G'day,

Hey this is fun. Finding different threads with the same arguments. Are any of these achieving anything? Is anyone learning anything, especially with insults flying?

I liked your post Archer that opened this post. I learnt something. Isn't that what these forums are for. Now if it had stopped there or it became an argument on the science this would have been a fun thread to read or participate in.

NASA's figure's in many areas of global warming do not support even the theory of global warming, let alone a rise in sea level but these do seem to get overlooked quite a bit. As just one example I could point to Mr Morgan's one reference he supplied in his discusions on another thread, that to the Goddard Institute's, world average temperature graphs. They showed a net cooling effect for continental US over the last 100 years or so and prolonged periods of cooling in the the same period world wide that pretty much matched the warming periods. They even pointed out the flaws in data collection which was likely to give falsely high readings.

If you go to the main page of this site, you will find a recent article concerning the Antartic. The article suggested that there is MORE ice on the Antartic because of global warming. I really liked the logic there. Apparently when they measured the interior ice sheet of the Antartic over the last couple of decades it has found to have increased sufficiently to counteract the loss at sea level. The supposition then made was that this was due to global warming causing a greater precipitation in the Antartic (pretty much the driest place on earth with precipitation below 4 inches a year). There were no figures for greater precipitation over the same period by the way so I guess the conclusion was an assumption.

Without wishing to really muddy the waters, or agree with anything that DA Morgan has said, there really is room for much higher ocean levels than we currently enjoy. From geologic records it is reasonable to assume that ocean levels have been around 40 metres higher than currently. That doesn't mean I think that is going to happen only that there is sufficient water locked up in ice over Europe, Asia, North America, the Antartic and the Artic to raise the water levels substantially above what the current levels are.

In order to get to much higher levels of ocean levels however, we need to pretty much eliminate all locked ice. That happened last around 40 milion years ago. It could have been a few million years later than this but in relative terms I'm happy to concede that it might have been as recently as 30 million years ago.

Since then the earth has had a massive REDUCTION in CO2 levels, the continents have shuffled around, it has warmed and cooled a fairly large number of times so imho it seems to need a really big change to get the earth into a position where all ice melts and ocean levels are much higher than they are now.

If the earth's average temperature rose by 6 degrees I'm willing to bet that this might be a big enough change. I have no science to support this however.

But global warming arguments should be about facts. The fact that sea levels really could be higher than they are now does not support any argument that global warming is occurring or if it does major sea level changes will occur. One does not automatically lead to the other.

Richard

Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness