which are the above-water remnants of ancient
> volcanoes, the coral underpinnings are subsiding and adding to the
> sinking effect.
>


In other words, not global warming !
 
"Taylor" <taylor@nospam2me.com> wrote in message
news:47548eaa$0$2324$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> In a landmark series of reports this year, the U.N. climate-science
>> network reported seas rose by a global average of about one inch every
>> 10 years between 1993 and 2003.

>
> Uh, "every 10 years between 1993 and 2003"? That is ten years.
>
>>
>> But a 2006 study by Australian oceanographers found the rise was much
>> higher, almost one inch every year, in parts of the western Pacific
>> and Indian oceans.
>>

>
> Well, is it every one year, or every 10 years?
>
>> "It turns out the ocean sloshes around," said the University of
>> Tasmania's Nathaniel Bindoff, a lead author on oceans in the U.N.
>> reports.

>
> "turns out"? I thought the science was "settled"!?
>
>> "It's moving, and so on a regional basis the ocean's movement is
>> causing sea-level variations -- ups and downs."
>>
>> Regional temperatures and atmospheric conditions, currents, undersea
>> and shoreline topography are all factors contributing to sea levels. On
>> some atolls, which are the above-water remnants of ancient
>> volcanoes, the coral underpinnings are subsiding and adding to the
>> sinking effect.
>>

>
> In other words, not global warming !
>


The coral underpinnings are subsiding because the coral are dying as a
result of warming water, fool.
 
"Joe S." <noone@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:fj261901abd@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> "Taylor" <taylor@nospam2me.com> wrote in message
> news:47548eaa$0$2324$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>> In a landmark series of reports this year, the U.N. climate-science
>>> network reported seas rose by a global average of about one inch every
>>> 10 years between 1993 and 2003.

>>
>> Uh, "every 10 years between 1993 and 2003"? That is ten years.
>>
>>>
>>> But a 2006 study by Australian oceanographers found the rise was much
>>> higher, almost one inch every year, in parts of the western Pacific
>>> and Indian oceans.
>>>

>>
>> Well, is it every one year, or every 10 years?
>>
>>> "It turns out the ocean sloshes around," said the University of
>>> Tasmania's Nathaniel Bindoff, a lead author on oceans in the U.N.
>>> reports.

>>
>> "turns out"? I thought the science was "settled"!?
>>
>>> "It's moving, and so on a regional basis the ocean's movement is
>>> causing sea-level variations -- ups and downs."
>>>
>>> Regional temperatures and atmospheric conditions, currents, undersea
>>> and shoreline topography are all factors contributing to sea levels. On
>>> some atolls, which are the above-water remnants of ancient
>>> volcanoes, the coral underpinnings are subsiding and adding to the
>>> sinking effect.
>>>

>>
>> In other words, not global warming !
>>

>
> The coral underpinnings are subsiding because the coral are dying as a
> result of warming water, fool.
>


The "coral underpinnings" are coral that are dead already because a coral
atoll is made from the coral skeletons.

Hmm, Fool?
 
Taylor wrote:
> > In a landmark series of reports this year, the U.N. climate-science
> > network reported seas rose by a global average of about one inch every
> > 10 years between 1993 and 2003.

>
> Uh, "every 10 years between 1993 and 2003"? That is ten years.
>
> >
> > But a 2006 study by Australian oceanographers found the rise was much
> > higher, almost one inch every year, in parts of the western Pacific
> > and Indian oceans.
> >

>
> Well, is it every one year, or every 10 years?
>
> > "It turns out the ocean sloshes around," said the University of
> > Tasmania's Nathaniel Bindoff, a lead author on oceans in the U.N.
> > reports.
> >

>
> "turns out"? I thought the science was "settled"!?
>
> > "It's moving, and so on a regional basis the ocean's movement is
> > causing sea-level variations -- ups and downs."
> >
> > Regional temperatures and atmospheric conditions, currents, undersea
> > and shoreline topography are all factors contributing to sea levels.
> >
> > On some atolls, which are the above-water remnants of ancient
> > volcanoes, the coral underpinnings are subsiding and adding to the
> > sinking effect.
> >

>
> In other words, not global warming !


So if it's not your program THEN GET THE **** OUT OF THE WAY!!

You right wing **** are always in the ****ing way of everything people
try to do to make a better world, while you people don't do jack
****ing **** otherwise.
 
On Dec 3, 9:51 pm, llanal...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >

> So if it's not your program THEN GET THE **** OUT OF THE WAY!!
>
> You right wing **** are always in the ****ing way of everything people
> try to do to make a better world, while you people don't do jack
> ****ing **** otherwise.



But it's you lefties who take the foul mouthed rant awards.
 
llanalott@yahoo.com wrote:
> Taylor wrote:
>>> In a landmark series of reports this year, the U.N. climate-science
>>> network reported seas rose by a global average of about one inch every
>>> 10 years between 1993 and 2003.


>> Uh, "every 10 years between 1993 and 2003"? That is ten years.


Thanks for playing. Here's a math story problem for us. The rise in sea level is
a linear function, currently measured at 10 years to 1 inch.

10 years of calendar time are enough to observe average sea level rise one inch.
(This is slower than plate tectonics, or fingernail growth, BTW, but it's
still significant.)

So this means, in one year, sea level rises about 1/10th inch, your fingernails
grow ~2 inches, and tectonic plates shift about ~2 inches.

The moon also moves farther away, and the earth slows down accordingly, but
these rates are smaller than 1 inch per 10 years.

So you quoted the sentence at the wrong juncture. "10 years" modifies "one
inch", not "between 1993 and 2003".

Again, a comma should have been used, to form a non-restrictive clause. That's
our grammar lesson for today!
 
In article
<8ecb75fa-a574-461c-b1d1-fb795225ea2e@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
serebel1@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>On Dec 3, 9:51 pm, llanal...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >
>> >

>> So if it's not your program THEN GET THE **** OUT OF THE WAY!!
>>
>> You right wing **** are always in the ****ing way of everything people
>> try to do to make a better world, while you people don't do jack
>> ****ing **** otherwise.

>
>
> But it's you lefties who take the foul mouthed rant awards.


Actually, no. It's usually the righties. But there is no excuse for it no
matter who spouts it.
 
Harry Hope wrote:
> From The Associated press, 12/3/07:
> http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-bali-sinking-islands,0,3895892.story
>
> By CHARLES J. HANLEY | AP Special Correspondent
>
>
> KILU, Papua New Guinea -
>
> Squealing pigs lit out for the bush and Filomena Taroa herded the
> grandkids to higher ground last week when the sea rolled in deeper
> than anyone had ever seen.
>
> What was happening?
>
> "I don't know," the sturdy, barefoot grandmother told a visitor.
>
> "I'd never experienced it before."
>
> As scientists warn of rising seas from global warming, more and more
> reports are coming in from villages like this one on Papua New
> Guinea's New Britain island of flooding from unprecedented high tides.
> It's happening not only to low-lying atolls, but to shorelines from
> Alaska to India.


So sad.

But it's been happening since the last Ice Age. About ten thousand
years back, people were able to walk across what is now the English
Channel - and the British Isles were just a peninsula jutting off Europe.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Ston...12-m-Depth-on-the-English-Channel-62431.shtml
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1103_031103_britainrepopulation2.html

or:
http://tinyurl.com/35o4hw
http://tinyurl.com/w203

I don't plan to lose any sleep over it. Even more to the point, there's
nothing that should be done.

<GIANT SNIP of yellow journalism article>

--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
 
Taylor wrote:
>
> "Joe S." <noone@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:fj261901abd@news2.newsguy.com...
>>
>> "Taylor" <taylor@nospam2me.com> wrote in message
>> news:47548eaa$0$2324$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>> In a landmark series of reports this year, the U.N. climate-science
>>>> network reported seas rose by a global average of about one inch every
>>>> 10 years between 1993 and 2003.
>>>
>>> Uh, "every 10 years between 1993 and 2003"? That is ten years.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But a 2006 study by Australian oceanographers found the rise was much
>>>> higher, almost one inch every year, in parts of the western Pacific
>>>> and Indian oceans.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, is it every one year, or every 10 years?
>>>
>>>> "It turns out the ocean sloshes around," said the University of
>>>> Tasmania's Nathaniel Bindoff, a lead author on oceans in the U.N.
>>>> reports.
>>>
>>> "turns out"? I thought the science was "settled"!?
>>>
>>>> "It's moving, and so on a regional basis the ocean's movement is
>>>> causing sea-level variations -- ups and downs."
>>>>
>>>> Regional temperatures and atmospheric conditions, currents, undersea
>>>> and shoreline topography are all factors contributing to sea levels.
>>>> On some atolls, which are the above-water remnants of ancient
>>>> volcanoes, the coral underpinnings are subsiding and adding to the
>>>> sinking effect.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In other words, not global warming !
>>>

>>
>> The coral underpinnings are subsiding because the coral are dying as a
>> result of warming water, fool.
>>

>
> The "coral underpinnings" are coral that are dead already because a
> coral atoll is made from the coral skeletons.


The seas have been rising since the glaciers began to melt at the end of
the last Ice Age. I believe the amount of sea level rise is on the
order of 200 feet, or about 60 meters. Certainly deeper than I like to
scuba dive.

> Hmm, Fool?


The coral will do what it has always done - grow in the new shallows as
the sea level rises and the tides creep up the beaches. The real fools
are those who are being stampeded by so-called "consensus science" and
politicians out to grab power.

GW requires a lot more _objective_ study, instead of our lashing each
other into a frenzy.

--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
 
Phlip wrote:
> llanalott@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Taylor wrote:
>>>> In a landmark series of reports this year, the U.N. climate-science
>>>> network reported seas rose by a global average of about one inch every
>>>> 10 years between 1993 and 2003.

>
>>> Uh, "every 10 years between 1993 and 2003"? That is ten years.

>
> Thanks for playing. Here's a math story problem for us. The rise in sea
> level is a linear function, currently measured at 10 years to 1 inch.
>
> 10 years of calendar time are enough to observe average sea level rise
> one inch. (This is slower than plate tectonics, or fingernail growth,
> BTW, but it's still significant.)
>
> So this means, in one year, sea level rises about 1/10th inch, your
> fingernails grow ~2 inches, and tectonic plates shift about ~2 inches.
>
> The moon also moves farther away, and the earth slows down accordingly,
> but these rates are smaller than 1 inch per 10 years.
>
> So you quoted the sentence at the wrong juncture. "10 years" modifies
> "one inch", not "between 1993 and 2003".
>
> Again, a comma should have been used, to form a non-restrictive clause.
> That's our grammar lesson for today!


The sea level rising is hardly new, and is not due to anthropogenic
Global Warming.

Overall, since the last Ice Age, the seas have risen enough to drown
coastal stone age settlements. There's a settlement off the western
coast of India that has been found at a depth of some 125 feet, IIRC,
and at least one settlement found at a depth of 35 feet in the English
Channel.

--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
 
On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:59:21 -0500, Bama Brian
<bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Phlip wrote:
>> llanalott@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> Taylor wrote:
>>>>> In a landmark series of reports this year, the U.N. climate-science
>>>>> network reported seas rose by a global average of about one inch every
>>>>> 10 years between 1993 and 2003.

>>
>>>> Uh, "every 10 years between 1993 and 2003"? That is ten years.

>>
>> Thanks for playing. Here's a math story problem for us. The rise in sea
>> level is a linear function, currently measured at 10 years to 1 inch.
>>
>> 10 years of calendar time are enough to observe average sea level rise
>> one inch. (This is slower than plate tectonics, or fingernail growth,
>> BTW, but it's still significant.)
>>
>> So this means, in one year, sea level rises about 1/10th inch, your
>> fingernails grow ~2 inches, and tectonic plates shift about ~2 inches.
>>
>> The moon also moves farther away, and the earth slows down accordingly,
>> but these rates are smaller than 1 inch per 10 years.
>>
>> So you quoted the sentence at the wrong juncture. "10 years" modifies
>> "one inch", not "between 1993 and 2003".
>>
>> Again, a comma should have been used, to form a non-restrictive clause.
>> That's our grammar lesson for today!

>
>The sea level rising is hardly new, and is not due to anthropogenic
>Global Warming.
>
>Overall, since the last Ice Age, the seas have risen enough to drown
>coastal stone age settlements. There's a settlement off the western
>coast of India that has been found at a depth of some 125 feet, IIRC,
>and at least one settlement found at a depth of 35 feet in the English
>Channel.


Yes, and now the rate of temperature increase is sharply higher.

Got an excuse for that, little corporate lickspittle?
 
On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:43:44 -0800, 3876 Dead <zeppp@finestplanet.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:59:21 -0500, Bama Brian
><bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Phlip wrote:
>>> llanalott@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> Taylor wrote:
>>>>>> In a landmark series of reports this year, the U.N. climate-science
>>>>>> network reported seas rose by a global average of about one inch every
>>>>>> 10 years between 1993 and 2003.
>>>
>>>>> Uh, "every 10 years between 1993 and 2003"? That is ten years.
>>>
>>> Thanks for playing. Here's a math story problem for us. The rise in sea
>>> level is a linear function, currently measured at 10 years to 1 inch.
>>>
>>> 10 years of calendar time are enough to observe average sea level rise
>>> one inch. (This is slower than plate tectonics, or fingernail growth,
>>> BTW, but it's still significant.)
>>>
>>> So this means, in one year, sea level rises about 1/10th inch, your
>>> fingernails grow ~2 inches, and tectonic plates shift about ~2 inches.
>>>
>>> The moon also moves farther away, and the earth slows down accordingly,
>>> but these rates are smaller than 1 inch per 10 years.
>>>
>>> So you quoted the sentence at the wrong juncture. "10 years" modifies
>>> "one inch", not "between 1993 and 2003".
>>>
>>> Again, a comma should have been used, to form a non-restrictive clause.
>>> That's our grammar lesson for today!

>>
>>The sea level rising is hardly new, and is not due to anthropogenic
>>Global Warming.
>>
>>Overall, since the last Ice Age, the seas have risen enough to drown
>>coastal stone age settlements. There's a settlement off the western
>>coast of India that has been found at a depth of some 125 feet, IIRC,
>>and at least one settlement found at a depth of 35 feet in the English
>>Channel.

>
>Yes, and now the rate of temperature increase is sharply higher.
>
>Got an excuse for that, little corporate lickspittle?


Actually, the temp is has been higher in the past and it's been
relatively stable for the last five years.




"I was a Senate Page for two years when I went to HS in Maryland. Why is
that hard to believe?"
--Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics/msg/45a41b2be7278eed?&q=senate+page


"Actually, I did misspeak on that one. One year in the House and one
year in the Senate."
--MilT.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/06a060ef017bf1a0

No one has ever been both a Senate and a House page and no one has ever been a page for five years.

NOTE: Cox was fired in 1973.. Gingrich was first elected in 1978...


Archibald Cox was as fair a man as there ever was; THAT IS WHY NIXON FIRED
HIS ASS!! Spark, I would think you'd do more reading during your month in
exile. I was a page for someone on the judiciary committee at the time,
and none other than Bob Dole said that Archie Cox was a "fine man"...
--Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics/msg/bb35672e77b8808a


"I was a page when Newt first
started, and I thought he was an asshole then, and I've been waiting for
soething to change my mind. Nothing yet.."
--Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/23e7664bf86121dc
 
3876 Dead wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:59:21 -0500, Bama Brian
> <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Phlip wrote:
>>> llanalott@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> Taylor wrote:
>>>>>> In a landmark series of reports this year, the U.N. climate-science
>>>>>> network reported seas rose by a global average of about one inch every
>>>>>> 10 years between 1993 and 2003.
>>>>> Uh, "every 10 years between 1993 and 2003"? That is ten years.
>>> Thanks for playing. Here's a math story problem for us. The rise in sea
>>> level is a linear function, currently measured at 10 years to 1 inch.
>>>
>>> 10 years of calendar time are enough to observe average sea level rise
>>> one inch. (This is slower than plate tectonics, or fingernail growth,
>>> BTW, but it's still significant.)
>>>
>>> So this means, in one year, sea level rises about 1/10th inch, your
>>> fingernails grow ~2 inches, and tectonic plates shift about ~2 inches.
>>>
>>> The moon also moves farther away, and the earth slows down accordingly,
>>> but these rates are smaller than 1 inch per 10 years.
>>>
>>> So you quoted the sentence at the wrong juncture. "10 years" modifies
>>> "one inch", not "between 1993 and 2003".
>>>
>>> Again, a comma should have been used, to form a non-restrictive clause.
>>> That's our grammar lesson for today!

>> The sea level rising is hardly new, and is not due to anthropogenic
>> Global Warming.
>>
>> Overall, since the last Ice Age, the seas have risen enough to drown
>> coastal stone age settlements. There's a settlement off the western
>> coast of India that has been found at a depth of some 125 feet, IIRC,
>> and at least one settlement found at a depth of 35 feet in the English
>> Channel.

>
> Yes, and now the rate of temperature increase is sharply higher.
>
> Got an excuse for that, little corporate lickspittle?


Your contention that the rate of temperature increase is sharply higher
is unproven - or simply wrong.

Mann's "Hockey Stick" chart does not fit the data and does not show
either the Medieval Warming Period, or the Little Ice Age.

More to the point, satellite observations show that the temperatures of
the last few years indicate a cooling trend. And if one looks at the
real temperatures recorded over the last century from ground based
instruments, the hottest years occurred in the 1930's.

GW needs _objective_ study - not knee-jerk acolytes and priests of the
new cult of "It's All Man's Fault" who use insults and intimidation to
prove their point.

Torquemada has been dead for five centuries but his spirit lingers on...

--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
 
Bama Brian wrote:

> Harry Hope wrote:
>
>> From The Associated press, 12/3/07:
>> http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-bali-sinking-islands,0,3895892.story
>>
>>
>> By CHARLES J. HANLEY | AP Special Correspondent
>>
>>
>> KILU, Papua New Guinea -
>> Squealing pigs lit out for the bush and Filomena Taroa herded the
>> grandkids to higher ground last week when the sea rolled in deeper
>> than anyone had ever seen.
>>
>> What was happening?
>> "I don't know," the sturdy, barefoot grandmother told a visitor.
>> "I'd never experienced it before."
>>
>> As scientists warn of rising seas from global warming, more and more
>> reports are coming in from villages like this one on Papua New
>> Guinea's New Britain island of flooding from unprecedented high tides.
>> It's happening not only to low-lying atolls, but to shorelines from
>> Alaska to India.

>
> So sad.


Such crocodile tears.

> But it's been happening since the last Ice Age.


No, dimwit, it happened _after_ the last Ice Age. You may not have
noticed, but North America hasn't been covered in ice for several
thousand years now.

> About ten thousand
> years back, people were able to walk across what is now the English
> Channel - and the British Isles were just a peninsula jutting off Europe.


Kewl. But not relevant.

> http://news.softpedia.com/news/Ston...12-m-Depth-on-the-English-Channel-62431.shtml
>
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1103_031103_britainrepopulation2.html
>
>
> or:
> http://tinyurl.com/35o4hw
> http://tinyurl.com/w203
>
> I don't plan to lose any sleep over it. Even more to the point, there's
> nothing that should be done.


Maybe if we buried you up to your neck on a beach in Bangladesh.

--Jeff

--
I object to violence because when it
appears to do good, the good is only
temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
-Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
 
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:29:53 -0500, Jeffrey Turner
<jturner@localnet.com> wrote:

>Bama Brian wrote:
>
>> Harry Hope wrote:
>>
>>> From The Associated press, 12/3/07:
>>> http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-bali-sinking-islands,0,3895892.story
>>>
>>>
>>> By CHARLES J. HANLEY | AP Special Correspondent
>>>
>>>
>>> KILU, Papua New Guinea -
>>> Squealing pigs lit out for the bush and Filomena Taroa herded the
>>> grandkids to higher ground last week when the sea rolled in deeper
>>> than anyone had ever seen.
>>>
>>> What was happening?
>>> "I don't know," the sturdy, barefoot grandmother told a visitor.
>>> "I'd never experienced it before."
>>>
>>> As scientists warn of rising seas from global warming, more and more
>>> reports are coming in from villages like this one on Papua New
>>> Guinea's New Britain island of flooding from unprecedented high tides.
>>> It's happening not only to low-lying atolls, but to shorelines from
>>> Alaska to India.

>>
>> So sad.

>
>Such crocodile tears.
>
>> But it's been happening since the last Ice Age.

>
>No, dimwit, it happened _after_ the last Ice Age. You may not have
>noticed, but North America hasn't been covered in ice for several
>thousand years now.


The last ice age didn't end ... it's STILL ending.
Expect the warming trend to continue until only
north-central Greenland has an ice cap - and maybe
not even then. MIGHT happen a bit quicker because
of the crud we put in the air, but it's gonna
happen anyway. Then, after a long spell, it will
start to freeze again.

I expect the braincasts of 12037 to be screaming
about the dangerous global cooling phenomena and
why it's all the Republicans fault :)
 
Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> Bama Brian wrote:
>
>> Harry Hope wrote:
>>
>>> From The Associated press, 12/3/07:
>>> http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-bali-sinking-islands,0,3895892.story
>>>
>>>
>>> By CHARLES J. HANLEY | AP Special Correspondent
>>>
>>>
>>> KILU, Papua New Guinea -
>>> Squealing pigs lit out for the bush and Filomena Taroa herded the
>>> grandkids to higher ground last week when the sea rolled in deeper
>>> than anyone had ever seen.
>>>
>>> What was happening?
>>> "I don't know," the sturdy, barefoot grandmother told a visitor.
>>> "I'd never experienced it before."
>>>
>>> As scientists warn of rising seas from global warming, more and more
>>> reports are coming in from villages like this one on Papua New
>>> Guinea's New Britain island of flooding from unprecedented high tides.
>>> It's happening not only to low-lying atolls, but to shorelines from
>>> Alaska to India.

>>
>> So sad.

>
> Such crocodile tears.
>
>> But it's been happening since the last Ice Age.

>
> No, dimwit, it happened _after_ the last Ice Age. You may not have
> noticed, but North America hasn't been covered in ice for several
> thousand years now.
>
>> About ten thousand years back, people were able to walk across what
>> is now the English Channel - and the British Isles were just a
>> peninsula jutting off Europe.

>
> Kewl. But not relevant.
>
>> http://news.softpedia.com/news/Ston...12-m-Depth-on-the-English-Channel-62431.shtml
>>
>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1103_031103_britainrepopulation2.html
>>
>>
>> or:
>> http://tinyurl.com/35o4hw
>> http://tinyurl.com/w203
>>
>> I don't plan to lose any sleep over it. Even more to the point,
>> there's nothing that should be done.

>
> Maybe if we buried you up to your neck on a beach in Bangladesh.

:
You and I both would be dead of old age before the water rose high
enough to be a threat to me - or to the Bangladeshis, despite the yellow
journalism of the GW acolytes of the new religion.

Here's what's relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

400 feet in 18,000 years is Wiki's claimed sea level rise since the peak
of the last Ice Age

Let's see where this claimed rise takes us, math-wise.

= 400 ft x 12 inches per foot / .1 inch per year (today's estimated rate
of rise)
= 48,000 years

But it's only been 18,000 years since the last peak of the Ice Age, so
= 18,000 yrs x .1 inch per year (claimed rise) / 12 inches per foot
= 150 ft

Something wrong here. If the rise really is 400 feet, then the average
rate of rise per year should be
= 400 feet x 12 inches / 18,000 yrs
= 0.26 inches per year estimated rise

So the sea level rise is _slower_ now than it was before. You can be
Chicken Little if you want, Jeff. But I'd rather deal with the world as
it is.

--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
 
B1ackwater wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:29:53 -0500, Jeffrey Turner
> <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Bama Brian wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Harry Hope wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>From The Associated press, 12/3/07:
>>>>http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-bali-sinking-islands,0,3895892.story
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>By CHARLES J. HANLEY | AP Special Correspondent
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>KILU, Papua New Guinea -
>>>>Squealing pigs lit out for the bush and Filomena Taroa herded the
>>>>grandkids to higher ground last week when the sea rolled in deeper
>>>>than anyone had ever seen.
>>>>
>>>>What was happening?
>>>>"I don't know," the sturdy, barefoot grandmother told a visitor.
>>>>"I'd never experienced it before."
>>>>
>>>>As scientists warn of rising seas from global warming, more and more
>>>>reports are coming in from villages like this one on Papua New
>>>>Guinea's New Britain island of flooding from unprecedented high tides.
>>>>It's happening not only to low-lying atolls, but to shorelines from
>>>>Alaska to India.
>>>
>>>So sad.

>>
>>Such crocodile tears.
>>
>>
>>>But it's been happening since the last Ice Age.

>>
>>No, dimwit, it happened _after_ the last Ice Age. You may not have
>>noticed, but North America hasn't been covered in ice for several
>>thousand years now.

>
>
> The last ice age didn't end ... it's STILL ending.


Another maroon who think ice sheets cover North America.

> Expect the warming trend to continue until only
> north-central Greenland has an ice cap - and maybe
> not even then. MIGHT happen a bit quicker because
> of the crud we put in the air, but it's gonna
> happen anyway. Then, after a long spell, it will
> start to freeze again.


More faith-based science. Gotta love it.

> I expect the braincasts of 12037 to be screaming
> about the dangerous global cooling phenomena and
> why it's all the Republicans fault :)


I expect you and I will be long dead by then. We have to base
today's policies on tomorrow's expected results.

--Jeff

--
I object to violence because when it
appears to do good, the good is only
temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
-Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
 
Bama Brian wrote:

> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
>> Bama Brian wrote:
>>
>>> Harry Hope wrote:
>>>
>>>> From The Associated press, 12/3/07:
>>>> http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-bali-sinking-islands,0,3895892.story
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> By CHARLES J. HANLEY | AP Special Correspondent
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> KILU, Papua New Guinea -
>>>> Squealing pigs lit out for the bush and Filomena Taroa herded the
>>>> grandkids to higher ground last week when the sea rolled in deeper
>>>> than anyone had ever seen.
>>>>
>>>> What was happening?
>>>> "I don't know," the sturdy, barefoot grandmother told a visitor.
>>>> "I'd never experienced it before."
>>>>
>>>> As scientists warn of rising seas from global warming, more and more
>>>> reports are coming in from villages like this one on Papua New
>>>> Guinea's New Britain island of flooding from unprecedented high tides.
>>>> It's happening not only to low-lying atolls, but to shorelines from
>>>> Alaska to India.
>>>
>>>
>>> So sad.

>>
>>
>> Such crocodile tears.
>>
>>> But it's been happening since the last Ice Age.

>>
>>
>> No, dimwit, it happened _after_ the last Ice Age. You may not have
>> noticed, but North America hasn't been covered in ice for several
>> thousand years now.
>>
>>> About ten thousand years back, people were able to walk across what
>>> is now the English Channel - and the British Isles were just a
>>> peninsula jutting off Europe.

>>
>>
>> Kewl. But not relevant.
>>
>>> http://news.softpedia.com/news/Ston...12-m-Depth-on-the-English-Channel-62431.shtml
>>>
>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1103_031103_britainrepopulation2.html
>>>
>>>
>>> or:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/35o4hw
>>> http://tinyurl.com/w203
>>>
>>> I don't plan to lose any sleep over it. Even more to the point,
>>> there's nothing that should be done.

>>
>>
>> Maybe if we buried you up to your neck on a beach in Bangladesh.

>
> :
> You and I both would be dead of old age before the water rose high
> enough to be a threat to me - or to the Bangladeshis, despite the yellow
> journalism of the GW acolytes of the new religion.


Yeah. Just like the Creationists. Scientists are religious acolytes.

> Here's what's relevant:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise


Obfuscation? Obfuscation is relevant? I expected that from you.

> 400 feet in 18,000 years is Wiki's claimed sea level rise since the peak
> of the last Ice Age


Gosh you read ONE sentence and that makes you an expert?

"Most of the rise occurred before 6,000 years ago. From 3,000 years ago
to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising
at 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr.[1]"

> Let's see where this claimed rise takes us, math-wise.


Here comes the lying with statistics bit.

> = 400 ft x 12 inches per foot / .1 inch per year (today's estimated rate
> of rise)
> = 48,000 years
>
> But it's only been 18,000 years since the last peak of the Ice Age, so
> = 18,000 yrs x .1 inch per year (claimed rise) / 12 inches per foot
> = 150 ft
>
> Something wrong here.


Yes. You're either ignorant or lying. Or both.


If the rise really is 400 feet, then the average
> rate of rise per year should be
> = 400 feet x 12 inches / 18,000 yrs
> = 0.26 inches per year estimated rise
>
> So the sea level rise is _slower_ now than it was before. You can be
> Chicken Little if you want, Jeff. But I'd rather deal with the world as
> it is.


You can be an idiot all you want, Brian, but that's your reality.

--Jeff

--
I object to violence because when it
appears to do good, the good is only
temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
-Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
 
Back
Top