I am so sorry jeffandbecky,
You need to provide references to buttress your position. That is how science is, particularly when you take on the overwhelming majority of scientists. If you want to kill the king, you must have overwhelming power.
So far you got nothing.
Ron
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jeffandbecky
All these predictions are based on computer models with a set of input assumptions on a macro level. The levels of increase that you are talking about have to be on the third of forth deviation from the mean. That is assuming that the model reflects reality. In looking at relatively recent human history, the global temp was about 2-3 C above what it is now in the 10th century. That allowed a thriving wine industry in England, a huge population increase in central Asia (remember the Mongols) and Greenland was GREEN (remember the Vikings). There were no huge changes in the mean sea level.
At this point I would argue that there is no true scientific or historical data for you to base an argument on. Did sea levels go down during the Ice Age? Yes, but there was one BIG mother sheet of ice that reached into the Midwest and that was only a 120 foot decline. So Roni, where is your 40' rise of water coming from when we dont have one mother big ice sheet that streches from the North Pole to St Louis? Ice on water will not cause a rise in the mean level when it melts and I dont see a huge sheet of ice of epic proportions to melt outside of Antartica. BTW, that one will not melt unless the A vacations in the tropics.
|