| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Tech |
| ICY WARNING FOR LONDON & NEW YORK |
| 2004-07-14 |
| A top scientist is warning that there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than for 55m years - enough to melt all the ice on the planet and submerge cities like London and New York. Sir David King, the government’s chief scientific adviser, believes the most recent science bore out the worst predictions, reports The Guardian. Records show that at the peak of the ice age 12,000 years ago, the sea was 150 metres below its current level. (These records were extracted from Cold Storage Inc., a ’real’ old accounting firm :) Sir David says: "Ice melting is a relatively slow process but is speeding up. (I hope he means this coming winter as well.) "When the Greenland ice cap goes, the sea level will rise six to seven metres. When Antarctica melts it will be another 110 metres." (This sounds like it could happen next Tuesday at 10am :) "I am sure that climate change is the biggest problem that civilisation has had to face in 5,000 years." (Besides Kerry & Edwards) Sir David was speaking at the launch of a scientific expedition to Cape Farewell in the Arctic, which aims to raise awareness of climate change in students. He said that the realisation of the scale of the crisis was what prompted him to say in January that climate change was a bigger threat than global terrorism. Maybe al-Qaida will simply freeze to death and or problems shall be over. This schlub has been out in the snow too long The Ski industry should boost earnings through the roof on this report! |
| Posted by:Mark Espinola |
| #20 In the "heavier reading" overview the section detailing the year of 536AD was of keen interest. I have never been one for the heat & humidity, but all kidding aside, sooner or later this cold spell cycle will most likely began once again. |
| Posted by: Mark Espinola 2004-07-15 12:06:11 AM |
| #19 I have an alternative link for the "heavier reading" item in #14 - the PDF file. The HTML didn't include the graphics... apologies. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-14 10:12:19 PM |
| #18 What I'd read said Greenland was somewhat warmer--not nearly enough to melt the ice cap in the interior, but enough to make the coastline more habitable. Colonies lasted a while, then died out as the temperature dropped and food got harder to come by. My memory is fuzzy, but I think the reference was National Geographic. |
| Posted by: James 2004-07-14 10:08:56 PM |
| #17 Is he wearing snow shoes walking over those mid-Manhattan high-rises? |
| Posted by: Mark Espinola 2004-07-14 9:53:31 PM |
| #16 Finally, someone mentioned the latest Junk Science Classic, The Day After Tomorrow! Sheesh, I waited and waited, lol! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-14 9:45:50 PM |
| #15 Let's face facts, that ICE AGE report was the script for the movie 'The Day After Tomorrow' (I saw it, great graphic effects, but if the Left thinks they shall win over converts...............forget about it. |
| Posted by: Mark Espinola 2004-07-14 9:41:37 PM |
| #14 light reading: A Moment of Science medium reading Wikipedia (escpecially table at bottom) heavy reading: The Ice Age Cometh |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-14 9:36:08 PM |
| #13 Woo Hoo! My inland San Diego casa will be beachfront property! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-07-14 9:16:43 PM |
| #12 Thanks, .com. I stand corrected. I guess the Vikings weren't above a little deception when it came to colonizing land. I live in the mountains of East Tennessee so I'm not worried. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2004-07-14 9:12:25 PM |
| #11 That is why I live at the 1500 foot level up a valley north of Anchorage, Alaska. Global warming happens and I will just have to move my plane. If we have another ice age, then I am in deep doo-doo, as the glacier may be barrelling by again, like it did some 100k years ago or so. BTW, .com, thanks for the greenland history post to Rantburgers. I named my son Leif after Leif Ericsson, since he is a boy of the North, and he has a sense of direction, to boot! |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-07-14 9:07:38 PM |
| #10 Maybe Sir David has watched too much Sci-Fi and lost out on producing his version of The Day After Tomorrow... I believe it more likely that an astroid impact will do us in. |
| Posted by: Side Stepped 2004-07-14 8:44:04 PM |
| #9 Stephen: Oh.... so you are saying the Arabs are doomed? |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2004-07-14 8:40:54 PM |
| #8 Over past 5,000 years climate change has already severely affected humanity,with some civilizations being destroyed.However,not all civilization was ruined,just those societies that were not flexible,not adaptive,that inhabited marginal niches. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2004-07-14 8:05:01 PM |
| #7 "which aims to raise awareness of climate change in students"...Yep, those kids sure are heating up these days. And they have a rather stormy disposition. Must be that rap music they're all listening to. |
| Posted by: remote man 2004-07-14 8:04:58 PM |
| #6 DB - From InfoPlease: The earliest Palaeo-Eskimo cultures had already arrived in Greenland from Canada by c.2,500 B.C. The Thule Eskimo culture first arrived in N Greenland c.A.D. 900 and in the following 1,000 years spread to both W and E Greenland. From Iceland, Greenland was discovered and S Greenland colonized (c.985) by Eric the Red, a Norseman, who named it Greenland in order to make it seem attractive to potential settlers. It was in sailing to Greenland (c.1000) that Leif Ericsson, the son of Eric the Red, probably reached North America. Greenland became a bishopric c.1110, and ruins of churches of that period remain. By the 12th cent. the population numbered some 10,000. Greenland became self-governing, with its own Althing, but failed to achieve political stability. In 1261 the colony came under Norwegian rule, but in the 14th and 15th cent. it was neglected, and the colonists either died out or assimilated with the Eskimos. The British explorers Martin Frobisher and John Davis rediscovered Greenland in the 16th cent. but found no trace of Norsemen. Other explorers looking for the Northwest Passage subsequently charted much of the coast. Modern colonization was begun (1721) by the Norwegian missionary Hans Egede. Danish trading posts were established shortly afterward, and colonization was furthered by deporting undesirable subjects to Greenland. Soon, the native Greenlanders began to suffer from European diseases; tuberculosis remained a problem into the 1960s. In 1814, with the Treaty of Kiel, Denmark retained Greenland and other Atlantic possessions when Norway was ceded to Sweden, which, for strategic reasons, was interested in control of the Scandinavian peninsula but not in overseas commitments of the outlying Norwegian possessions... |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-14 7:57:15 PM |
| #5 Sir Nigel Tufnel's academic partner? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-07-14 7:53:00 PM |
| #4 It seems to Me I remeber Greenland was named so by the Vikings because it was GREEN. No Ice cap. Does that mean the ocean was higher then than now? |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2004-07-14 7:48:33 PM |
| #3 This is the same Sir David King who, at a recent scientific meeting in Moscow on the Kyoto protocol presented to his Russian hosts a list of people he did not want to have speak at the conference and a new agenda that he wanted to have replace the agreed upon agenda. This was because many people at the conference were going to question the scaremongering "science" that Sir David promotes. "British climate experts expected the meeting, organized by RAS, to be a forum to discuss global warming and the Kyoto treaty with RAS members. On the eve of their departure for Moscow, however, the U.K. group learned about the addition of several well-known "skeptics" in the climate change debate. The list included Stockholm University's Nils-Axel Mörner, who has cast doubts on claims of rising sea levels, British climate maverick Piers Corbyn, and the Pasteur Institute's Paul Reiter, who disputes predictions that infectious diseases will explode as temperatures rise." To me, this is extraordinary - a group of scientists who didn't want to talk to other scientists because those others were "skeptics." What's next - excommunication for Gospel of Kyoto non-believers? A fatwa against people who question global warming? |
| Posted by: Patrick Brown 2004-07-14 7:42:31 PM |
| #2 You ain't seen shit till you've seen 45 million anglos on a big move south. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-07-14 7:33:52 PM |
| #1 And first atomic explosions were supposed to have burned up the Earth's atmosphere, killing all of its inhabitants. No, wait - wasn't that almost 60 years ago? I get - we're the walking dead! From the article: Records show that at the peak of the ice age 12,000 years ago, the sea was 150 metres below its current level. This is why it was known as the ice age. As the earth warmed up, the sea level rose. This guy is basically implying that human-generated carbon dioxide was the reason for the receding of the ice age. But it wasn't* - global warming from the ice age onwards involved forces we do not yet comprehend. And if another ice age occurs, we probably won't completely understand how it came about. * I bet the guy can't explain why the ice age occurred, when for millions of years, the earth was warm and swampy - far warmer than it is today. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-07-14 7:22:51 PM |
