Arctic Ice May Melt By 2040 474
Dekortage writes in with a new study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research suggesting that the North Pole may be clear of ice in summer as soon as 2040, decades earlier than previously thought. From the article: "'As the ice retreats, the ocean transports more heat to the Arctic and the open water absorbs more sunlight, further accelerating the rate of warming and leading to the loss of more ice,' Holland said in the statement. 'This is a positive feedback loop with dramatic implications for the entire Arctic.'"
Sea Level? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No change in sea level. (Score:2, Informative)
-Rick
Re:No change in sea level. (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong again. The volume of the ice submerged in the water is equal to the volume of the ice if it were water. The only difference between the water and the ice is density. Ice is less dense. Because of that, it floats. But the only part of the ice that floats above the water line is the difference in volume between it's forzen and melted states. Submerged ice melting in water leaves the water level at exactly the same place. It's not a centimeter, millimeter, or even nanometer different. It physically can't be different.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Pwnt by english (Score:3, Informative)
While I was writing it, I was applying the logic such that you could replace the submerged half of the formula with dry land. If you break it out into two sperate formulas (submerged ice melting reduced total volume, non-submerged ice melting increases total volume) an
Re:Although (Score:2)
True, but it will be hanging out with that extra water from Greenland.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It does change sea level... a little (Score:5, Informative)
Search for 'salinity' in http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/sea.level.faq.htm
And you are wrong also ... (Score:4, Informative)
Must admit I accepted this too until the argument was put to me recently. Fact is of course that the ice is fresh water (less dense) than the sea water it floats in. Check out the links posted elsewhere to physorg about this. Archimedes principle is about the force of the ice pushing down and displacing an equal weight of sea water. But since the ice is lower density then the volume of sea water displaced is less than the volume of the fresh water in the ice ... even after melting. So when floating ice melts in sea water the sea level goes up. Check here [physorg.com], not just the reasoning but also the actual experiment to prove it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It doesn't all have to melt to raise sea levels as they found out in antarctica. An Ice damn broke away, and a huge land-locked ice field moved into the water (ice can flow under pressure -- it just flows very slowly). Thus before 2040, the could be a lot of sea level rise before all the ice melt -- depends upon geography.
From what I'm reading, the Greenland ice sheets are only a few degrees above freezing at ground level due to geothermal heating. So -- it's going to make
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No change in sea level. (Score:5, Informative)
Ice
~~~ = No change in sea level (or extremely small change)
Ice
Ice
~~~ = Increase in sea level
Land
-Rick
Arrgh! (Score:3, Funny)
Land
~~~ = Sinkholes?
Ice
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I made no arguments for or against global warming - I made a simple statement about the physics of ice melting.
And wow, you learned that electrical fields affect the motion of particles while studying particle physics, did you? I learned it in high school with everyone else. And you BELIEVE that Earth's magnetic field shields us from radiation? Why, that's
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IMHO, the remnants of the anti-AGW crowd have now evolved into a run of the mill anti-science crowd. In the past I have found this mythbusting search [realclimate.org] an excellent resource, but I doubt this guy's skeptisim i
Re:No change in sea level. (Score:4, Funny)
Unless.... wait... [googles your post]
Re:No change in sea level. (Score:4, Informative)
In other words, the argument is over, global warming is happening, and it's far too late to play the blame game.
Re:No change in sea level. (Score:5, Informative)
The word you're looking for here is "thermometers".
No, obviously not. The temperature was falling throughout those 150 years and has only started rising recently. The only correlated factor is CO2.
Complete crap. We have absolutely no idea what the temperature history of the other planets is and so we have no way of drawing any conclusions from any changes we see.
The article you linked to says that CH4 only amounts to 18% of CO2-equivalent emissions. Since the lifetime of CH4 is only 12 years, the cumulative effect is smaller still.
See above. However, since temperatures on Earth have only started rising recently, and we've been monitoring the Sun's output longer than that, we can be sure the reason isn't a change in the Sun.
Re:No change in sea level. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why we use proxies to determine the temperature back then. There multiple datasets ranging from ice cores (we match the variations in atmospheric concentrations in more recent periods, and use the cores as a proxy to earlier dates), and tree ring data and so on. We generally don't use temperature records from early 1900s for precisely the above reason.
If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
But its different kinds of radiation. Magnetic fields affect charged particles only - aka solar wind and the aurora, and these have negligible energy input, especially relative to normal EM radiation which GW is about. Now, additionally, we have good data recently on the trends in both solar radiance and temperature forcing, and numerous papers have concluded that the sun itself can explain at most 30% of the observed trend. (Google scholar for the relevant papers)
4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_
Check out the time frames! The dates given are 1998 - about 10 years.
Now, what do you think the orbital period of Jupiter around the sun is? Wikipedia has an answer 4333 days = 12 years. So, how interesting it is that we are seeing changes on the same time frame as Jupiter's passage around the sun, a passage that of course is not perfectly circular, in fact getting closer and further from the sun as time goes on...
What's more, there's another major factor - Jupiter's colour. Huge tracts of Jupiter's surface are in different colours, and as these vortices move about, obviously that is going to change its irradiance. Fortunately, Earth is not one big hurricane.
5. This is similar to Jupiter. Mars has an orbital period of 2 years, and has much greater eccentricity than Earth in its orbit. The temperature trend we have is over 3 years, a 1.5 cycles, something like between winter this year and summer next year. How mysterious that there would be a warming trend.
Additionally, there are dust storm factors as well: See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192 [realclimate.org]
6. That source doesn't say that. Go read it again. Methane is more powerful per volume, and agriculture as a whole takes up more than transport. But transport isn't everything and the total volume of methane is small. Campaigners focus on transport, because transport is easier to cut than agriculture without killing bazillions of people.
Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine?
They aren't. They happened over thousands of years and can be explained by a variety of other factors, whilst the current change is happening over decades and there is no other observed factor that can explain it.
Re:No change in sea level. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you haven't. You are a liar. You've been listening to ultra-rightwing propaganda lies and you're happy to parrot them blindly and unreflectedly. That's a difference.
Many have pointed out the utter absurdity of your gibberish. Here's a couple more examples:
Shackleton recorded the annual extent of sea ice around Antarctica. We've been doing this for close to 100 years now. This IS a measurement of global temperatures.
Every harbor in the world keeps a record of the annual high-water mark at least since the British Empire. Every harbor in the world has seen the ocean levels rising for at least the last 100 years. This IS a measurement of global temperatures.
Weather related damages to the US agriculture (floods, droughts, hurricanes) have been tracked since Jefferson's time. This IS a measurement of global climate.
You might want to call Joe's Diploma Emporium and ask for your money back: magnetic force (and thus acceleration) is always perpendicular to the velocity of a charge. No amount of magnetic fields can increase or decrease the speed of a charged particle (and certainly not an uncharged one).
In all your thorough research, you've never come across the name of this planet in printed form? Even once?
Wait - didn't you just tell us not to believe any temperature indicators that are 100 years old?
You are so utterly mentally retarded that it hurts my teeth to read your drivel. NEVER in the history of the earth has anything happened that was even a tiny fraction of what we are seeing today. Not only were the ice ages NOT "more extreme", they were peanuts compared to what we see today. We have a pretty decent record of global temperatures for several hundred thousand years and there is no indication anywhere of global temperatures changing on the time-scales of decades or even centuries. Nothing like what we're seeing right now can be found anywhere in the earth's climate record.
I recommend that you refrain from posting about issues you do not have the shimmer of a clue about.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No change in sea level. (Score:5, Informative)
The second mechanism is what will cause sea levels to rise - the average temperature of the ocean is more than 4C so an uniform increase in water temperature will cause expansion. As the ocean is quite deep in places, a small expansion could lead to a significant rise in water level.
Admittedly not everybody cares about polar bears drowning or European climate becoming too cold to make Champagne or low-lying island states in the Indian Ocean being obliterated. Selfish gits.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When it is summer in the North, it is winter in the South- so it stays relatively in balance up until now.
The difference is, the South has a rather big landlocked continent- as it's ice melts, it freshens the ocean, but doesn't change the heat absorption. The North is an ocean under the ice- when it melts, it absorbs more heat, thus creating TFA's feedback loop. So what YOU say might be true within the next 34 years
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, in real life there are very subtle poi
Communication in question, not physics. (Score:2)
If you melt _only_ the sumbmerged ice, the water volume will decrease. If you melt _only_ the ice above the water, the water volume will increase. Obviously this is not actually possible to do, I was attempting to express that the melting of ice over water does not matter as the total change is neg
Re: (Score:2)
Another subtle real life point to take into account is that if the artic ice is melting, then probably the same thing is happening to antartic ice. Much of the antartic ice is on land, not water, and so is not currently displacing water. It will add to the ocean's level when it melts.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but that doesn't, in and of itself mean much. Sea water is salty, but ice generally doesn't contain much in the way of salt. So, you effectively have two somewhat distinct substances sitting on top of each other, rather than just two forms of water. What's more, maximum density is at less that 4 C. So, once it warms past that point, the water will start expanding enough to effect sea levels. Also, there is a lot of ice sitting atop the sea level. These facto
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can try this yourself with a glass of water and ice cubes. Mark the water line with the ice cubes floating, then let the ice melt and notice that it hasn't moved. This is elementary school physics.
There are two things that will raise sea
Re:Sea Level? (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.physorg.com/news5619.html [physorg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sea Level? (Score:5, Informative)
And by the time you get to college, you should have learned that the experiment does not work with saltwater [physorg.com].
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, taken literally, that is true. The problem is that when salt water freezes, most of the salt is left behind. The explanation is fairly simple: The water starts forming crystals, and the salt (mostly Na and Cl ions) don't fit into the crystal structure very well. So at the surface, the water molecules slowly join the growing crystal, while the dissolved salt ions don't. You do get some salt in the ice, because ice usua
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course,
Yes, Sea Level Will Rise... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If it also means Greenland... THEN YES! (Score:5, Insightful)
But Chances are that Greenland will almost melt in the process.
Therefore we will notice an increase in sea level if the Arctic ice melts but it will be due to Greenland ice melting.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Heat can be transfered away much more quickly by the flow of water around the floating ice than it can by just the air around the landlocked ice. I would think that the floating ice would melt much sooner.
Like the Tundra Methane Story before this (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Like the Tundra Methane Story before this (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing to hit where we need it- there ain't no dry land up there to dig up with our nuclear weapons to create the particulate matter.
I'm a step ahead... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What I want to know is, when will the ice in the antarctic melt?
I've heard that even though it is calving a lot of icebergs these days, it's getting enough snowfall that the total ice in the antartic is actually increasing. It's just increasing in a different place than the icebergs are coming from.
Besides, once you melt the ice there isn't much land left, and it's not very good real estate. But at least there is land under all that ice and snow, unlike in the arctic.
Skeptical. (Score:3, Insightful)
We get reports like this, within a day of getting reports like cows cause more greenhouse gases than cars, planes, and all other forms of transportation put together [foxnews.com]
Say what you want, but I'm quite skeptical of their ability to accurately forecast this stuff...haven't there been sensationalist reports like this for the last 40 years? All of which were disproven when more accurate methods of forecasting came around?
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Therefore, they are incapable of ever making any correct predictions and should be ignored.
Re:Skeptical. (Score:5, Insightful)
So you would also be skeptical of the claim that I may be a billionaire by 2040?
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I'm bleeding to death, the fact that the knife wounds are bleeding out faster than the gunshot wounds, and the fact that in the past I've gotten nosebleeds, so its not unusual for blood to be coming out of my body isn't really all that important. Dealing with the blood loss is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well
Re: (Score:2)
So look at the science and ignore the sensationalist reports. They're not sitting around speculating, they're measuring sea ice. Use your own critical thinking skills too. How much evidential weight should a Fox News opinion piece get that doesn't have a link to the report it talks about?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ummmm, scientists? Just because what you want to believe doesn't fit with the
consensus [nwsource.com], doesn't mean it is confusing to the rest of us.
Re:Skeptical. (Score:4, Informative)
The story appeared on "Fox news" in the USA, and references a story appearing in the British newspaper "Daily Telegraph", both of those news organisations are known to be the main global warming deniers in each of those countries. They both love running sensationalist, unscientific articles in order to discredit the real scientific research going on.
Re:Skeptical. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So instead we have to listen to those organizations who are the main global warming promoters in those countries?
Re: (Score:2)
the reason why cows release so much greenhouse gas is because, thanks to us, there are so damn many of them. the effect is man made b/c of meat and dairy production.
Re: (Score:2)
Define "disproven". (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess that 40 years ago, it would have been within the knowledge and ability of people to predict that cutting down the forests in Africa would cause a drought. Certainly, it's indisputable that humanly-deforested regions have suffered longer, more severe droughts since being deforested than at any time prior.
In recent years, there has been strong evidence that zooplankton levels are inversely proportional to temperature - cooler weather, more plankton; hotter weather, less plankton.
Does this mean that global warming is real? Define real. The globe is warming, that's irrefutable. Is it caused by human activity? Well, define activity - are you including deforestation, pollution, changes in the biological infrastructure of the planet, etc? Or just a select set of these? Also, and this is the billion dollar question, how much does the cause matter? If the planet is warming to the point where the current life is incapable of survival, who gives a damn about the causes? The latency inherent in the system is on the order of decades to centuries - changing the causes today won't be fast enough to stop the planet overheating, even if all causes WERE under human control. Why not take care of the problem right now and address the causes when we've got time?
I do believe humans are the primary cause, because although natural sources are often much greater, they are much more sporadic and much more regional. Humans have generated non-local sustained inputs, and those simply didn't exist before. Nor is the process linear. Not even remotely close. Saying that X is greater than Y by a factor of Z is only useful if you can use Z to make some useful observation. If the system is non-linear with both positive feedback and negative feedback loops that are themselves non-linear, you have what is known as a chaotic system. Chaotic systems have two properties - they are acutely sensitive to initial conditions, so any error in measurement will explode out of all proportion in almost no time at all, and they are non-differentiable, so that you can't accurately solve any given step even if you DID know the initial conditions. This means that you cannot directly equate human activity with natural activity and hope to get useful results. The best you can do is equate mechanisms and distributions to see what MIGHT be comparable.
However, my opinion of human activity is of no consequence. If humans cut out all pollution tomorrow, we would not start to see the benefits until a hundred or so years after global warming reached crisis point. If you want to do something effective, don't target the stuff that is pointless. Fixing human activity is like re-wallpapering a house that's on fire. Some things can be left to later.
Re:Skeptical. (Score:4, Insightful)
You are buying into the Corporate PR machine that is actually keeping the focus on debating how real global warmimg may or may not be so they can continue to delay the costly adjustments that they will eventually need to make to protect the environment. The problem is that the continued delay as we continue to spend time rebuffing their continual denials and half truths about global warming will make it less and less likely that we can do anything about it.
Global warming is real, and the only reason anyone expends energy denying it is because they don't want to pay to fix it. Do you think all these scientists from all these different countries are making up all this data just so they can stick it to the corporations? They have better things to do!
Exactly What Do You Need To Be "Convinced"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, there have been sensationalist *and* rational reports like this for 40 years... and now we're watching the forecasts begin to noticably pan out. The bitch of it is that back when the effects weren't far above the noise level, the powers that be claimed "we don't see it", whereas now they're saying "we can't afford to do anything about it."
Not
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
kdawson vs Zonk (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course its going to melt away... (Score:2)
Hello?? (Score:2, Funny)
I'm writing from the future to tell everyone that the polar ice caps melted in 2045, and Atlantis was found underneath what was once called the North Pole. The earth's magnetic poles are in the middle of swapping, so it's about 135 degrees Fahrenheit there today.
Good news, though: Duke Nukem Forever is being released next year!
Ummm.... (Score:2)
nope... I'm afraid we can't... perhaps you can try using a larger font size in your next post?
Before we die (Score:2, Interesting)
Also it's estimated that two-thirds of the coral reefs will be gone in 30 years which is about the same timescale as the melting of the ice in the article.
Within my lifetime! (Score:2)
UFOs (Score:2)
Remember, alien UFOs may land tomorrow as well.
This is awful news! (Score:2)
But wait! I will corner the market on suntan oil and insect repellent before the wave of pale Southerners hits
Tekeli-li! (Score:3, Funny)
Liberal Lies (Score:5, Funny)
Question about personalities in this discussion. (Score:3, Insightful)
The main subject that really gets them riled is nuclear power. They get extremely upset at the concept of nuclear bans and will tell you, in detail, exactly why no alternative can work.
Another subject (I wonder if it's the same people, or just the same type of people with different trigger subjects) is this "we are changing/aren't changing the atmosphere). They are very passionate about how it's not us changing the world, coming up with a huge volume of reasoning (look around the threads in this discussion for some examples).
A third is free market--how regulation is the cause of all Americas financial woes.
The interesting thing is, in all cases nothing is really lost by being careful and taking some time to make sure we really are right. There is no reason to be so upset by the thought of keeping companies from opening nuclear plants across the US (Well, unless that's what you do for a living), but there are HUGE potential problems if not done correctly, meaning without enough regulation (we've all seen companies cut corners on safety when it effected profits).
Same with the environment. Religious folks aside (that's not the people I'm talking about), why do some people get so insistent that it's not us changing the environment? It might hurt some companies, but just like the nuclear issue, being safe isn't going to effect the vast majority of the people, including the people I've seen make these arguments.
Without getting into the issue at all, can anyone tell me why they feel so strongly for nuclear power, free market, or mans inability to effect his planet.
Now I really don't care about the issues, I know there are sides, I want to know about personal motivations. Do you really think your lights will go out or your bills will be higher without nuclear power? and if so, is that really so important to you to make you evangelic about it?
Same with the subject at hand. Maybe the facts will go one way, maybe the other (Not trying to start a fight, don't care about the facts right now), but what makes your response "Humans didn't cause it!" rather than "Damn, we better do something about it, build a solar shield or something!". (Actually, I'd guess many feel both responses, but always seem to reach for the "Humans didn't cause it" post first.
The only thing I can guess is that these are people of very strong personal morals who, if they felt that they were contributing to such a problem, would have to do something about it, so they convince themselves of a point that lets them do what it is they want to do and not feel guilty. I can see free marketeers doing the same thing--using it as an excuse to not care about others (which they may otherwise have to do) it doesn't apply to the nuclear thing in any way I can see (Honestly, this is the one that truly baffles me)...
Please reply if you have any insight into the issue because it drives me nuts. I'd really like to hear from an x-pro-nuke or x-free marketeer who has done some soul-searching and has some personal insight into why it was so important to them.
Re:Question about personalities in this discussion (Score:3, Interesting)
And in other news... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd like to nominate this for a really terrible piece of science reporting.
Number of probabilities reported: zero.
Number of fractional changes reported: zero.
I'm quite willing to believe that the loss of Arctic sea ice and the shrinking ice cap are significant and we should be worried (although not, of course, about the polar bears, who have weathered far greater climate fluxuations than this.) But this article gives none of the information that a rational person would require to make a judgment on the issue.
The science on global climate change is imperfect, but certainly not junk. The reporting on global climate change is another matter entirely...
Once again... hacking the papers (Score:4, Informative)
A few thoughts... (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the things that confuses me about tidy feedback loops is that there is no mechanism for their reversal. If the factors that cause increased heat amplify themselves, why hasn't the planet died out from such a runaway loop? Because there are important variables and inputs outside the simplified scope of consideration.
I freely admit I have no idea how well validated their model is. It may be the shit, but it's tackling a formidible set of dynamics. There's nothing wrong with this (that's just science), but it is a bit less than quiet objectivity telling the mass media that X is going to happen. Epidemiologists seem more valid to argue that the H5N1 virus will wipe out a third of the globe (which some have done). Both are suggested by the evidence, but neither are as well documented outcomes as smoking or eating salmonella.
The media loves to seize on scare stories, however, because the public respond to it, so anyone who wants to have their study reported has to punch it up. As other posters have mentioned, each subsequent "boo!" headline desensitizes them to the message.
Part of the message, as I understand it, is that things are already bad, and getting worse. This state of affairs should lead people to activism without reminder. If people were suffering, they would react. Absent current intensity of the problem, one is left convincing people that things will get worse, and relatively soon, because most people aren't motivated by hazy, future problems. Much like it took rising gas prices for people to reconsider their fuel usage, it will take some tangible pain before people do anything about CO2 emissions.
I'll be curious to see what the world is really like in 30 years. I imagine that there will be some warming, with minimal, local effects on overall populations. People will adapt. There will continue to be wars and starvation in various places, and fingers will point in varied directions about it.
Now, if the avian flu people are right, egh...Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No it is not, according to RealClimate [realclimate.org]. Snowfall may be increasing at the interior of Greenland, but it's offset by an accelerated dumping of ice into the ocean at the periphery.
From RealClimate:
Re:Oh please (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because ice reflects sunlight.
Take all the energy that the polar regions reflect because of sunlight, and instead add it to the ocean in polar regions.
That's the math they're saying they did, and the answer they came up with is : the polar cap melts fast!
If you don't want to buy it, do a counter study. As is, their results seem fairly clear and robust. Not saying that they're exactly right, but a counter argument needs to be more then you saying "NOOOOOOO".
Re: (Score:2)
The Gulf Stream is partially fuelled by the temperature gradient oop north (I'll be lazy and admit I forget the details) and has apparently already declined recently. This should kill it altogether. In the past, the North Pole being ice free has triggered ice ages.
How? Once the ice is gone, the sea can evaporate more easily which increases precipitation in the far north. A lot of this is snow. Eventually the icecap reasserts itself.
Apparently there was a time in the ve
Re: (Score:2)
You want to talk about details? Let's talk about The Conveyor [grida.no]. As the ice melts in various locations it's going to change the conveyor, ultimately stop it and maybe even make it run in reverse. Global weather is going to be completely confused
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Nooo, we can't have balance, and we can't include other factors in discussing global warming because the great mind of Al Gore says so.
More clouds = more rain, especially in deserts which will cause the desserts to bloom with all sorts of folliage and the great Sahara Forrest will be born, causing the CO2 levels to plummet, causing a huge global cooling perio
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously though, you're as guilty as glossing over things as those you criticize. How do you expect these "great forests" to grow without any sunlight because the sky is constantly overcast? How will our crops grow?
But the real problem is, clouds don't just reflect sunlight, they also trap heat. And guess which one they are more effective at? You can take a look at our solar system for a clue: Mercury's peak t
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Arctic Ice May Melt By 2040
Posted by kdawson on 13:40 Tue December 12, 2043
Arctic Ice May Melt By 2040
Posted by Zonk on 12:10 Tue December 14, 2043
Arctic Ice May Melt By 2040
Posted by cmdrtaco on 17:40 Tue December 15, 2043
Arctic Ice May Melt By 2040
Posted by Zonk on 17:49 Tue December 15, 2043
Arctic Ice May Melt By 2040
Posted by Zonk on 23:34 Tue December 19, 2043
What happens when your land is flooded? (Score:2)
Do they still own the land, but have to build on stilts? Snce the beach would back up, that would suck for beach-goers, eh?
I think the answer should be "Tough Titty", and they take a huge loss.
But, since rich people tend to own this land...they'll lobby the gov't and we will all reimburse these poor rich people for their lost property.
Wow...pretty cynical today!
Re: (Score:2)
Q: how did life on Earth ever survive without the Ice Caps we think are so important?
Re:OH NO! Not THAT movie! (Score:2)