Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

Sea levels may rise 5 feet by 2100

Posted on  

"Sea levels may rise 5 feet by 2100"

Share:

google plus icon

A recent Nature Geoscience study, “High rates of sea-level rise during the last interglacial period,” (subs. req’d) finds that sea levels could rise twice what the IPCC had project for 2100,. This confirms what many scientists have recently warned (and here), and it matches the conclusion of a study earlier this year in Science.

[As an aside, in one debate with a Denier -- can't remember who, they all kind of merge together -- I was challenged: "Name one peer-reviewed study projecting sea level rise this century beyond the IPCC." Well, now there are two from this year alone!]

For the record, five feet of sea level rise would submerge some 22,000 square miles of U.S. land just on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts (farewell, southern Louisiana and Florida) — and displace more than 100 million people worldwide. And, of course, sea levels would just keep rising some 6 inches a decade, or, more likely, even faster next century than this century.

The researchers base their finding on their analysis of the rate of sea level rise during the last warm or interglacial period (the Eemian, about 120,000 years ago), when seas rose 1.6 meters (5 feet) per century. Why look at the rate of Eemian sea level rise? Becaause that’s the last time the planet was as warm as it soon will be again: “such rates of sea-level rise occurred when the global mean temperature was 2 °C higher than today, as expected again by AD 2100.”

Indeed, if we don’t reverse emissions’ trends very soon (and stay below 450 ppm of carbon dioxide), the planet might well warm 3°C or more by 2100. The Eemian warming was driven by “changes in orbital parameters from today (greater obliquity and eccentricity, and perihelion), known as the Milankovitch cycle.” Current warming is driven by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

Here is the entire abstract from the article — note that the Eemian is also called “Marine Isotope Stage 5“:

The last interglacial period, Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 5e, was characterized by global mean surface temperatures that were at least 2 °C warmer than present. Mean sea level stood 4–6 m higher than modern sea level, with an important contribution from a reduction of the Greenland ice sheet. Although some fossil reef data indicate sea-level fluctuations of up to 10 m around the mean, so far it has not been possible to constrain the duration and rates of change of these shorter-term variations. Here, we use a combination of a continuous high-resolution sea-level record, based on the stable oxygen isotopes of planktonic foraminifera from the central Red Sea and age constraints from coral data to estimate rates of sea-level change during MIS-5e. We find average rates of sea-level rise of 1.6 m per century. As global mean temperatures during MIS-5e were comparable to projections for future climate change under the influence of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions, these observed rates of sea-level change inform the ongoing debate about high versus low rates of sea-level rise in the coming century.

If we don’t act now, we are clearly risking catastrophic sea level rise for many, many generations to come.

Tags:

« »

40 Responses to Sea levels may rise 5 feet by 2100

  1. Ron says:

    Joe,

    I’m not sure that letter should be taken to be quite as alarming as you intended with your headline.

    You quote this line -

    such rates of sea-level rise occurred when the global mean temperature was 2 °C higher than today, as expected again by AD 2100

    But there’s a bit more in that paragraph -

    “A 1.6 m global sea-level rise per century would correspond to disappearance of an ice sheet the size of Greenland in roughly four centuries (modelling suggests 1,000 years or more). During MIS-5e, such rates of sea-level rise occurred when the global mean temperature was 2 °C higher than today, as expected again by AD 2100″

    Temps were higher AND there was more ice to melt.

    It’s also not clear whether the authors are saying ‘expected again by AD 2100′ because of Man’s activities, or because we are in a natural warming period. Can you help clarify that for me?

    More -

    “It is well established that past rates of sea-level rise due to ice-volume reduction have reached up to 5 m per century. However, such values relate to deglaciations, dominated by disintegration of the now-absent Laurentide ice sheet, which questions their suitability for projections of future sea-level change within a well-developed interglacial period. So far, no detailed information exists about the rates of sea-level change associated with fluctuations within interglacial periods in general, and above 0 m in particular. This focuses attention on MIS-5e, the most recent (best dated) interglacial period during which sea level stood several metres above 0 m between roughly 124 and 119 kyr (thousand years ago) (see the Supplementary Information).

    MIS-5e warmth was caused by orbital forcing of insolation, rather than the predicted greenhouse forcing of the near future, so that MIS-5e ice-volume responses may have differed in detail from future responses. However, we do not consider the MIS-5e warming as a straight analogy to the future, but instead aim to provide an observational context that quantifies the potential range of sea-level change rates above 0 m, to inform the debate about ice-volume reduction/sea-level rise in the next century that currently relies entirely on theoretical projections.”

    I’m not convinced that we should be alarmed about this.

    We are talking about The last interglacial period, the last one the Earth saw before this one we’re in now,correct?

    It seems to me, from what I’ve read, that this interglacial period has so far been cooler than average. So even without hypothetical forcing by increased CO2, we should expect to be seeing some warming happening anyway. Does anybody read this differently than me?

  2. Beefeater says:

    So this has all happened before without human intervention? What’s up with that?

  3. Joe says:

    Ron (and Beefie) — reading all the links would answer a lot of your questions:

    They mean projected T rise by 2100 due to GHGs.

    No, there was not more ice during the Eemian — that’s why sea levels were 15 to 20 feet HIGHER then (you failed to read the deglaciation paragraph correctly).

    Actually, as Hansen and many others have pointed out — we should be MORE worried about human-caused warming than orbital warming, since the latter is typically caused by more solar insolation in the Northern Hemisphere, where all the easily meltable ice is, whereas NOW we are warming both hemispheres simultaneously.

    By 2100, assuming we are seduced into further inaction by the Deniers and Delayers, human-caused GHGs will most likely make the Earth MUCH warmer than it was during Eemian.

  4. Ron says:

    Sorry, Joe. I’m not buying your interpretation. I can read at least as well as you can.

    The scientists in that article were carefully NOT making predictions, and said so more than once.

    What they did say -

    “As global mean temperatures during MIS-5e were comparable to projections for future climate change under the influence of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions, these observed rates of sea-level change inform the ongoing debate about high versus low rates of sea-level rise in the coming century.”

    In other words, global average temperatures are actually cooler right now, during this interglacial period than they were during the last one. They were attempting to ‘inform the debate’ (as if there was one, eh Joe?).

    So even without hypothetical forcing by increased CO2, we should expect to be seeing some warming happening anyway. We could expect to see warming, even if we hadn’t reached our present level of fossil fuel use! In fact, so far we have perhaps experienced less than ‘normal’ (whatever normal is) warming.

    This article does not in any way validate the AGW hypothesis, should not be taken as any sort of prediction, and certainly isn’t alarming.

  5. Joe says:

    Ron: You look, but do not see, hear, but do not, understand. I just don’t know what else to say. How could the authors be clearer:

    “As global mean temperatures during MIS-5e were comparable to projections for future climate change under the influence of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions, these observed rates of sea-level change inform the ongoing debate about high versus low rates of sea-level rise in the coming century.”

  6. Ron says:

    Um, could I see a show of hands or something from passersby?

    Which one of us is mangling the interpretation here?

  7. trucker says:

    You are, Ron…just you.

  8. Of course, this time frame is part of a reoccuring cycle, how other than creation theory could it be explained that we find ourselves in the “here and now”, other than having been here before.
    However, denying that bringing so much more carbon abouve the earths crust (during this cycle) than has been exposed to atmospheric oxygen for untold (sub)cycles, not only dissacknowledges the weight of that influence, but is ignorant of combustion chemistry.
    Another point seemingly overlooked is that all hydrocarbon compounds obviously contain both hydrogen and carbon. The common knowledge is that CO2 is a combustion end result, what ever happened to acknowledging that a simmilar quantity of hydrogen becomes bonded to oxygen?
    Worrysome, not only because this bond to hydrogen seems even more permanent than the CO2 bond, but also in that both of these are in competition with us and most other living organizims for oxygen to sustain our very life.
    Could I further suggest that (one of) the last time(s) there was this much hydrocarbon on the earths surface and exposed to the atmosphere, it was made up primarily of CO2 and very humid, supporting only oganizms capable of living under those conditions which then absorbed/processed both the water and carbon dioxide compounds giving off oxygen and sequestering the hydro-carbon subterainian.

  9. Ronald says:

    I think I see the point of the article.

    I think I see why Ron can’t see the point, because it doesn’t agree with his philosophy. we all come from very different worlds, experiences, educations, interests all different.

    Ron sees everything though his libertarianism. If we had warming years ago naturally, then humans can do nothing.

    The trouble is years ago there weren’t humans who built cities along oceans, billions of people who relied on non drought farming to feed them and mountain snow for water. Yes, the earth goes thru climate cycles naturally, but that doesn’t mean we would want to go thru a climate change that we could’ve avoided as intelligent people and not avoided as climate change helpless libertarians.

    For Ron, the only moral political system is libertarianism so there can be no problems that humans can solve that aren’t able to be solved with libertarianism, so global warming problems don’t exist.

  10. Ron says:

    Are we playing The Emperor’s New Clothes ?

  11. Taxi Driver says:

    Ron-Global warming is so real some people just can’t see it. Thats the short answer for you.Some poeple have the vision to see these like prophets of old who all were vindiacated by science in the end. Joe might be one of those.

    http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen7/MornerEng.html

  12. Joe says:

    TD: “Where is ice melting? Some Alpine glaciers are melting, others are advancing. An-tarctic ice is certainly not melting; all the Antarctic records show expansion of ice. Greenland is the dark horse here for sure; the Arctic may be melting, but it doesn’t matter, because they’re already floating, and it has no effect.”

    This is a leading expert on sea level rise? Virtually all Alpine glaciers are melting, very few are advancing. Antarctica is melting. So is Greenland. The Arctic DOES matter — to U.S. climate and probably to Greenland’s melt rate.

  13. Pau K says:

    Can all the allusions to 20 ft sea level rises now be put aside? Commenters on other threads have pointed out the importance of setting definite targets. It is also important to accurately define conditions and results. Let “may rise 5 feet” be the level which informs policy, including non CO2 focused mitigations. The effects of any sea level rise will should be gradual rather than cataclysmic. Those 22,000 sq. miles seem like an awful lot until you compare it to the 3,500,000 sq. miles in the U.S. Spread over 100 years, well you get my point. 100,000,000 people is less than 1.5% of current world population. I’m just glad a reputable scientific authority has brought some sanity to the seal level table.

  14. Ron says:

    Curiouser & curiouser …..

    Paul, you getting tired straddling that fence yet?

    Ronald, what was it you saw in that article or in my post that made you think of libertarian policy?

    Can anybody show me in that article where CO2 levels in the last interglacial period were mentioned?

    Can anybody show me where in my post I was wrong in my conclusion? Don’t just holler like I’m standing on your foot – show me. (I know some of you, like Michael, hate that whole ‘show me’ thing, but Michael hasn’t stopped by this post yet.)

    Can anybody explain an alternate definition for the word ‘projections’?

  15. Michael says:

    Ron,

    You are engaging in a rhetorical trick that should become transparent to everybody here who has had to read through comment sections with your legerdemain in them.

    It has nothing to do with the data which cannot influence your interpretive set. You are simply looking for what you feel to be “openings” to “catch” some discrepancy that you feel exists in what climate scientists and their data are saying about the climate.

    Your rhetorical trick is as follows: Scientists including Joe talk of projections and probabilities that show an extreme likelihood that these events will come to pass. You say: “OK you didn’t say it WILL happen” or “You said it WILL happen they said it MIGHT happen”. Subsequently you argue that
    a) “there is a possibility that it won’t happen”
    b) “you are lying because you misinterpreted or exaggerated what they or the data say”

    You keep on shifting the ground asking for a 100% probability which isn’t going to happen. No one says they are giving you or going to give you a 100% probability for a future event. Joe didn’t do that in his piece above. You interpret that either with genuine naivete or, more likely, disingenuously as an act of deceit!!

    What makes this seem extremely disingenuous is that you seem like a fairly intelligent guy (who in addition worships the market…a probabilistic phenomenon if there ever was one). If in your real life, you were always asking for 100% probabilities you would never get anything done. You would be paralyzed by uncertainty.

    You are wanting people who read and interpret the masses of climate science data to be paralyzed by uncertainty because you are introducing the canard of 100% probability into the discussion.

  16. Ron says:

    Here let me try again guys.

    I found a pithier lead, written by somebody else, for this story.

    Sea levels rose as much as 1.6 metres every one hundred years on average the last time the Earth was as warm as it is predicted to be later this century.

    This says that global average temperatures are actually cooler right now, during this interglacial period than they were during the last one. Correct so far?

    The scientists in that study were looking at the last interglacial period’s sea level rise to get an idea of possible future sea level rise if temperatures rise as much as predicted. Correct so far?

    Interglacial periods are the ‘warming periods’ between ice ages, which occur cyclically. Correct so far?

    Since we are in an interglacial period, it is true to say that there should be warming during this period, regardless of Man’s activities, since that is the definition of a warming period. Correct so far?

    According to the above article, at the present time we are about 2 degrees centigrade cooler than the time period they were studying. Correct again?

    We don’t really have any way of knowing for sure where we are in the present warming period, given that the Earth operates on different time scales than humans, but we could reasonably expect the climate to warm up a bit more naturally since it has done so in the past. Correct so far?

    The alternative is to expect cooling. There is no record of a stable climate.

    The article does not draw any conclusions about CO2′s influence in any of this. Correct so far?

    The authors carefully pointed out, more than once, that they were not making climate predictions. correct?

    Therefore, the article is not alarming, does not support the AGW hypothesis (doesn’t even mention it), and is not a prediction.

    Obviously it’s being spun that way, though.

    NOW show me where I am wrong.

  17. Ron says:

    Michael,

    What are you talking about? Did I really say anything like what you seem to think I said?

  18. Pau K says:

    Ron,
    My position is regardless of AGW, it is vital for economic, environmental and national security reasons that carbon based power be replaced over the next fifty or so years. I don’t know if you agree with that or not. Do I think Joe overstates the catastrophe? Yes. Do I think he is sincere in his beliefs? Yes. Do I think there is any comment I or anyone else could make that would change his mind? No.

  19. Joe says:

    I am a physicist, so I change my mind whenever the facts/science warrant it. I am considerably more alarmed than I was a decade ago, for instance.

  20. Ron says:

    Paul,

    I have agreed before that carbon-based fuels are dirty. It would be a grand thing to get fully onto other sources of energy.

    However, I object to the hype (like the way the above article was spun, for example) and the pointless policy proposals (that the hype is intended to support).

    There are other, more honest, more effective, ways to encourage a move away from fossil fuels than trying to scare people.

    And can not one of you answer directly what I wrote above?

  21. David B. Benson says:

    Ron said “We are talking about The last interglacial period, the last one the Earth saw before this one we’re in now,correct?

    It seems to me, from what I’ve read, that this interglacial period has so far been cooler than average. So even without hypothetical forcing by increased CO2, we should expect to be seeing some warming happening anyway. Does anybody read this differently than me?”

    Yes, as will anyone who has actually studied a bit of orbital forcing theory. The orbital forcings are only quasi-periodic, so one should not expect each interglacial to be ‘just like’ the one before. THe Holocene, this interglacial, was naturally scheduled to be cooler and much longer lasting that the ‘last interglacial’, better called the Eemian interglacial or termination 2.

    That is before humans began adding substantial quantities of carbon to the active carbon cycle. Now the Holocene is likely to be much longer lasting than termination 2. There is a fine paper by Archer & Ganopolski, “A movable trigger”, on this topic.

    With regard to the Eemian, it appears there were two periods of sea highstand, separated by about 2,000 years during which the sea stand went down by about 4–10 meters from the previous 4–5 meter highstand about 123,000 years ago. However, during this period, the CO2 measured in the Vostok ice core was in the range 260—285 ppm, vastly lower than that of today.

    If that does not answer all of Ron’s (technical) questions, he’ll have to ask again.

  22. mario83092 says:

    Personally I believe that there’s a lot more significant and severe issues to fret over that are progressing and/or have already been presented due to global warming. Disease, famine, drought, habitat destruction, hurricanes, all of these are problems that have increased in severity over the course of our global warming “peak” years. Coincidentally, all of these problems lead to death.

    Problems that are progressing and/or will be initiated soon consist of, but are not limited to; species extinction, financial crises, and yes, sea levels rising.

    If anyone has a response or questions, email me at mario83092@yahoo.com

  23. Michael says:

    Ron,
    Yes, the Nature paper can to a some readers be used to substantiate a claim that sea level may rise 1 and one half feet on the low end but 5 feet on the high end. Joe, for his headline chose the high end. That is his editorial choice informed by other data that goes beyond what the Nature authors allowed into their study.

    That Joe chose the high end indicates that he thinks such scientific papers are conservative (as is the IPCC) in projecting future events and are wary of including positive feedbacks in their projections. That is his choice but one that is not unfounded by the acceleration of warming and ice melt that we have seen in the last several years.

    I think you are trying to massage the data as a lay climate scientist in your comments that goes beyond your competency and access to the data…if you just read the abstract and the last paragraph you can come to the above conclusion. To chase after the wanderings of your mind is a fruitless task and I don’t envy Joe or the others with climatological chops in trying to follow your logic.

    If there is a substantive center to your rhetorical-question littered posts here it is that we shouldn’t be alarmed by this data. Joe disagrees. He IS alarmed.

    I think you are discounting that “alarm” can be a health thing and warranted. Alarm has survival value as you would probably admit. Either that or you are engaging in time-wasting for political reasons.

  24. Ron says:

    David,

    I didn’t mean to sound as if I expected every interglacial period to be just like every other one.

    The authors of that paper, however, were treating it as comparable to this one. In the way they made the comparison, projected (by AGW hypothesis) temperature and sea level, they are comparable. And that was the point of the paper.

    The main differences, as outlined in the paper, were in the temperature difference of 2 degrees and in the existing ice sheets of the two time periods.

    What seems to have been overlooked by some who might want to spin this into proof of AGW, is that little word ‘projected’. If the projections of temperatures don’t come to pass, then presumably the sea level rise won’t be as severe. That makes sense doesn’t it?

    You can’t prove one prediction with another one, and as I pointed out – the authors of the paper made the point explicitly that they were not offering a prediction. They were attempting to find some observational evidence to support the predictions.

    They found some good evidence that if the predictions of other scientists came true, that temperatures were to rise another 2 degrees, and assuming the same level of deglaciation, that sea level could rise as much or more than predicted by the IPCC.

    I have no argument with their method or their conclusion. I accept it as good science.

    My objection is about Joe’s (and others, to be fair) trying to spin that article into something it is not.

    Mario,

    The jury is still out on whether AGW is causing or increasing the severity of disease, famine, drought, habitat destruction, and hurricanes. That’s more hype.

    BTW – what are you advertising?

    Michael,

    May I compliment you on a coherent, straightforward post. Very nice!

    I’m really not ‘massaging the data’, though. What I said is actually what that article says. I just cut through the hype a little bit.

    It doesn’t prove the AGW hypothesis; but it doesn’t detract from it either, by any means. It just doesn’t say what Joe, Ronald, trucker, and (maybe, I’m not sure) Willy thought it said when they first read it. I hope I have helped clarify it, and in the process clarify what I wrote, since some of you misunderstood that as well.

    And I also must agree that ‘alarm’ is a relative thing.

  25. Ron says:

    And I want to repeat something I’ve said before: If the science of AGW is so strong, the hype should not be necessary. In the long run, the hype will hurt the cause politically. I think it already is hurting your cause.

    I realize that I may be, in a sense, straddling a fence like Paul K, but maybe its a different fence. I don’t believe the AGW hypothesis, and I don’t believe that ‘the end justifies the means’ is ever a justified approach – but suppose AGW is true after all. In that case, I’d hate for the real science to get buried under a bunch of crap.

  26. Michael says:

    Ron,
    Unfortunately I cannot return the compliment. You have misinterpreted my post about alarm…you attributed to me the word or concept “relative” while I asserted that alarm can be a healthy thing that we NEED to survive. You have made it seem as though my post supports your view of things. It does not. Only in your world of rhetorical games does it support your view.

    If you don’t get alarmed about some things, you don’t survive…period.

    AGW seems to be a cause for alarm. I am used to thinking of the Arctic as a cold place and that it had an ice cap. Now it looks like it won’t have the ice cap anymore. This is a major change. Cause for alarm…I think so. It looks like with warming we are going to have a lot more tropical diseases in temperate climes…something to be alarmed about.

    I wasn’t alarmed about it until a few years ago…then I became alarmed. I did not start out being alarmed.

    It appears that you would do anything, include distorting science and language and posts to avoid being alarmed. That is your personal choice but that doesn’t mean that these facts

    Your assertions that you care about the real science are exactly true in reverse. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered hypocrisy in such a raw form!!

    Your assertion about the science is based on faulty premises. Science by its nature is not usually understandable to most people, especially a science that depends a lot on numbers and statistics. The Nature article is filled with arcane references to measures and data and data presentations that are only interesting to a small subset of scientists. A scientist needs to step out of his or her role as a scientist to bring the implications of what they are studying to a wider audience. So your premise that what you call the “hype” is bad science is based on the fallacious notion that scientific truth would by its nature be transparent to everybody and communicate itself to everybody without popularization and translation into everyday language.

  27. Ronald says:

    ron,
    I didn’t say that I thought that this article supported AGW. that wasn’t the point of the article. the point of the article was the ocean level at a warmer climate in another age of the earth.
    What I was commenting on was your need to always bring what you want to read into something that wasn’t meant to be there in the first place. Did the article say that AGW was going to happen, no. It discussed ocean levels.

  28. David B. Benson says:

    Ron — The paper in question does admirably at determining the rate of sea stand rise in a period, the Eem, which is roughly comperable to the (current) projections for future warming.

    The paper is not support for AGW. The support for AGW is the known, well-studied physics of global warming (so-called greenhouse) gases plus the known excess quantities of such which have been added by humans. There is no room for further ‘debate’ on such a well-settled matter.

  29. Ron says:

    I dunno, David. I still don’t see AGW as anything more than a sexy hypothesis, but the way the political machine is growing I’m starting to hope that it does turn out to be true.

    I’d hate to see an economic reorganization and government power grab like we had in World War Two, as Joe seems to be advocating, if the science wasn’t there to somehow ‘justify’ it.

    Some even say it doesn’t really matter whether the science is correct; the end will justify the means.

    I think it does matter.

  30. Michael says:

    Ah, Ron, you care so much about the science…that you ignore the data!!

    If you are planning to go to the beach and the weatherman says, there will be a 90% chance of rain that day, do you go another day? Or do you attack the weatherman’s and NOAA’s scientific credentials? With GW and AGW we now have a symphony of weathermen giving us about a 90% or greater probability. But what do you do? You ignore what they say!! Or you attack their credentials.

    And who are you? Some guy on the Internet who doesn’t like taxes and government regulation of the economy.

  31. Joe says:

    Well said, Michael!!

  32. Ron says:

    Joe,

    I think you should make Michael and Abhijeet regular, paid contributors to this blog.

    Their insight would be invaluable.

  33. David B. Benson says:

    Ron — That can only be because you don’t bother to learn anything about the physics. Instead, read about carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas here:

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

  34. Ronald says:

    What, is this a Don Quixote moment?

    Are there no windmills to attack?

    Ron,
    You are giving up to easily. This is all begging the question.

    Here’s whats happening. When these Climatologists go to Greenland for measurements of the ice, and all good Climatologists have to go to Greenland sometime, they get zapped by something like that thing in the “Men in Black” movies where it erases their brains. And we all know what happens when someone gets their brain erased. Yah, that’s right, liberals. Socialists actually. And that’s why they come out of Greenland all one world government and all. So they got to make up this global warming thing so they can take over the world. Ain’t nobody left Greenland a non socialist.

    See, its much better than black helicopters in Mexico. There are a few Climatologists who never make it to Greenland and those are the ones who read the data correctly, and they get called the deniers. For some reason those that don’t go to Greenland can do alternative service like getting money from fossil fuel companies. Don’t really know how that works.

    More seriously, my recommendation of a book about Global Warming and what we need to do about it is ‘Hell and High Water.’ It does explain some of the science, but it is best on the politics.

  35. Luca says:

    I guess it is time to look for a summer home in Iceland.

  36. herb the verb says:

    Beefeater Says:

    December 31st, 2007 at 5:49 pm
    So this has all happened before without human intervention? What’s up with that?

    Yes, many things happened before without human intervention. That doesn’t mean we want them to happen BECAUSE of human intervention. We’ve had an almost completely ice-bound earth, we’ve had an almost zero oxygen atmosphere earth, we’ve had all kinds of things happen naturally on earth that would be bad for people.

  37. mario83092 says:

    Ron,

    Good point. But in “technicalities” with “juries” and all, global warming still hasn’t been proven as anything more than a theory, either.

    Advertising? I’m not sure I get that.

  38. Graham says:

    Ron,

    I refer back to your January 1st 2008 posting at 12:07.

    You hit the nail firmly on the head.

    Emperor’s New clothes. Just so.

    During Roman times the Governer of Britain was castigated by the Senate in Rome for not ordering enough wine from central stocks. The reason? Because we were growing too many of our own grapes ! Not something we’ve been able to do of late.

    We are in an Inter-Glacial Period. It is SUPPOSED to be getting warmer. One might consider our previous climate to have been abnormal and that we are now starting to experience ‘normality’.

    Because we can’t ‘see’ what the doom-mongers see we must all be stupid?

  39. Dexter says:

    I actually agree with Ron.

    The article says if the average temperature rises by 2º it will be the same as when the sea level as rising 5 feet per century, 100,000 years ago or so. So it’s not actually rising at that pace right now, nor will it until the average temperature actually rises by that much.

    Nonetheless, I am alarmed, and I would really like if we could turn to green energy as soon as possible.

    My car does 45+ mpg. How much does yours do?