> Consider this:
> Ice floating on water lowers the water level when it melts. 1st grade
>experiment fill a large container with ice water make a mark on the side
> of the container and let it melt. The lesser density ice melts into a
>more dense form and the total volume of the liquid ice is lower than the
> frozen form.
Sorry Sidney, I guess you failed 1st grade science. Archimede's
principle says that when something floats it displaces its weight, so
the level stays the same.
> Since floating ice is not a factor in increasing water levels.
Correct, but not for the reason given.
>The only ice that may make a change in sea levels is locked up in
>glaciers and the overland portion of Antarctica.
> The ice in Antarctica is almost two miles thick. The temperatures
>never remotely approach the freezing point of water. Would an average
>temperature increase of a few degrees cause massive levels of water to
>pour out of the the two mile thick sheet of ice graced by 40-80 below
>winds. I don't think so!
Hmm, so those massive clunks of ice falling off of the shelf are just
> Are there benefits to a climate change of the earth. We tend to move
>to warmer climates. Run your SUV longer and you may not have to move
>when you are old. What about the benefits of thicker cloud canopy
>diffusing sunlight and shielding us from solar radiation.
Because after all it's not like crops are important... just where you
> Most models of the origin of the earth suppose that the earth has had
>drastic climate changes still resulting in the preservation of life.
>Why is it a major deal for us to control what happens next.
Well, that's certainly reassuring what with there having been over 6
Billion inhabitants during the previous climate changes and all.