the (convienent) truth

[Kratos]

In a piece titled "Copenhagen's Political Science," the former Alaska governor charged that "leading climate 'experts'" have "destroyed records, manipulated data to 'hide the decline' in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals."

Gore bit back during an interview with NBC's Andrea Mitchell to air Wednesday afternoon. The former presidential candidate said "the deniers are persisting in an era of unreality. The entire North Polar ice cap is disappearing before our eyes ... what do they think is happening?"


And with one statement Al Gore scores...after all everyone knows polar ice is on the decline right? Clearly it's just too damn hot for ice, so it must be hotter then it was. The polar bears are all dying and sad with less ice to enjoy and those are just the facts.

or we've been lied too

Not to advocate the dependance on fossil fuels...but to expose the truth global warming and disapearing ice is bullshit. For the first time since the media won't tell you, just look at the fact that there is no tempeture increase and more ice.

We can still be kind to the earth and not liter and stuff...just with the knowledge global warming is bullshit.

[Kratos]

Media Credibility, Not Ice Caps, In Meltdown

Eco-warriors and media hype aside, the fact is, as we head into 2009, that the world's ice mass has been expanding not contracting. Which will surprise evening news junkies fed a diet of polar bears floating about on ice floes and snow shelves falling into the oceans. But if a whole series of reports on ice growth in the Arctic, the Antarctic and among glaciers are right, then it is truth in the mainstream media (MSM) that's in meltdown not the polar ice caps.


The problem for the MSM is that it long ago nailed its colors to the climate alarmist mast. No ice cap meltdown, no rising waters. No disappearing islands, no reason for alarm. No alarm, no story. Worst of all having called yet another global apocalypse wrong: No credibility. So the MSM has a significant stake in running highly selective warm-mongering headlines. Not to mention disparaging those scientists who have the temerity to disagree as 'holocaust deniers' and 'pseudo-scientists'.


There's nothing more the climate alarmist media loves than a 'melting Arctic' ice cap story. So why not stories from the far larger expanse of ice that is the 'melting' Antarctic? Well it might have something to do with the fact that the Antarctic ice grew to record levels in 2007 - and continues to grow.
The Antarctic
Climate scientist Dr Ben Herman, past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and former head of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona, notes that for the media, "What happens in the Arctic may be an indicator of what will happen in the rest of the world. How about what happens in the Antarctic then? Since its ice area has been increasing, is this also an indicator of what might be happening in the rest of the world?" The FACT is that the majority of Antarctica has cooled over the past 50 years and ice coverage has grown to record levels. Take the well-publicized collapse of a 160 square mile block of the Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctica in March 2008. For the alarmist media this was conclusive proof of the dramatic global warming effects. The Los Angeles Times ran, 'Antarctica Collapse' referring to the "rapid melt of the Wilkins Shelf". The Sydney Morning Herald ran 'Ice Shelf Hangs By a Thread' and the Salon online news site had the absurd headline 'Bye-bye Antarctica?' But Joseph D'Aleo, first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International, was more prosaic. On his IceCap website, D'Aleo wrote that the collapse was the equivalent, given the enormity of Antarctica, of "an icicle falling from a snow and ice covered roof." He added, "The latest satellite images and reports suggest the ice has already refrozen around the broken pieces. In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is running an amazing 60 percent ahead of last year when it set a new record." Noting the ludicrous media hype, D`Aleo laments, "Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica's ice sheet is also starting to disappear."


Dr Herman adds an apposite footnote: "It is interesting that all of the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) stories concerning Antarctica are always about what's happening around the western peninsula, which seems to be the only place on Antarctica that has shown any warming." Herman asks, "How about the rest of the continent, which is probably about 95 percent of the land mass, not to mention the record sea ice coverage recently."


Former Colorado State Climatologist and current senior scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, Dr Roger Pielke Sr is severely critical of the "typical bias that many journalists have." Pielke notes, "The media has ignored the increase in Antarctica sea ice cover in recent years, with at present, a coverage that is one million square kilometres above average."


In December 2006, Dr Duncan Wingham, Professor of Climate Physics at University College London and Director for Polar Observation and Modelling, presented evidence that showed "Antarctic thinning was no more common than thickening". Wingham and his colleagues found that 72 percent of the Antarctica ice sheet was growing at the rate of 5 millimetres per year. Most significantly, Dr Wingham commits media heresy when he states: "That makes Antarctica a sink, not a source, of ocean water. According to their best estimates, Antarctica will 'lower global sea levels by 0.08 mm' per year." Sacrilege.


Statistician Dr Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and professor at the Copenhagen Business School, observes the media covers only the "2 percent of Antarctica [that] is dramatically warming and ignores the 98 percent that has largely cooled over the past 35 years." Lomborg also rounds on Al Gore who "points to shrinking sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, but doesn't mention that sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is increasing."


And for those for whom the UN IPCC is the last word on all things climate, Dr Madhav L. Khandekar, retired Environment Canada scientist and an expert IPCC reviewer, says, "In the Southern Hemisphere, the land-sea mean temperature has slowly but surely declined in the last few years." He adds, "Several other locations in the Southern Hemisphere have experienced lower temperatures in the last few years" the result of "surface temperatures over world oceans slowly declining since mid-1998." Interestingly the very year the mean global temperature itself began a decline.


Fair enough. But the Arctic is melting, right? Sorry, it just ain't that simple. October 2008 saw the fastest Arctic sea ice extent growth ever recorded.


The Arctic


During October and November 2008 the extent of Arctic ice was 28.7 percent greater than during the same period in 2007. According to data published by the International Arctic Research Center (IARC/JAXA) October 2008 saw "the fastest ever growth" of Arctic Sea ice since records began. Not good news for doomsayers like Dr Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Dr Serreze had predicted an ice-free North Pole in the summer of 2008.


The Arctic has indeed undergone some warming in some areas, especially Greenland, a warming that culminated in a summer temperature high of 5 degrees C in 2007. The gradual melt has opened up the prospect of newly navigable seaways - and a rush for the Arctic's energy-rich deepwater reserves. The reality is, however, warming periods are nothing new to the Arctic. When the Vikings settled Greenland they grew crops in temperatures higher than those of today.


The media has also made much of the potential opening of the Northwest Passage. But it rarely mentions that similar weather patterns prevailed in the 1930s when two boats, the Nascopie and Aklavik, famously met up in the Passage in 1937. In October 2008, a study by Ohio University confirmed that current Arctic warming patterns mimic those in the 1920s-1940s. By July 2008 the Arctic ice had increased by nearly half a million square miles over the same first half year period in 2007. A NASA study published in the peer-reviewed Geophysical Research Letters in October 2007 had already noted that thinning Arctic ice was more likely the result of "unusual winds" that had blown "older thicker" ice into warmer southern waters. In other words, the Arctic warming experienced more recently could well be the result of the unusual strength of winds, not man-made warming.


According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center's own figures, world sea ice in April 2008 reached "unprecedented" levels for the month of April. The World Meteorlogical Organization (WMO) went to declare 2008 the coolest since 2000. Moreover, the WMO reports that the fall in the global mean temperature since 1998 is not just affecting the polar ice caps either, it is also affecting glaciers elsewhere.


The Glaciers


In October 2008, after a particularly bitterly cold Alaskan summer, glaciologists began reporting that Alaskan glaciers, particularly those at Glacier Bay where the shrinkage had mainly been had begun advancing for the first time in years. Glaciologist Bruce Molnia of the US Geological Survey said, "In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound." He adds "On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface in late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying did not become snow free until early August." In short, 2008 was the first time since record began that Alaskan glaciers did not shrink during the summer months.


In late November 2008, reports from Norway showed that Alaska's glacier experience was being replicated there too. Hallgeir Elvehoy of the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE) reported that the magnitude of glacial growth appears to have been underway for two years. Glacier growth has also been reported from Canada and New Zealand.


The facts adduced here represent just the tip of an under-reported iceberg (no pun intended). The fact that the world's ice mass is expanding not contracting is plainly of seismic importance in the climate debate. But, in many of its parts, the Western media appears to have a stake in freezing out the truth - having sold its journalistic soul for a mess of warm-mongering alarmist pottage.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...ce_caps_1.html

[Kratos]

.
Arctic Sea Ice Growing at Fastest Rate
in Recorded History
______________________________


7 Nov 08 - An abnormally cool Arctic is seeing dramatic changes to ice levels. The total amount of ice, which set a record low last year, grew in October at the fastest pace since record-keeping began in 1979, bringing ice back to levels from the 1980s.

Some researchers, not surprisingly, say the rapid increase is "no big deal". While admitting that the Arctic has certainly been colder in recent months, they say the long-term decrease is still ongoing and see nothing in the recent data to contradict predictions of global warming.

Others aren't so sure. Dr. Patrick Michaels, Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia, says he sees some "very odd" things occurring in recent years. The Southern Hemisphere can't be explained by current theory, says Michaels. "The models predict a warming ocean around Antarctica, so why would we see more sea ice?" Large areas of the Southern Pacific are showing cooling trends, an occurrence not anticipated by any current climate model, Michaels adds.

On average, ice covers roughly 7% of the ocean surface of the planet. Sea ice is floating and therefore doesn't affect sea level like the ice anchored on bedrock in Antarctica or Greenland. However, research has indicated that the Antarctic continent -- which is on a long-term cooling trend -- has also been gaining ice in recent years. (See Antarctic Ice Sheet growing enough to lower sea levels)

Did you catch that? “The Antarctic continent -- which is on a
long-term cooling trend – has also been gaining ice in recent
years.” Where are the breathless headlines in the world's news-
papers announcing this fact?

See entire article:
http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Gro...ticle13385.htm
Thanks to Kenneth Lund, Don et al, Brian Hicks for this link

http://www.iceagenow.com/Arctic_Sea_...ed_History.htm

[Kratos]

Opinion: Antarctic ice cap 'growing' and aren’t theories misunderstood?

This is one for the thinkers: The Antarctic is losing big amounts of ice through calving, but the ice is being more than replaced by cooling elsewhere. It’s basic thermodynamics of ice, really. The surprise is that nobody’s making a big deal about it.
I'm not actually offering an opinion here. The simplistic non global warming, and the simple global warming theories are so simple they can't be anything but wrong. I prefer to look at facts and possibilities.
The current situation is that the Wilkins ice shelf has been acting like fridge defrosting, while other sectors have in fact been cooling. The net effect is that the Antarctic sea ice situation is stable, or a bit bigger, after the last few decades.
There are some technical elements in this situation which need explanation here.
One of the Global Warming scenarios is that desalination of ocean waters will increase ice cap sizes, a sort of “reverse cycle.” Because ambient and water temperatures are slower to warm, the seasonal “snap freeze.”
This effect is considered to have the potential to trigger climate change of another kind: A northern Ice Age, caused by the failure of the Gulf Stream, as the thermal properties of the warm currents on the eastern seaboard change.
The Antarctic effect, however, is sending mixed signals. Unlike the Arctic, the Antarctic is a land mass. It contains 90 per cent of the world’s ice, and 80 per cent of the world’s fresh water. A desalination effect takes place during the calving of ice.
However, despite some spectacular calvings, drilling of ice cores at Australia’s Antarctic base Davis has established that the “fast ice” is in fact thicker than the average since the 1950s.
This is where the mixed signals cut in.
(This case demonstrates where agenda based theory always fails. I think that the problem with the debate has been too many people offering opinions where the tendency is to elevate opinions above facts that haven’t been fully studied. This is much too complex for guesswork, let alone mindless political point scoring among the rubble of the global environment.)
Both poles have shown a tendency to produce local effects which are outside the models. The Arctic produced a sudden series of local events which were later shown to be a result of movements of pack ice, not a melt. Thick sea ice opened up areas which have been frozen in human records. The actual melt in the north is also producing the apparent contradiction of opening up open sea areas, while land based ice is behaving much like the Antarctic ice, with some increases. The correlation is that the thermal patterns of ice on land masses are naturally different from ice in the open sea.
The Antarctic, however, is also producing some oddities. An increase in ice depth, not all that surprisingly, requires more water. The figures given by the Davis research indicate that ice thickness is 1.89 metres, as distinct from the average of 1.67 recorded since the 1950s.
Meaning that:
(a) Either more freezing is occurring over time, a cumulative increase, although that hasn’t been suggested by the scientists at Davis as a behavioral key. Obviously it’s possible.
(b) The Antarctic currents have been transporting fresh water from the Wilkins and similar high melt areas and refreezing them away from the melt zones.
(c) An unknown cycle is creating a freeze boom and bust over periods like 50 years in Antarctica. (In which case Greenland, being a land mass, should show some similar results, you’d think.)
(d) Thermodynamics of freezing around land masses are capable of producing macro effects like this, which haven’t been previously recorded, and are therefore outside the scope of existing theory. (Not unlikely, because nobody was looking for effects like this, based on the simpler modes of dealing with melts.)
You see why I’m in no hurry to come up with an opinion. Nor should anybody else rush to judgment, because in point of fact this phenomenon proves both sides wrong.
Yes, there is melt, no, it's not behaving the way anyone thought it would.
Yes, there are climatic effects, no, they're not following predictions, except in the most general sense, like "severe weather", etc.
This is “How long is all the string produced by the string factory?”, as climate science. What this illustrates beyond doubt is that the macrocosm of the ice melts is highly complex, and local factors have roles which aren’t fully understood.
It seems that even the desalination theory, which is one of the more fundamental concepts of the ice melts, will now have to be reworked.
Anyway, this needn't bother the large numbers of utterly useless people who've made profitable careers out of environmental disasters. if there's no problem, everyone can go back to dealing with the millions of tons of toxic emissions from obsolete technology which have made the whole population of Earth into passive smokers. Happy?

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/271218

[Kratos]

Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away

Ice expanding in much of Antarctica Eastern coast getting colder Western section remains a concern

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.

Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water, The Australian reports. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilisation of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.


However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.

East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".

Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.

The melting of sea ice - fast ice and pack ice - does not cause sea levels to rise because the ice is in the water. Sea levels may rise with losses from freshwater ice sheets on the polar caps. In Antarctica, these losses are in the form of icebergs calved from ice shelves formed by glacial movements on the mainland.

Last week, federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said experts predicted sea level rises of up to 6m from Antarctic melting by 2100, but the worst case scenario foreshadowed by the SCAR report was a 1.25m rise.

Mr Garrett insisted global warming was causing ice losses throughout Antarctica. "I don't think there's any doubt it is contributing to what we've seen both on the Wilkins shelf and more generally in Antarctica," he said.

Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual.

"Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off - I'm talking 100km or 200km long - every 10 or 20 or 50 years."

Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.

http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice...-1225700043191

[Kratos]

What about all the dead and dying poor cute polar bears?

"In the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at 5,000. Today it's 20- to 25,000, a number that has either held steady over the last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found that the population there has increased by 25 percent"

[Kratos]

The Real Facts on Increasing Antarctic Ice

You wouldn’t think so if you read recent press reports. Just like this time last year, the global press is bombarding the public with alarming reports coming from the bottom of the world. From the Discovery Channel on April 28th, 2009 “Huge Ice Shelf Breaks From Antarctica, Fractures.” From National Geographic News on April 30th, 2009 “Giant Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapses.” From Reuters on April 28th, 2009, “New York City-sized Ice Collapses off Antarctica.”

Exactly one year ago, similar stories circulated, and if anything, they were more alarming. On March 25th, 2008, the BBC reported “Antarctic Ice Hangs by a Thread,” a result, they stated, of “unprecedented global warming.” But these reports, both last year and this year, are talking about the same ice shelf – the Wilkins Ice Shelf, an insignificant bit of floating ice that is located on the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. Didn’t it break up last year? How many times do we recycle the alarm over the seasonal melting of the same few thousand square miles of floating ice (ice that floats cannot contribute to sea level rise), off a continent that exceeds five million square miles in area?

Apparently over and over. An excellent analysis posted on April 17th, 2009 by Ron de Haan entitled “The Antarctic Wilkins Ice Shelf Collapse: Media recycles photos and storylines from previous years,” documents how the Wilkins Ice Shelf has been reported by the mainstream media to be ominously collapsing every year now since 1999. Haan also provides satellite photography back as far as 1993 showing the end-of-summer thaws and mid-winter maximums for the Wilkins Ice Shelf. Not much has changed over the past 15 years. Thank goodness for the blogosphere to help us accurately assess the cryosphere!

The assumption in all these stories that report on the Wilkins Ice Shelf, and other melting ice around the Antarctic Peninsula, is that global warming is the cause, and that they are representative of a general melt occurring throughout Antarctica. And if this were true, this would be alarming, since 90% of the world’s land based ice is in Antarctica. So is the ocean warming around Antarctica, and is Antarctica’s overall total mass decreasing?



GLOBAL SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE ANOMALY – APRIL 2009

As of April 2009, sea surface temperatures surrounding
Antarctica are mostly colder than average.
(Image: NOAA)



The answer to both of these questions is almost certainly no. As this recent imagery from NOAA indicates, the southern ocean is actually colder than average. Except for a few areas directly south of the Indian Ocean, and in the area south of Patagonia and surrounding the Antarctic Peninsula, the rest of the ocean surrounding Antarctica – virtually all of the South Pacific and South Atlantic – is cooler than average. This data indicates no reason to believe ocean temperatures are causing overall loss of ice mass in the Antarctic; with the exception of the insignificant quantity of ice on the Antarctic Peninsula, they suggest the opposite.



CURRENT SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE SEA ICE AREA

As of May 2009, sea ice surrounding Antarctica is
about 1.0 million square kilometers greater than average.
(Image: University of Illinois)



What about the ice mass of Antarctica? Along with land based ice, which can raise sea levels when melted into the ocean, another significant indicator of polar temperature is the extent of floating sea ice. As the above table prepared by researchers at the University of Illinois indicates, the actual sea ice surrounding Antarctica is well above average. The black line represents the last 12 months of sea ice area, based on satellite data. You can see the sea ice reached a peak of 15 million square kilometers around September, during the peak of the southern winter. You can see it dropped to a low of 2 million square kilometers in mid-February, at the height of the southern summer. Currently the sea ice surrounding Antarctica is 7 million square kilometers and rising. The red line, however, is what is significant, because the red line indicates whether or not the sea ice is above or below the historical norm. And as you can see, as of May 2009, Antarctic sea ice is about 1.0 million square kilometers above normal.

Just like last year, to assist in the research for this post I contacted Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., a climatologist at the University of Colorado whose blog www.climatesci.org is one of the most balanced forums and respected sources of technical information on global climate anywhere. In response to my inquiry, he wrote the following: “The sea ice around the continent is far above average (ref. UIUC). Also, note the colder than average sea surface temperatures around Antarctic (ref. NOAA). If the media is going to discuss the Wilkens Ice Shelf, they should also discuss this other data. The expansion of the sea ice coverage implies a cooling.”

http://www.ecoworld.com/global-warmi...rctic-ice.html

[Kratos]

hopefully that's enough sources (with none of them being fox news) to give you something to think about while freezing your ass off this winter.

[DSM4Life]

Too many words....

[Mooseman33]

love it Kratos...

great read with great sources....

[Nooomoto]

Remember when Al Gore had that guys mic turned off when he was challenged? Hahaha...what a douche. He's afraid of science.

[MuscleScience]

No one ever talks about the carbon cycle in all this.

[Spartans09]

Solar flairs is where its at. I read somewhere that 1,000,000 earths will fit inside the sun. The sun influences just about everything on the planet.

[Flagg]

Solar flairs is where its at. I read somewhere that 1,000,000 earths will fit inside the sun. The sun influences just about everything on the planet.

This is pretty accurate. Earths climate is predominately modulated by the Milankovich Cycles which involve orbits around the sun, eliptical or circular, which tilt the earth is on and sun spots. To say global warming is a myth is bullshit though. There have been 10 ice ages, all followed by rapid warming in the last 1 million years. Mostly as a result of the formation of the himalayas and formation of the southpole (generating massive albedo effect).

[Mooseman33]

man made global warming is bullshit..............

[fig]

Nice read. Never bought into that crap but I'm always kind to mother earth regardless.

[fig]

This is pretty accurate. Earths climate is predominately modulated by the Milankovich Cycles which involve orbits around the sun, eliptical or circular, which tilt the earth is on and sun spots. To say global warming is a myth is bullshit though. There have been 10 ice ages, all followed by rapid warming in the last 1 million years. Mostly as a result of the formation of the himalayas and formation of the southpole (generating massive albedo effect).

Yes exactly! I always bring this up in global warming discussions

[warchild]

another scare tactic

[SunHangDo]

Global warming is a political platform designed to scare people into voting for higher taxes. If people aren't afraid of something, you can't control them.

How to take over the world:

Step 1: Create an artificial crisis

Step 2: Convince everyone that said crisis is real

Step 3: Promise to solve crisis if people give up a few of their civil liberties and pay higher taxes

Step 4: Repeat steps 1 through 3 until the population has no rights or freedom.

It's pretty simple really. But as Thomas Jefferson said, "Those who are willing to give up their freedom for temporary security deserve neither freedom nor security."

[Art Vandelay]

This is pretty accurate. Earths climate is predominately modulated by the Milankovich Cycles which involve orbits around the sun, eliptical or circular, which tilt the earth is on and sun spots. To say global warming is a myth is bullshit though. There have been 10 ice ages, all followed by rapid warming in the last 1 million years. Mostly as a result of the formation of the himalayas and formation of the southpole (generating massive albedo effect).

"To say global warming is a myth is bullshit though."

That's the one thing everyone should agree upon. Global Warming is a fact. The only real debate is if we have caused the change, and in turn do something about the negative aspects. Period.

[Flagg]

"To say global warming is a myth is bullshit though."

That's the one thing everyone should agree upon. Global Warming is a fact. The only real debate is if we have caused the change, and in turn do something about the negative aspects. Period.

We'll have to change to alternate fuel sooner or later cause oil is infinite in quantity.

As for Global warming itself and sea level rise and what should we do, well watch this video. We have 4 possible outcomes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

It's about 10 minutes long but it's well worth watching till the end. Let me know what you guys think.