Global Warming

Washington DC Washed Away by 2100 by Melting Antarctic Ice Cap?

Actually, no. The Capitol is in no danger.

|

AntarticaDreamstimeInterpix
Dreamstime: Interpix

A new study published in Nature suggests that rising temperatures caused by man-made global warming could raise average sea level as much as six feet by 2100 and much more in the following centuries. According to new models, the seas will rise as Antarctic ice shelves that are currently grounded below sea level disintegrate. This projected increase is considerably higher than that reported in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessement report in 2013 that found that future sea level increase would likely be between 10 and 36 inches.

Researchers claim that their their model outputs compare well with the sea level rise that occurred during the previous interglacial period 130,000 to 115,000 years ago when average global temperatures where only a few tenths of degree Celsius warmer than they are now. Sea levels during that period rose 6 to 9 meters higher than now. The new report suggests that unabated man-made warming could cause sea levels to rise that high by 2500.

Interestingly, their model results are bolstered by another article just published today in Nature Geoscience that finds that the intrusion of wamer sea water may already be undermining Antarctic ice shelves grounded below sea level by creating channels beneath them. These channels already appear to be causing new areas of crevassing that could lead to extensive fracturing of the shelves. "We conclude that basal channels can form and grow quickly as a result of warm ocean water intrusion, and that they can structurally weaken ice shelves, potentially leading to rapid ice shelf loss in some areas," note the researchers.

Clearly, if this were to occur, major coastal cities like Boston, New York, London, and Shanghai would be at risk. So what would Washington, DC look like by 2100?* See below.

DCInundated
Washington Post

The New York Times in its article on the study reports:

"We are not saying this is definitely going to happen," said David Pollard, a researcher at Pennsylvania State University and a co-author of the new paper. "But I think we are pointing out that there's a danger, and it should receive a lot more attention." …

But those same scientists emphasized that it was a single paper, and unlikely to be the last word on the fate of West Antarctica. The effort to include the newly recognized factors imperiling the ice is still crude, with years of work likely needed to improve the models.

Before abandoning our coastal cities, it is worth noting that some have already had to cope with extensive sea level rises. For example, due to subsidence as a result of ground water withdrawal, some areas of Tokyo experienced and survived relative sea level increases of up to 15 feet since the 1930s.

*Disclosure: If this map is right, my condo at Dupont Circle is in no danger of becoming waterfront property this century. 

NEXT: GOP's 2012 Rule to Thwart Ron Paul Now Inconvenient for Thwarting Donald Trump

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!

    *returns to oceanfront mansion*

    /celebrity

      1. I think Swiss’ stance has always been clear as: Make money and fuck bitches.

        1. Or maybe the other way around.

          1. Fuck money and make bitches? Sounds strange, but then again I’m still not sure he’s actually human.

            1. Swiss is far too much of a gentleman to fuck bitches. He dips his Landjager in their Fondue

              1. “All these bitches, and all this cheddar.”

                1. Lemme tell ya

                  I see you girls checkin’ out my trunks
                  I see you girls checkin’ out the front of my trunks
                  I see you girls lookin’ at my junk, then checkin’ out my rump, then back to my sugarlumps

                  When I shake it, I shake it all up
                  You probably think that my pants have the mumps
                  It’s just my sugarlumps bump ba bump
                  They look so good, that’s why I keep ’em in the front

                  All the ladies checkin’ out my sugarlumps
                  They drive the ladies crazy

                  All these bitches checkin’ out my britches
                  Put ’em in a trance when I wear track pants
                  My dungarees make them hun-ga-ree
                  They’re over the moon when I don pantaloons

                  My sugarlumps are two of a kind – sweet and white and highly refined
                  Honies try all kinds of tomfoolery to steal a feel of my family jewellery
                  My cannonballs cause a kerfuffle – the ladies they hustle to ruffle my truffle
                  If you party with the Party Prince, you get two complimentary after-dinner mints.

                  1. *Narrows gaze, takes thoughtful pose, begins bobbin’ head to the beat. You go Swiss MC. First album name: Swiss Cheese for ya’ll Gouda bitches.

        2. “Chicks, chicks, chicks, and dough.”

      2. The real question is: does Swiss ascribe to the D.E.N.N.I.S. System or the M.A.C. System?

        Or, heaven forbid, SCRAPS.

          1. Not clicking. Nuh-uh.

  2. Can’t happen soon enough

    1. This was my thought as well. Maybe we can speed this process up?

    2. Exactly. I was headed out to fire up my SUV when I saw that D.C. wasn’t really going to be underwater.

      dammit.

  3. I’m sure this prediction will work out exactly as all their other predictions have worked out.

    There’s this fable about crying wolf. They should read it. Or the one about Chicken Little.

    1. It doesn’t matter; they suffer no consequences for all their other failed predictions.

      The townspeople rebelled against the boy who cried wolf because their reaction imposed an immediate and visible cost to them.

      The costs the greenies impose are often shielded and people just think “fucking 1% and their inflation!”

      1. Agreed, but people still get sick of/tune out these dire predictions over time as none of them ever pan out.

        1. That’s why the celebrity endorsements of “green” stuff irritates me. Obviously they have a right to say anything they want, but the public at large tends to listen to them more than to scientist and politicians.

          1. NY Times has been a running a tarted-up Carbon Doom piece at least once a week starting months before COP21. Obviously hasn’t moved the needle. If there is a chart tracking rising anything, it would be hyperbole in those pieces over same period of time.

            I would guess by next year, at current pace, the ‘computer models’ will predict Moon cracking in half and enslavement by Ming the Merciless any day now because President Trump-carbon something.

    2. There’s this fable about crying wolf.

      But that fable ended with the wolf being real… Is the lesson that if you cry wolf enough times eventually you are right?

      1. As long as all the stick houses get knocked down, chicken little and her grandma get eaten, and the woodsman cuts everyone’s head off at the end the message should be obvious. Now go to sleep!

    3. The Eagle and the Arrow would be particularly instructive.

    4. A crying wolf that ate a little chicken?

  4. DC is a swamp. Those wetlands should never have been drained in the first place. It’s environmentally unfriendly. I say let Mother Nature reclaim it.

    1. The first DC sank into the swamp. So a second one was built. That sank into the swamp. The third one burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. The fourth one stayed up. And that’s what we’ve got, the strongest DC in all of America.

      1. But does she have huge tracts of land?

        1. No. In DC the custom is to always pad one’s assets so that they appear at first glance to be larger than they are.

          1. to pad one’s assets so that they appear at first glance to be larger than they are.

            What is a thing that southern California and northern Virginia have in common?

            1. Regardless…

              ALL I WANT TO DO IS…SI…..

  5. Way to crush my hopes, Bailey.

  6. You dont have to crush our hopes abd dreams.

  7. Washington DC Washed Away by 2100 by Melting Antarctic Ice Cap?
    Actually, no. The Capitol is in no danger.

    Ease up on the nut-punches, Ron.

  8. Researchers claim that their their model outputs compare well with the sea level rise that occurred during the previous interglacial period 130,000 to 115,000 years ago when average global temperatures where only a few tenths of degree Celsius warmer than they are now. Sea levels during that period rose 6 to 9 meters higher than now.

    Statements like these really undermine the entire premise.

    It’s happened before and somehow humanity made it. It’s going to happen again, followed by another freezing period.

    It’s almost like nature doesn’t give a fuck about your rules or studies.

    Please excuse me while I continue to also not give a fuck.

    1. I’ve tried to pin down the green cultist on the fact that we have had multiple glacial periods and warming periods, so why worry. The only answer I have gotten is “this time it’s different”.

      1. Science said so. Praise science!

      2. Yes. This time it’s different because rich people have put so much expensive stuff right by the water.

        1. Don’t you worry about those rich people. Poor people are subsidizing their flood insurance. They’ll land on their feet.

      3. This time it is different because it’s not natural, and because it is happening too fast.

      4. It’s different this time because the last time it happened, you didn’t have smug proggies wagging their fingers at you (they would have likely been eaten by large predators). There are a lot more people in the world now for sure and a lot of them live near the ocean, but people will adapt now as they always have, IF this happens…

        1. I have no doubt the climate is changing. Just look at fossil records. You find aquatic animals in the middle of deserts. If humans are effecting climate, I doubt the correct decision is to make everyone poorer and less able to relocate or modify their environment.

          1. It’s the strange belief that when humans lived in a shitty subsistence culture they were somehow in balance with nature, so they’re trying to get everyone back to that level because…humanity, or something.

            Every one of their arguments to counter global warming, followed to its logical conclusion, results in the decimation of the human population and the world plunged into tribalism. They’ve either fully accepted that fact or are willfully ignoring it.

            1. It’s all part of the plan, though they won’t say it out loud. They really do want to decimate the population to pre-industrial levels, and reduce human existence to abject poverty. Because it’s one with nature or something.

              1. Actually, if you go back as little as 100 years, they used to be absolutely forthcoming about their opinions that the world population needed to be culled. They’ve just had 100+ years to rationalize it so that it sounds more palatable to the people they plan on cleansing.

            2. Nothing is more deadly than nature.

    2. THIS HAS ALL HAPPENED BEFORE. IT WILL ALL HAPPEN AGAIN!

      SO SAY WE ALL!

    3. It’s happened before and somehow humanity made it.

      Our cities didn’t. Atlantis ring any bells, people, i mean CMON.

  9. “Due to subsidence as a result of ground water withdrawal, some areas of Tokyo experienced and survived relative sea level increases of up to 15 feet since the 1930s.”

    Yes, and thank goodness the emperor hit the panic button, back in the 1930s, and squandered God knows how much of their GDP building the Great Seawall of Tokyo–which can still be seen from space today!

    Actually, they simply adapted. Person by person, budget by budget, year by year, choice by choice, they adapted to an effective 15 feet of sea level rise like they adapted to everything else that’s changed since the 1930s.

    That Bailey’s link shows that Bangkok, Shanghai, and Jakarta have all thrived despite similar subsidence shows that Tokyo isn’t an aberration in that respect either. The only thing that might be different about Washington DC is that it’s disproportionately populated with government bureaucrats with a history of failing to comprehend the innovation of others, much less engage in innovation themselves.

    1. I feel like I should be cheering for global warming (if I wasn’t already) simply because it might drown the bureaucrats. Global warming = freedom?

      1. No, it’s not freedom. It may lead to longer growing season and make Canada semi-habitable, but your freedom remains the elusive dream of a butterfly.

      2. They’d have to be bureaucrats who stay completely immobile for about a century, under even the most optimistic scenarios, so no.

        1. pour salt on their tails.

        2. You say that like immobile bureaucrats are something that doesn’t happen.

      3. Christ, it’s a joke people. A bad one, but a joke.

      4. “I feel like I should be cheering for global warming”

        Well if that doesn’t work you can always invite some aliens to come over and blow up the White House.

        1. “Just think of the stimulus!”

          /Krugman

  10. For example, due to subsidence as a result of ground water withdrawal, some areas of Tokyo experienced and survived relative sea level increases of up to 15 feet since the 1930s.

    But old timers tell me they used to remember when Tokyo was only 14 feet submerged. Therefore the rest must be because of Climatey Changey!

    (At least that is similar to what Joe argued to me one time I asked him why was global warming a bad thing.)

  11. “We are not saying this is definitely going to happen,” said David Pollard, a researcher at Pennsylvania State University and a co-author of the new paper. “But I think we are pointing out that there’s a danger, and it should receive a lot more attention.”

    “At least enough attention to receive more grants for my…. er, our research on the effects of Climatey Changey.”

  12. “Disclosure: If this map is right, my condo at Dupont Circle is in no danger of becoming waterfront property this century. “

    Well maybe you can sell it to a gullible global warming alarmist at a premium!

    Incidentally, this website argues that DC wasn’t really a swamp when it was first planned out and drained. It was more of a “tidal marsh”.

    https://networks.h-net.org/node/28441/pages/36129/ swamps-and-city-washington

    This problem was not insurmountable to the Washingtonians of past centuries, and somehow I suspect the Washingtonians of 2100 will learn to cope without recklessly squandering untold trillions on infrastructure today.

    But you never want to let a crisis go to waste.

    1. Want to buy a co-op with a river view? It will have a river view once global warming floods the DC part of Interstate 66.

    2. What? You mean this story is about coming up with a way to stop the flooding of DC?

      Shit. I was totally off base then.

      See, I totally panicked because I thought the story was an alarm about how if we don’t build a wall RIGHT NOW, the DC-ites were going to be able to escape to high land.

  13. http://www.investors.com/polit…..ing-scare/

    Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

    “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

    So what is the goal of environmental policy?

    “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

    Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said in anticipation of last year’s Paris climate summit.

    “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

    I don’t understand how anyone can believe in this shit

    1. Watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside.

    2. “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,”

      Well, that’s not exactly true. Country after country has “changed the economic development model” in the last 150 years, and then had their economy go belly-up.

  14. “A new study published in Nature suggests that rising temperatures caused by man-made global warming methane gas from unicorns farting rainbows could raise average sea level as much as six feet by 2100 and much more in the following centuries.”

  15. Actually, no. The Capitol is in no danger.

    Way to ruin my morning coffee, Ron. Thanks a bunch. 😉

  16. So, two studies released in the last week that say the IPCC might be understating the dangers we face from climate change, particularly in regard to sea level rise.

    Another paper from Oxford to be published in Applied Energy warns investors of the economics ahead if the world is serious about plans post Paris. It states that by next year we will have reached all the electricity infrastructure that allow us to safely limit ourselves to a 2 degree C rise in temperature.

    “They found that based on current trends, no new emitting electricity infrastructure can be built after 2017 for this target to be met, unless other electricity infrastructure is retired early or retrofitted with carbon capture technologies.”

    “Professor Cameron Hepburn, Professor of Environmental Economics based at INET Oxford and the Smith School, and one of the authors, said: “Investors putting money into new carbon-emitting infrastructure need to ask hard questions about how long those assets will operate for, and assess the risk of future shut-downs and write-offs.”

    1. “The research team hopes to focus the minds of policy makers in this crucial first year post-Paris by showing a realistic view of the time available for making the shift to clean energy.

      Professor Hepburn concludes: “For policy makers who think of climate change as a long-term future issue this should be a wake-up call. Whether we succeed or fail in containing warming to 2?C is determined by what we do now, not in future decades.”

      1. So how can you be so sure that X amount of CO2 will lead to Y amount of warming in Z amount of time is my question? The earth is not a flask in a lab…

        1. My first question is, “How much will this transition cost in terms of GDP per capita–before making these sacrifices in our standard of living has any measurable impact on the average temperature?”

          My second question is, “How long will we need to make these sacrifices in our standard of living before the temperature problem is resolved?”

          People who claim that we should make sacrifices in our standard of living–no matter how large nor for how long–cannot claim to be unbiased.

      2. The priests have told joe what to think. They can’t make him taller, but they *can* make it so he never has to think for himself, and that makes joe happy.

        1. The priests *are* very definite.

          First, I asked Stephen Belcher, the head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, whether the recent extended winter was related to global warming. Shaking his famous “ghost stick”, and fingering his trademark necklace of sharks’ teeth and mammoth bones, the loin-clothed Belcher blew smoke into a conch, and replied,
          “Here come de heap big warmy. Bigtime warmy warmy. Is big big hot. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot! But now not hot. Not hot now. De hot come go, come go. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again. Den de rain. It faaaalllll. Make pasty.”
          …Professor Rowan Sutton [Climate Director of NCAS], said that many scientists are, as of this moment, examining the complex patterns in the North Atlantic.
          … Professor Sutton shook his head, moaned eerily unto the heavens, and stuffed his fingers into the entrails of a recently disembowelled chicken, bought fresh from Waitrose in Teignmouth.
          Hurling the still-beating heart of the chicken into a shallow copper salver, Professor Sutton inhaled the aroma of burning incense,… “The seven towers of Agamemnon tremble. Much is the discord in the latitude of Gemini. When, when cry the sirens of doom and love. Speckly showers on Tuesday.”

        2. Has Joe returned?

    2. Are you arguing with voices in your head again?

      What is this supposed to mean?

    3. You still haven’t given me a risen to care.

        1. For a magazine named ‘Reason’…

          I.. forgot what I was going to say. Nevermind.

    4. Jackand Ace|3.31.16 @ 10:58AM|#
      “So, two studies released in the last week that say the IPCC might be understating the dangers we face from climate change, particularly in regard to sea level rise.”

      And ten studies over the last year that say “no”, so keep picking them cherries Jack. The world needs buffoon to laugh at.

    5. Another paper from Oxford to be published in Applied Energy warns investors of the economics ahead if the world is serious about plans post Paris.

      Since those plans are this:

      “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,”

      “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,”

      Investors are right to be wary.

  17. So, Washington Reagan National Airport, Washington Navy Yard, Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling (a combined Navy and AF base) and some park land. Meh.

    1. Looks like there’s still some time left, because I’m flying into DCA in May, and I’m not planning to pack my wellies.

      1. Oh, I’m skeptical about those predictions, of course, but imagine how much extra whining we’d be hearing if the prediction was that Anacostia (a poor people neighborhood in DC, to the East of Anacostia-Bolling) would be underwater.

  18. Researchers claim that their their model outputs compare well with the sea level rise that occurred during the previous interglacial period 130,000 to 115,000 years ago when average global temperatures where only a few tenths of degree Celsius warmer than they are now.

    Oh, when man wasn’t here and had nothing to do with things, the sea level and temps rose and fell on their own? Shocking!

    Sea levels during that period rose 6 to 9 meters higher than now. The new report suggests that unabated man-made warming could cause sea levels to rise that high by 2500.

    But this time it’s man’s fault. Gotcha!

    The whole scam is laughable. Utterly laughable. Because it’s pretty widely accepted that the rise in CO2 levels back then trailed the naturally-fluctuating temp rise. But this time it’s a leading indicator because…because there’s money to extract from somebody by big government so they can keep their power.

    1. the first pull quote says things were warmer then than now. Hmmmm.

  19. Except for granite rocks going directly into the water, coast lines don’t work that way. In fact, in most places, you can raise land that’s below sea level to above sea level.

    1. Yes. It is called fill. A large part of coastal backwaters like Boston and Amsterdam and others are built on it. It is not that hard to raise land even feet in elevation. The entire island of Galveston was raised something like nine or ten feet buildings and all after the 1900 hurricane.

      The idea that sea level rising even a few feet is going to mean the end of large coastal cities rather than just create a very solvable civil engineering problem is something so stupid only an environmental activist or a journalist could believe it.

      1. you’ve just named two (2) of the stupidest types of people on the planet…coming in just behind economists

        1. Pretty much.

      2. A large part of coastal backwaters like Boston and Amsterdam and others are built on it.

        And were raised by fill in a pre-industrial era. Imagine how much harder it was to move thousands of cubic yards with shovels and carts, compared to now.

        1. The entire backbay in Boston was filled in using 1870s technology. They dug down three of the five original hills on the Boston Neck.

      3. The WaPo ran a story a few weeks ago saying the only way to stop sea level rise (of 3 mm per year, or one foot in the next century), was to pump sea water to central Antarctica with nuclear power plants so it would freeze again. I laughed about that for days. Why not just raise the sea walls by a foot in the coastal cities?

      4. Yup.

        I always love this GIF of Boston.

        “But it’s different now!” /sarc

  20. “A new study published in Nature suggests that rising temperatures caused by man-made global warming could raise average sea level as much as six feet by 2100 and much more in the following centuries.”

    Every one of these reports come with the woulda/coulda/shoulda weasel wording but it accepted as rock-solid absolute fact.

  21. was really, really hoping for next week

  22. 0 to 115,000 years ago when average global temperatures where only a few tenths of degree Celsius warmer than they are now.

    What was the cause of that warming?

    1. Another sinful and consumptive civilization that a vengeful God destroyed with a great flood.

      Seriously, what is the scare tactics over rising sea levels other than these half wits’ own great flood myth?

      1. I’m not saying it was aliens, but . . . .

        Seriously, there’s about as much credibility with that one.

    2. moooslims

      1. There is far more to climactic variations than the Milankovitch cycle.

        For example the apparent relationship between the strength of the sun’s magnetic field strength and little ice ages/warm periods. Aside from Svenmark’s hypothesis linking cosmic rays with cloud formation rates which is still highly speculative, I haven’t heard any mechanism describing why the link exists.

        Given the small time frame of records produced by good instrumentation – a mere century at best – my guess is that there are a lot of other climactic variations that are more subtle that are poorly recorded and whose existence and causes we are utterly oblivious to.

        In confidently ascribing ‘thermostat’ status to CO2, climate science has demonstrated itself to be nothing more than a cargo cult science; showing the outward appearance of conducting science while really engaging in an animist form of superstition.

        1. Younger Dryas is a problem along with the MWP that the climastrologists want to desperately wish away.

  23. Washington DC Washed Away by 2100 by Melting Antarctic Ice Cap?

    This is a bad thing, right?

    *looks around for confirmation*

    1. Yes, because it’s still 84 years away.

    2. since the great cleansing fire is not likely and nuking from orbit seems out of the question, you takes what you can gets.

      1. I’m holding out for the Sweet Meteor of Death…

  24. Washington DC Washed Away by 2100 by Melting Antarctic Ice Cap?

    That sounds like the best argument yet for letting the ice caps melt. In fact, can we speed that up by about 84 years?

    1. I’m going to start leaving my car idling overnight. I’m willing to do my bit!

  25. I had an idea the other day that the proggie elitists and a chosen few they have selected (plus the cute cuddly polar bears) should all go hang out on the international space station after they nuke the rest of us who they consider a disease on their beautiful planet, then return to repopulate it in their image after a few years. I then realized that a movie has been made which pretty much follow this same plot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonraker_(film)

  26. Dang, I thought there might be even more upside to global warming, in addition to slightly more pleasant weather.

  27. Wait. Isn’t Antarctic ice actually increasing?

    1. Yes.

  28. Aren’t there diminishing returns as co is added? In terms of temp increase

  29. And the downside is…

  30. These wise seers must be countinanced, we have but a handful of decades to act to save the capitol, it must be moved. Might I suggest Richmond or perhaps Montgomery… Or wait a couple weeks for a revised dire prediction.
    I am starting starting to think there is an evil mastermind behind all this, using all these earnest fools as foils to enact his nefarious plan. Tinfoil hat at the ready.

  31. I’m increasingly convinced that much of the energy behind CAGW is the immense desire on the part of leftists to find something terribly wrong with capitalism, in general, and industrialism, in particular. They so want to show capitalism and its development to be catastrophically bad that they will overlook most any inconsistency or bad data in their theory. If they could get away with it, I believe that some of them would actually harm or kill those who stand in their way. This is a big deal. They hate capitalism, free markets, and industrialism and will tell any lie to do away with them.

  32. We should be so lucky. But when it becomes inevitable, the capital will simply move to Illinois.

  33. Antarctica is around 14 million square miles. The oceans are around 360 million square miles. Throw in the north polar region at 12 million square miles and you have 26 million square miles of ice melting into 360 million square miles of ocean. The oceans are 13x bigger than the ice cubes by surface, I’ll bet if the entire polar caps melted, you’d be hard pressed to raise the oceans 6 ft. Literally every speck of snow and ice on the planet would have to melt. And believe me, a LOT of that water would end up in the atmosphere as evaporated water vapor, condensing and causing rain/cooling/etc. I’m soooo not worrying that we’ll all drown. It’s so freaking far fetched as to be literally sci fi. Someday, people will look back at this BS and shake their heads in wonder at our ability to imagine improbable disasters and spend money to “prevent” them. More likely an asteroid will hit the planet and wipe us out. I hope it hits in Paris during a climate summit. That’s my improbable prediction.

  34. Here’s WUWT’s thread on the topic:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/201…..ld-double/

  35. Recently I came across articles describing sub-surface volcanoes in Antarctica that were melting ice above and nearby. This volcano field is extensive. There is no evidence the volcanoes will break surface, but there are data that show they are melting ice.

    One such article is at: http://www.livescience.com/461…..ciers.html

    Can any “climate change” scientist state for certain how much Antarctic melting is doe to warming atmosphere vs. volcanic activity? Assuming that it is anthropogenic warming, why aren’t environmentalists advocating that we generate electricity from nuclear power plants with tiny foot prints compared to massive solar panel and windmill installations that harm the environment and kill birds, other animals and plants.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.