If I didn’t flunk the LSAT I’d be President.

But after using a different computer model, it looks like we will be making $372,987 more this year. We can’t wait to join that other family on a cruise!

There goes that “x feet above/below sea level” thing they been using (except New Orleans) for what .. centuries?!?!?

The bigger danger to humanity is that eventually glaciers will return and cover Europe and most of North America.

At least that one is based on the known climate pattern for the last 1 million years or so.

(PS: don’t tell the libstards. They will want an iceberg tax by noon.)

Assuming that the sea boundaries did not change, but that the sea level rose 3m, almost 4 percent of the antarctic ice sheet would have to melt. This is just a quick and dirty calculation, but it does take into account the density difference between water and ice, albeit imperfectly due to the density difference between salt and freshwater. If you say a 6m increase, it would take almost 8% of the antarctic ice sheet melting. Something worth noting here, is that this quick little calculation assumes that the boundary between water and land stays in the same place, as though the water was just making a wall offshore, Ten Commandments-style. Add in the areas being flooded, and the amount of water required to flood them increases correspondingly. Not a whole, heaping heck-of-a-lot (land is only 30-ish% of the planet’s surface), but it counts.

Now, 4 or 8 percent doesn’t seem like a lot, this is true. The arctic sea ice can vary by more than this from summer to winter. The thing worth noting is that the Antarctic ice sheet acts inconsistently. The two sheets, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the East Antarctic Ice Sheet are different and behave differently. The WAIS is the smaller (10% or so of the total antarctic ice sheet), and it’s melting. The EAIS is bigger, and parts of it are gaining mass. Looking at the numbers, these worst case scenarios seem to be predicting the West Antarctic Ice Sheet will drop off and melt as a whole. The only problem being, they seem to be nesting an “if” on a “maybe” on a “we don’t know how.”

So, if the West Antarctic Ice Sheet starts acting in a certain way, it may reach a tipping point or a point of no return and could break up in an “explosively rapid”(James Hansen) manner, that current computer models do not contain the necessary physics to explain.

Shout it from the rooftops, we’re all going to drown.

The only consolation I can find is that they actually focus on Antarctic ice, which can have an effect on water level, rather than the arctic ice. Waiting for arctic ice to change the sea level (not counting greenland and other on-land ice) is like waiting for an ice cube melting in a drink to make the glass overflow.

The New York Times conveniently forgot to mention the current scientific evidence that the ice is expanding in much of Antarctica.

Oops.

Just can’t trust those scientists.

I am reminded of the Gilligan’s Island episode when the perfesser thought the island was sinking, only to find out that Gilligan had been moving his measuring stick to re-set his crab-traps.

Isn’t this kinda the same thing?

I also did some online research and found that the areas that will be most hard-hit by this lesser rise in sea-levels will be the victim-class areas, thus making it Bush’s fault.