contrails

I have been told that if lake Tahoe was emptied onto the entire state
of California it would cover the whole state 4 inches deep in water.
It hardly seems possible when seen from the air. The lake is so small
compared to the whole state.
Volumes, as oppposed to areas, can be very deceptive to the human eye
and mind.

The volume of ice on greenland would not seem to possibly be enough to
raise the oceans 2-3 feet. And yet it is. Things are quite commonly
not what they seem.

Mark Jardini

Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
forum from which to sound off, it is hardly "bona fides" for an
informed opinion on climate change.

Mark Jardini wrote:
John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
forum from which to sound off, it is hardly "bona fides" for an
informed opinion on climate change.


Be fair: he does have an undergraduate degree in Journalism, after all.

Brian W

On Jan 9, 2:19*am, brian whatcott wrote:
Mark Jardini wrote:

John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a

forum from which to sound off, it is *hardly "bona fides" for an
informed opinion on climate change.

Be fair: he does have an undergraduate degree in Journalism, after all.

Now I've got to clear the coffee off my keyboard.

On Jan 8, 5:57*pm, Mark Jardini wrote:
I have been told that if lake Tahoe was emptied onto the entire state
of California it would cover the whole state 4 inches deep in water.
It hardly seems possible when seen from the air. The lake is so small
compared to the whole state.
Volumes, as oppposed to areas, can be very deceptive to the human eye
and mind.

The volume of ice on greenland would not seem to possibly be enough to
raise the oceans 2-3 feet. And yet it is. Things are quite commonly
not what they seem.

Mark Jardini

Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
forum from which to sound off, it is *hardly "bona fides" for an
informed opinion on climate change.

The USGS says a complete melt of the Greenland ice sheet would raise
sea level 6.5 meters or 21 feet - http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/ If
that melted, there would be enough ice melt elsewhere to double
that.

Of course, the temperature rise that would do that would cause the
ocean waters to expand enough to raise it another 200 feet or so
putting 80% of the homes in the world underwater.

That much ice melt would expose darker oceans and ground surface so
more of the sun's heat would be absorbed instead of reflected back to
space.

Like most of the climate variables, there's always pesky multiplier
effects which makes exact predictions extremely difficult.

On Jan 8, 7:11*pm, bildan wrote:
On Jan 8, 5:57*pm, Mark Jardini wrote:



I have been told that if lake Tahoe was emptied onto the entire state
of California it would cover the whole state 4 inches deep in water.
It hardly seems possible when seen from the air. The lake is so small
compared to the whole state.
Volumes, as oppposed to areas, can be very deceptive to the human eye
and mind.

The volume of ice on greenland would not seem to possibly be enough to
raise the oceans 2-3 feet. And yet it is. Things are quite commonly
not what they seem.

Mark Jardini

Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
forum from which to sound off, it is *hardly "bona fides" for an
informed opinion on climate change.

The USGS says a complete melt of the Greenland ice sheet would raise
sea level 6.5 meters or 21 feet -http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/*If
that melted, there would be enough ice melt elsewhere to double
that.

Of course, the temperature rise that would do that would cause the
ocean waters to expand enough to raise it another 200 feet or so
putting 80% of the homes in the world underwater.

That much ice melt would expose darker oceans and ground surface so
more of the sun's heat would be absorbed instead of reflected back to
space.

Like most of the climate variables, there's always pesky multiplier
effects which makes exact predictions extremely difficult.

Yikes!! I think I am going to build an arc....

mj

Mark Jardini wrote:

The USGS says a complete melt of the Greenland ice sheet would raise
sea level 6.5 meters or 21 feet -http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/
Yikes!! I think I am going to build an arc....

mj


Ya, and Al Gore SAYS he invented the Internet

I live 1000 AGL. I ain't scared!

Scott

Scott wrote:
Mark Jardini wrote:

The USGS says a complete melt of the Greenland ice sheet would raise
sea level 6.5 meters or 21 feet -http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/
Yikes!! I think I am going to build an arc....

mj


Ya, and Al Gore SAYS he invented the Internet
Nah, he didn't say that; a reporter said that. I have heard the guys
that DID invent the Internet and the World Wide Web (aka www) say Al
Gore was instrumental in the development of the Internet, and they
clearly had a lot of respect for him.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

On Jan 8, 7:11*pm, bildan wrote:
On Jan 8, 5:57*pm, Mark Jardini wrote:





I have been told that if lake Tahoe was emptied onto the entire state
of California it would cover the whole state 4 inches deep in water.
It hardly seems possible when seen from the air. The lake is so small
compared to the whole state.
Volumes, as oppposed to areas, can be very deceptive to the human eye
and mind.

The volume of ice on greenland would not seem to possibly be enough to
raise the oceans 2-3 feet. And yet it is. Things are quite commonly
not what they seem.

Mark Jardini

Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
forum from which to sound off, it is *hardly "bona fides" for an
informed opinion on climate change.

The USGS says a complete melt of the Greenland ice sheet would raise
sea level 6.5 meters or 21 feet -http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/*If
that melted, there would be enough ice melt elsewhere to double
that.

Of course, the temperature rise that would do that would cause the
ocean waters to expand enough to raise it another 200 feet or so
putting 80% of the homes in the world underwater.

That much ice melt would expose darker oceans and ground surface so
more of the sun's heat would be absorbed instead of reflected back to
space.

Like most of the climate variables, there's always pesky multiplier
effects which makes exact predictions extremely difficult.

my house sits at 650 ft msl.............I got it made...............

Brad

Brad wrote:

The USGS says a complete melt of the Greenland ice sheet would raise
sea level 6.5 meters or 21 feet -http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/ If
that melted, there would be enough ice melt elsewhere to double
that.

Of course, the temperature rise that would do that would cause the
ocean waters to expand enough to raise it another 200 feet or so
putting 80% of the homes in the world underwater.

That much ice melt would expose darker oceans and ground surface so
more of the sun's heat would be absorbed instead of reflected back to
space.

Like most of the climate variables, there's always pesky multiplier
effects which makes exact predictions extremely difficult.


my house sits at 650 ft msl.............I got it made...............

Brad

Be prepared for a LOT of guests when Seattle is under water! And that is
the end of flying out of Arlington, too.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

On Jan 9, 4:11*pm, bildan wrote:
The USGS says a complete melt of the Greenland ice sheet would raise
sea level 6.5 meters or 21 feet -http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/*If
that melted, there would be enough ice melt elsewhere to double
that.

Of course, the temperature rise that would do that would cause the
ocean waters to expand enough to raise it another 200 feet or so
putting 80% of the homes in the world underwater.

Fortunately for us, it didn't melt even in periods in history when it
was not only much warmer than now, but also much warmer than anything
currently predicted with any level of seriousness.