Comment on this story

Create an account now to start posting comments immediately.

If you have already created an account, log in to your existing account

By posting, you agree to abide by our Forum Rules.

The related article is relevant to the discussion of long-term waste disposal of nuclear material.

You hit the nail on the head David. Thanks for providing the most realistic arguement yet about why WIPP was conceived in the first place.

There is no water at WIPP, the water has been gone for at least a million years, hence the term ancient salt beds.  Just the salt from the ancient sea remains.  The WIPP site is not a source for salinated water.

Underground disposal in a stable underground location is much better then above ground storage on the mesa that receives more lightning strikes than just about any place in New Mexico.  Not to mention that the waste is directly upstream from the Rio Grande.

We can't just wish those drums away, their presence is real.  The fact that they have to dealt with is also real.  Even if nuclear activities stopped at LANL today, those drums are still real and need to be dealt with.

You have a point, but WIPP is a far better place for this than Area G.

 

1) So, according to Sue Stiger, the Lab's assoc. Director of Environmental Programs... LANL gets to reduce it's nuclear waste load, and it's better for the environment. Whose environment? What about the Carlsbad area, where the giant dump WIPP is located? Does it get to make the same claim? Actually it's merely shifting  radioactive toxic waste from one location to another, within our states borders. "Out of sight, out of mind".

2) And these buried dumps are located in the same ancient salt-beds, about one mile down, that will be a proposed future source for (desalinated) drinking water here in New Mexico, once we deplete our relatively clean aquifers?  My, my. Great idea.

Another example of excellence in journalism! Peter Lipscomb, thank you for this brilliant historical account and all of the factual data!

Ah, the acumen of a true scientist!

Matt you should see some of the old fossils that live round here! LOL

"Sampson said fossils of duck-billed dinosaurs once lived throughout the northwestern part of North America"

Um,  I wasn't aware that fossils "lived" anywhere....

 

So beautiful. Can't beat the scenery. Watching Elk from your front porch.

Wouldn't like to chase the mice out of the cabin but it comes with the territory.

one more thing........if the Sasser's don't quit breading them ..pretty soone they have 60+

I looked into Alpaca breeding at one point. Turned out to be the biggest scam I ever saw...they produce very little wool in relation to their cost. Sheep would be a much better investment.

The only way to make money on them is to sell them to the "greater fool" who falls for the scam after you. So typical of many schemes.

Delighted to see work in the area - in NM.  I last blogged about it - in Utah - in February.

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/readerblogs/56493.html

Clinton was afraid of tackling the deal too. 

The Americans ARE by far the globe's largest carbon emitters ( sure they all defray and say China is a big polluter.. BUT that is because the Americans DRIVE the Chinese and whole Asian economy too).

To change the business/corporate posturing and positioning is tough to do for insiders like GW and Clinton both are.

Then there's always the fear at the top of the supposed wrath of the voters ( they're gonna have a tough time facing the music and really walking the walk as things are currently structured).

Fact is though going green with an economy IS not that hard.....But the established big dogs would have to spend a touch to clean and redefine their infrastructure.

Perhaps we need to define the pollution imprint rules and simply put..

"This is then a perfect job for the EPA."  The most powerful govt entity ever created actually.

I think that everyone who believes that humans are the major cause of Global Warming should just stop exhaling all of that deadly CO2. Do your part.

What a leader we have. Sure, let's start a fund so that the poorer countries can develop "clean energy projects." Does he really think the poorer countries are the major contributors to global warming?? - Sooner or later this will resolve itself. If nothing is done, the earth will fix itself, killing millions and millions of people through dramatic weather changes. With less people, there will be less cars being driven, less factories producing less goods for less people. Then there will be less green house gas being released. A global "trickle down" solution....

If any of you are interested in knowing what many scientists think of this article and one that was badly misquoted here (Dr. Christy), I suggest you look at their reactions in emails to the Senate here:

http://tinyurl.com/yu6gmj

Once again, the yellow journalism of the press does not reflect the scientific nuances and uncertainties in this issue.

Breathe into a paper bag for a minute, Mr McAndrew. Read my last paragraph, below. I know it is happening. It is widely disputed as to exactly why, although we know very matter of factly that this planet has cycled through cold and hot phases for many millions of years.

And don't forget that those "specialists" you cite are literally paid to demonstrate that we are causing the warming, because if they come in with a verdict that we are not, they join the unemployment lines. The LAST field I would study for at this time (were I a budding scientist) would be climatology. I think the field is way overpopulated and those "experts" are going to be a dime a dozen before long. These days it is very politically fashionable to posture about GW. Just ask Al (hypocrite about it) Gore.

Mr. Bondiga says "that humans caused it is much in dispute." Well, while I wouldn't claim that polls are any indication of most truths, I'd say that one limited truth that this poll shows is that, in fact, 79% of regular old people in the polled countries don't dispute it. And, judging from the links provided my Mr. van Dresser, the scientists around the world who know the most about these systems,don't dispute the existence of, the causes of (human-generated), or the need for action to correct, climate change. And while such a growing and urgent consensus is not sufficient proof, it makes me wonder why some non-scientists are so resistant to accepting the work of a wide range of specialists around the world (not all of them can be labeled commies or liberal Gore-ified Americans) who agree that we're heading off a cliff. Especially when the stakes are so high and the costs, relative to the stakes, are so low. My assumption is that there is a group of people who simply refuse to believe anything that Al Gore has said, because it was Al Gore who said it. I'd be interested in knowing how many of those arguing against an anthropogenic climate crisis here would fall into that camp. Obviously, Galileo was right when everyone else was wrong, but everyone else was working with theological orthodoxy then, rather than science. At least we're beyond that now.

The AASC recognizes climate prediction is an extremely difficult undertaking. For time scales of a decade or more, understanding the empirical accuracy of such predictions – called “verification” – is simply impossible, since we have to wait a decade or longer to assess the accuracy of the forecasts.”

This, and most of the other quotes you posted, undermine this:

Once again, Mr. Jorgenson claims widespread support of his position by scientists, but those scientists are saying things quite different from Mr. Jorgenson. Perhaps he should revise his assertions to reflect the fact that those organizations he claims for support have now, to a large extent, abandoned his position.

Mr. McAndrew, now you want to rely on polls to verify human caused global warming? C'mon. Please. Even the scientists paid to verify it cannot agree completely. Polls? Next we should install a "War on global Warming Czar". It is happening. That much is certain. That humans caused it is much in dispute. And that we can do anything about it, even more so. Read the article. I think it is mostly about moving away from some beaches, at this point. And humans have done that before when this happens, though they had the good "sense" to not build skyscrapers on the beach.

Consensus is building. There is a new international poll that shows a growing super-majority of the world's citizens now believe not just that the climate crisis is real and anthropogenic, but that urgent action was needed. Here is a brief excerpt from the BBC story:

An average of 79% of respondents to the BBC survey agreed that "human activity, including industry and transportation, is a significant cause of climate change".

Nine out of 10 people said action was necessary, with two-thirds of people going further, saying "it is necessary to take major steps starting very soon".

In none of the countries did a majority say no action was necessary to combat climate change.

92% of US citizens polled believe that major steps need to be taken very soon (59%) or we must take moderate steps in coming years (33%). Only 6%  of US citizens thought it was not necessary to take any steps, and 2% professed ignorance.

Bush is hosting a meeting of 16 major emitter countries this Thursday and Friday. He addresses the UN tomorrow, I believe I read.

Once again, Mr. Jorgenson claims widespread support of his position by scientists, but those scientists are saying things quite different from Mr. Jorgenson. Perhaps he should revise his assertions to reflect the fact that those organizations he claims for support have now, to a large extent, abandoned his position.

First, the association of state weather forecasters. The American Association of State Climatologists (AASC) mainly asserts that weather forecasting is difficult. Not too surprising for people whose main task is predicting the weather.

“The AASC recognizes climate prediction is an extremely difficult undertaking. For time scales of a decade or more, understanding the empirical accuracy of such predictions – called “verification” – is simply impossible, since we have to wait a decade or longer to assess the accuracy of the forecasts.”

The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) is a group representing the oil industry and has no particular expertise in climate. Nevertheless, even this energy industry group notes its “membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature.” … “Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS, and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data.”

Finally, the Geological Society of America (click on Global Climate Change) has explicitly come out in direct opposition to Mr. Jorgenson’s position and supports the 2005 Joint Science Academies Statement:

“The Geological Society of America  (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. … GSA also supports statements on the global climate change issue made by the joint national academies of science (June 2005), American
Geophysical Union (December, 2003), and American Chemical Society (2004).”

Mike - "Relying on the "experts" and not thinking for yourself is what got us into this disastrous and unnecessary war in Iraq on imagined, dreamed up reasons that were unfounded."   I was skeptical enough to now I was being LIED to in the run up to the illegal and immoral war.  I did research and there was plenty of contradictory evidence to debunk 'experts'  that were obviously  pushing a jingoistic agenda.The same bunch that lead U.S> into the illegal and immoral war are now denying Global Climate change.

I (as everyone else) do tend to judge a lot of arguments based on who is making them. Having been totally abandoned by the 'reasonable' wing of the Republican party through the 90's, watching the LIES of the Reich-wing propaganda machine become commonly accepted truth by too many uncritical thinkers, and knowing who are supporting the deniers, it will take a massive amount of 'proof' by the Cons to sway my outlook. Corporatist wh**es, Christo-nazis, and warmongers have no credibility in my belief system.  I have to admit that I hold the sycophants who waste my time by linking to deceptive articles in utter contempt.

Mr. Donoho, I disagree with you.  Mr. van Dresser, there are three position statements on climate change from large, professional scientific societies that I agree with, AAPG, GSA (mostly), and AASC.  And once again you are introducing the political tactics of exaggerating my views and theories to create good and evil when we are talking about scientific process and differing scientific interpretations of the same scientific data.  This is not about good and evil, not about right and wrong, and not about politics.  This is a scientific issue with large amounts of uncertainty and internally conflicting data and scientists' views of those data.  You can suggest any political action you like to fit your political view of the world, but don't try to lie about my interpretations of the scientific data and thus try to clothe yourself in the cloak of science, it doesn't fit your political body and is transparent for your purposes.

We have gone over this issue over and over.  Ice on water, ice on land, man caused, increased solar activiity, on and on.

It's solutions we need, like the one Steve brought up, the artifical photosynthesis.  We need to look into French style nuclear reactors, that recycle 90+% of the fuel, pebble bed reactors, better solar collection and storage batteries. 

Steve I agree with you. 

I once asked your antagonist a serious question years ago and got a third grade response.  Don't think I ever asked him another question---no point.  He is not serious. 

Why bother with him? 

You are the person who insists that the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the the British Royal Society and so forth are "political" organizations and not scientific organizations.  Yet you have never pointed to any scientific organizations which agree with your scientific or political views regarding climate change.  To accept your hypothesis, we have to believe that all scientific societies are purely political in nature and unreliable, and we have to believe that any scientists involved with scientific societies are totally deluded.  You seem to be telling the rest of the world that the only way to gain trustworthy scientific opinion is to listen to you.  You've got to be kidding.

Mr. van Dresser is quite good at accepting decrees by societies with agendas and monetary motives, and good at cut and paste operations on computers, but he is lacking in critical thinking and independent thought through extensive research.  Thus I see no reason that your opinions are credible sir.  Why should we accept your word on it that what you present is the WHOLE truth?  It obviously isn't as I can link you to many articles that dispute your view (and what you purport to be a "consensus", whatever that is) of this issue, and have for quite a long time.  You need to recognize the difference between politics and opinion and the scientific method, until you do this as a scientific conversation is terribly one-sided.

Mike continues to assert that "the scientific community is very uncertain of sea level rise issues and the causes".  However the scientific community has precisely expressed exactly the opposite conclusion.  The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its most recent report (page 5) says:

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level."

 That position has been explicitly endorsed by a consortium of all the leading scientific societies in the world in a Joint Science Academies Statement which concludes:

"It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken."

So the very narrow scientific community of Mike Jorgensen is very uncertain of sea level rises (and anthropogenic forced climate change in general), but the rest of the scientific community, including every meteorological society and geophysical society on earth, is convinced, at a "highly likely" degree of certainty.  Sorry Mike, you're no longer credible.

I am not ignorant of the science here so I can read and understand the issues quite well without "relying" on some group of "political" scientists with an agenda and monetary motivations (which exists on both sides here, the left wing think tanks are more numerous than right as a matter of fact). So I guess I have an advantage over many here, Relying on the "experts" and not thinking for yourself is what got us into this disastrous and unnecessary war in Iraq on imagined, dreamed up reasons that were unfounded. This issue is no less complex and no less manipulated by those with agendas on the left and right. The data shown by Mr. Vigil is compelling evidence of the power of nature and the natural earth cycles in operation. These references will show you that the scientific community is very uncertain of sea level rise issues and the causes:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11396.html

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/10/6524

So those who want to "believe the experts" need to look at all the experts data and theories, not just the ones you find consistent with some pre-conceived notion you have about saving the earth. That may feel good but scientifically, it is immaterial.   And Mr. Bondiga has an excellent example of adapting to mother nature's forces and not thinking you can change her.

This old earth is warming up.  It's happened before and it will happen again, as Charlie Heston says in the intro to Armaggedon.  Now they are saying it will happen regardless of lowering greenhouse gas emissions. 

One of the best reasons to let the sea reclaim New Orleans and move Mardi Gras to Shreveport, the new "Houston" of Louisiana, as the 1900 Great Hurricane in Galveston is what Katrina was to New Orleans.

no big deal

What????

"Since popular notions amongst a crowd is ussually wrong, Fade em."   Watching the shift in opinion of the scientific community over time as more data became available is  what  moved me from the denier/doubter camp. that plus the duty I feel to leave my grandson the best possible planet. If folks who believe as i do are wrong, we still have handed off a cleaner, safer, and more sustainable enviorment for the future generations.

I echo Steve's comment: "When there are conflicting scientific opinions and I am not an expert, I rely on sources that I consider reliable. Knowing where to look for answers and knowing the difference between a right wing think tank and an association of scholars is pretty simple stuff for me."

 

Again, context and perspective are the key to these disaster scenarios.  The past shows that sea level rises have been huge over short periods of time without human intervention or satanic gas inputs.  These scientific data illustrate it well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

The earth's sea levels have been rising and falling for billions of years, the current rise as shown in this graph, is minuscule compared to drastic rises just a few thousand years ago where sea level rose tens of METERS in a century, and over a hundred meters over a few thousand years.  This yellow journalism is just misleading and without scientific context, meant to panic and scare the ignorant public.  Can man adapt?  of course, we have done it before, no big deal.  Docks and shoreline infrastructure needs to be replaced periodically anyway, it won't last forever.  And people move all the time, they won't drown or all move to NM.

Mark, 1 gallon of fresh water takes up the exact same volume as 1 gallon of sea water, it matters not what the relative percentages of dissolved solids are, a gallon is a gallon is a gallon, dissovled solids, water, and all.  So I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with those numbers.  If a gallon of fresh water flows into the ocean it will add a total volume of 1 gallon to the ocean, no less.  There is no way that any of the water molecules or salt in the whole mixture magically disappear or shrink.

Yes, temperature differences will always move water.  That doesn't mean that the Conveyor will always move the way that it moves now.  There is no way anyone could say such a thing with certainty. 

Peter.  No matter what anyone says the water conveyor will never stop.

The reason is Heat rises and there is always going to be relative temperature imbalances, ie N to S and Equatorial too.

It's the relative temp diffs that move the water. Same principle as to why your hot water heater works.  Water moves around because of temp imbalances within the unit.

Even if the Earth warmed considerably...There will always be temp imbalances and with 70% of the earth covered in water, THAT is why the water (ie conveyor as termed) will always move.

Earth is a unique place, so many things living and breathing and moving, plants and animals all with so much variety.  Btw, you've got great produce here too.

OK, starting to get there: Density of sea water = 1030kg/m^3

That means that melted fresh water ( ice ) would occupy 3% less greater volume than the salt water (and less as the salt water is diluted), for same area, depth will be 3% greater.

This is for floating ice and figured at an excessive 10% which is more than ALL of it. Even if it were 10% then the increase in sea level would be .3% of about 20 ft which is about .6 ft or  7.2 inches. Thus sea level increase is only a few inches due to the difference in water density.

Floating ice is a tiny amount compared to land ice. 10% though is also the estimated total surface ice cover of the globe.

Obvious side note: The fact that there has been no significant rise in sea levels thus far could indicate that Global Warming (so to speak) is being diffused in other areas, and thus as a whole may not truly exist.

Sorry about that Steve and Peter. Trying to run a diffusion on the 2 waters, thus getting things bass ackwards at times.

Perhaps bend your minds on this:

Salt Water ie ocean,  avg 3.5% dry matter solids, the rest wet.  (some goes up to right at 30% dry matter, but the avg is estimated globally at 3.5%)

Fresh water, avg .5% dry matter solids, the rest wet.

Salt water right at 8.5 lbs per gall, right at 64 lbs per cubic ft.

Fresh water right at 7.5 lbs per gall, right at 62 lbs per cubic ft.

BLEND all the ICE....North Cap ALL the ocean....hmmm what do we get?  Obviously we're Adding fresh water cubic feet (relatively small amount to the total)..that increases cubic feet.  BUT  we're also diffusing cubic feet back on the salt water, Total balance back may increase some...maybe not much though.

Best source figurer I've found appears Very respected, Very reliable, says several times (and I'll get the You guys the formula equation), that the 100 year NET rise will be right at 7 inches.  Also, says that may not happen at all too.

Computer is going fritzy w the next la herencia dance so that is not helping much at this time either.

 

 

Mark, I think you've got a couple things wrong there.

Salt water is more dense than fresh water because of the dissolved solids (salt) in it.  We float easier in salt water, such as the Great Salt Lake, because it is more dense and therefore requires more mass to displace a unit of volume than would be required to displace a unit of volume of fresh water (buoyancy).

Because it is less dense than salt water, fresh water "floats" on salt water, it does not sink.  This is the reason that scientists are concerned that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet will disrupt the "Deep Ocean Conveyor", or "Great Conveyor", which draws much of its power from the massive sinking of cooled salt water off the coast of Greenland, and which plays a big role in the moderation of our climate between the polar and equatorial zones (if the Conveyor stops the pole will get colder and the equator will get hotter, probably throwing us into another ice age, so the thinking goes).

If you have 2 bodies of water, say one salt of volume 1 (that's both water and dissolved salt adding up to a volume of 1) and the other fresh of volume 1, and you combine them, you will have a body of water of volume 2.  It makes no difference how you stir it up, what floats, or what sinks, the volume remains the same.  There is no way that adding fresh water to salt water will reduce the combined volume.

Regarding your comments on snow/ice in the Southern Hemisphere: seasonal weather "anomalies" are not climate indicators.  As the climate warms there will be changes in weather patterns, no doubt (there is 1 glacier in Alaska that is growing, while all other glaciers there shrink - the pattern has changed).  But I find it hard to believe that the loss of ice pack in the North in a warming climate will be made up for by a gain of ice pack in the South.

Mark, you got it exactly backwards.  Salt water is denser than fresh water.  If you float higher in the Great Salt Lake, it is because the salt water is denser.  You exactly displace your weight while floating in water.  So, if your body hasn't changed and if you don't sink as far, you are displacing less volume of water with the same weight.  If a smaller volume of a liquid has an equal weight, it is more dense.

Archimedes principle says that a body immersed or floating in water is subject to an upward force equal in magnitude to the weight of the fluid it displaces.  If the body is floating the upward force of buoyancy is exactly the same as the downward force of gravity.  Since the density of air is less than the density of water, you sink in air while you float in water.  If you got dunked in a pool of mercury, you would hardly sink at all (but you might be exposed to a great deal of toxicity).  Mercury much more dense than water so you don't sink as much.  Salt water is more dense than fresh water so you don't sink as much.

Yes Peter I surely am saying that.  ie and as explained in the 4:53 post and sources thereof.

Here's the way I understand it:   Salt water is more voluminous than fresh water (thus lighter per unit).  Perhaps that's why we can almost walk on portions of the great Salt Lake without really sinking in much.

Anyway the fresh water is more solid water thus heavier to the real water medium that is salt water, thus sinks, then diffuses to the salt sorb over time.  Enough fresh water then over time diffuses the whole, to much less salt content thus reduces total volume of the whole deal. 

Further, it seems the whole issues and related isolates there are, or are not to it ( even the correct theories that may apply are not known for certain, thus that is another theory too), the whole deal is much like the oceans themselves.....Very deep in many areas. And like those depths it may be a long long time before anyone know anything for sure and then only after the fact most probably.

The big Play seems to be Antarctica, by FAR the most Ice (90% of everything on the globe as far as ice goes).  Also, By FAR the most seasonal Ice too (big time summer melts and big time winter freeze ups), highly variable and a Giant Complex. 

4 years ago it was felt that Ice growth in Antarctic was expanding at such a rate as to actually lower many water levels. That was after the Larrsen Ice Shelf break too, of 2002. 

All I know from the ground level is that New Zealand has now had 2 formidable winters in a row (snow where they usually do not get much and COLD too). Argentina...well we're going to have a record wheat crop there this year. Reason, Snow and more Snow, usually not much there (matter of fact none on most the wheat bottoms normally...rain when lucky), "white rain makes lot's of grain."  That simple.

Even snowed in Buenos Aries this winter...has not done that in 50 to 70 years I guess.

Perhaps the ice the N loses, the S gains, Who Knows? Do know that with the inverted seasons the S has an awfull lot of thermal mass to absorb what they might think is a lot in the N. So if there's extra coming in the S could aborb that to the point of a negative rising ocean level fairly easily. And temps down there have been downright cold too...even last summer in alot of NZ, it was jackets all darn summer long.

By Abe Rivera (Submitted: 09/23/2007 7:54 pm)
"What I find almost comical is how many people who have absolutely no formal education on climate, weather patterns, or even geography are absolutely convinced that global warming is a flawed notion."

Forget formal education in the above, how about just a junior high level understanding of science?  Buoyancy?  Hello!  Or how about understanding something so basic as the difference between something floating in the ocean vs. resting on land.  Good grief!

Steve, that's helpful, thanks. Common-sensical. In a forum such as this, where citations are not coin of the realm, it's hard to know where this stuff comes from and whether it's credible. Wish you'd logged in at 10 AM.

When there are conflicting scientific opinions and I am not an expert, I rely on sources that I consider reliable.  Knowing where to look for answers and knowing the difference between a right wing think tank and an association of scholars is pretty simple stuff for me.

So, if the question is do you believe the forecasts of climate change from the Hudson Institute, the Petroleum Institute, Investors.com, the Enterprise Institute, or the White House on the one hand; or National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Association, the World Meteorological Organization, and the principle scientific and meteorological societies of every major industrialized country on earth, I know which group of scientists I will choose to believe.  Here is what the latter group assert in their latest Joint science academies’ statement.

Feel free to pick a different group if you want, but don't then expect me to respect their opinion (or your judgment) .

By Mark Wright (Submitted: 09/23/2007 6:52 pm)
"Steve. Fresh water from the surface sinks too because of the salinity diff, thus the arctics actually drop in sea level."

Surely you aren't saying that in a body of water, some of it saline, some of it fresh, that the fresh water will sink and thus cause the level of that body of water to drop?

Since popular notions amongst a crowd is ussually wrong, Fade em.

approx 10% of the earth's surface is covered by ice.  90% of that is in Antarctica, the rest is the Greenland, and Arctic circle areas. 

The Next Ice Age: 11,000 years has passed since since the last one. Scientists do not know for sure that we are living in the post glaciel Holocene epoch instead of an interglaciel Pleistocene epoch, which means we could be due for another ice age in the geologic future.

The cold dry air above the arctic and antarctic carries little moisture, thus drops little snow. An increase in global temperature could increase the amount of moisture carried in the air and increase snow fall. After years of more snow fall than melting the amounts of polar ice increase.  sourced:  http://geography.about.com  

Interesting subject for now, but in 100 years probably won't matter much.

People will simply adapt, change, and survive to whatever comes along.

Just like they did (with less of the modern tech and mechanical miracles too) from the last ice age thru the last warm spell too.

It's an interesting question, Abe. What if the shoe was on the other foot, and the Bush administration and its predecessors had succeeded in quashing debate, had redacted out all references to climate change? What if the media, like Pravda, only told us the party line? What if climate change was, so far as we knew, just a crackpot idea from some foreign (said with a sneer) scientists, coupled with our own misgivings arising from anecdotes? How do we, non-scientists, decide what's right and what's incorrect? How should the people live in a world of experts and the rest of us? I've never seen the polar ice cap, much less been able to compare its current and its past states. How do we decide between two conflicting sets of experts and articles making claims to be from experts?

What I find almost comical is how many people who have absolutely no formal education on climate, weather patterns, or even geography are absolutely convinced that global warming is a flawed notion.  It's a bit like going to the doctor, disagreeing with his/her diagnosis and refusing treatment on the hope that, "if I ignore my illness, it will simply go away."

The issue has nothing to do with adding more water or ice to a closed system.  It has to do with how much of the H2O is in the world's oceans and how much of it is kept frozen at higher elevations.  If much of the water now frozen at higher elevations melts and flows into the oceans, the oceans will get higher and the ice pack will thin out and that is exactly what is happening right now.  There is enough frozen water that, if added to the liquid pool already in the oceans, will cause the contour of the ocean margins to shift, causing severe disruptions of some population centers as well as probable changes to overall climate.

The fact that there is only a finite amount of water on earth doesn't affect your risk of getting drowned.  It all depends on where that water is, where you are, and how rapidly the the water moves to where you are.

Interesting debate/battle of stats. I've found it both humbling in being brought fact-to-face  (in a public forum) with my own inadequate training in science, as well as revealing. An August poll taken by Princeton Survey Research Associates says 39% of the American people believe that there is a lot of disagreement amongst climate scientists about whether the earth has been warming recently, and 42% think there is some question about whether humans are responsible. This conversation and its generous supply of stats and links on both "sides" of the issue tells me why people hold those opinions. Months ago a friend sent me a link to an online film arguing that global warming is a swindle, and asked which should he believe, the producers of that film or An Inconvenient Truth. All I had, which most non-scientists my age or older have, was anecdotal evidence. For instance, every year I was in college in Iowa in the mid-70's, it snowed by Thanksgiving and we didn't see the ground again until March or April. I went back in 2000 in January and Iowa was snowless and in the 50's. Of course, these are only one person's (or generation's) observations within a limited point of reference. And there are folks who are happy to tell me not to worry. And worrying is certainly no virtue or evidence of virtue or correctness.

But then, there is incontrovertible evidence that things are going wrong: witness the mass eradication of species and the deforestation, the pollution of seas and fresh waters and air, the drying up of lakes and the resultant migration of and conflict between people, the ballooning human population. And to be told not to worry, that worrying is cynical, when these things are happening; to be told that 3' of water may mean more jobs for our kids, and so may be a good thing, then that those 3" of water may not arise because of density differences, and then because of salinity differences, and that the ice sheet on Greenland and the Arctic are not really factors . . . THAT is what makes me cynical. But I can't disprove these arguments.

Here is my bottom line, as a non-scientist. Proponents of climate change tell us that our actions have consequences, and that we should take care what we 6.6 billion consumers do. Opponents of climate change don't acknowledge that anything is wrong, often seem to reference economic factors, and seem mainly focused on making the case that everything will be alright, that we don't need to change the way we live. As an adult, I tend to believe the former. An adolescent would, I presume, take comfort from the latter. I admit this comes perilously close to Pascal's reason for believing in God (If you believe and live a good life and it turns out there is no God, what have you lost? But if you don't believe, and you live a life frowned upon by the religious, and it turns out there is a God, your goose is cooked). But the proponents of climate change seem to be, and want me to be, more responsible.

I'm suspicious of some of the studies and stats and arguments presented here, and think there is at least some chance that they may have been commissioned by those with a short-term fiscal interest in keeping the American (and Chinese and Indian and European) consumer enthralled. I'm not remotely pleased with
 this level of argument being the best I can provide, but for now it's the best I got.