Argee
Established Member
I wasn't going to get involved here, but in the end I couldn't resist.
"The latest report from the Icelandic government's Committee on Climate Change warns that by the next century, Iceland's glaciers will have all but disappeared, adding to the threat of catastrophic sea level rise.
So the journo is quoting from an Icelandic committe report on Icelandic glaciers - not ALL glaciers, just Icelandic ones.
Vatnajokull covers an area of 8,000 square km (5,500 square miles) and is, at its deepest point, more than 900 metres thick. But glaciologists say it's now melting at a rate of a metre a year and climate change could quicken its demise.
Leaving aside the totally inaccurate conversion there, the melting is said to be occurring at "a rate of a metre a year." Presumably, that means that the leading edge is retreating by that amount. I doubt that it means that it's losing that amount annually off the height, but that's not confirmed.
One of the country's leading glaciologists explained what will happen if global melting continues. Finnur Palsson of the University of Iceland told Sky News Online: "The glacier ice will melt. The water that runs off will go to the sea."
If he was referring to glacial melting outside of Iceland, surely he would have said so, as he's from the University of Iceland. I accept that it's possible he was referring to global melt, rather than Icelandic melt, but it seems unlikely in this context.
"The sea level will rise... it will rise to about seven metres, which means we'll have catastrophic effects on the highly populated areas all over the globe. "This means that people will have to migrate to higher places all over the world."
"The sea level will rise... it will rise to about seven metres ... " WHAT? In what context is that figure of nearly 22 feet being used? Rise to about seven metres from where? The existing low tide mark, the existing high tide mark, WHAT? Figures bandied about in this careless and unattributable way do nothing but harm. There cannot be enough water on the planet to achieve that and the amount of water is finite.
The most-frequently missed comment is "by the next century" - by which time no-one will have survived to point out the allegations made all those years ago. Statistics will always be mangled to suit the agenda of the user and the GW debate seems to be a classic example of this at work.
I've no idea what the globe will look like in 100 years, nor does anyone else. However, given the amount of water (and ice) on the planet, any claim that mentions a seven metre rise in sea level has got to be suspect.
Ray.
"The latest report from the Icelandic government's Committee on Climate Change warns that by the next century, Iceland's glaciers will have all but disappeared, adding to the threat of catastrophic sea level rise.
So the journo is quoting from an Icelandic committe report on Icelandic glaciers - not ALL glaciers, just Icelandic ones.
Vatnajokull covers an area of 8,000 square km (5,500 square miles) and is, at its deepest point, more than 900 metres thick. But glaciologists say it's now melting at a rate of a metre a year and climate change could quicken its demise.
Leaving aside the totally inaccurate conversion there, the melting is said to be occurring at "a rate of a metre a year." Presumably, that means that the leading edge is retreating by that amount. I doubt that it means that it's losing that amount annually off the height, but that's not confirmed.
One of the country's leading glaciologists explained what will happen if global melting continues. Finnur Palsson of the University of Iceland told Sky News Online: "The glacier ice will melt. The water that runs off will go to the sea."
If he was referring to glacial melting outside of Iceland, surely he would have said so, as he's from the University of Iceland. I accept that it's possible he was referring to global melt, rather than Icelandic melt, but it seems unlikely in this context.
"The sea level will rise... it will rise to about seven metres, which means we'll have catastrophic effects on the highly populated areas all over the globe. "This means that people will have to migrate to higher places all over the world."
"The sea level will rise... it will rise to about seven metres ... " WHAT? In what context is that figure of nearly 22 feet being used? Rise to about seven metres from where? The existing low tide mark, the existing high tide mark, WHAT? Figures bandied about in this careless and unattributable way do nothing but harm. There cannot be enough water on the planet to achieve that and the amount of water is finite.
The most-frequently missed comment is "by the next century" - by which time no-one will have survived to point out the allegations made all those years ago. Statistics will always be mangled to suit the agenda of the user and the GW debate seems to be a classic example of this at work.
I've no idea what the globe will look like in 100 years, nor does anyone else. However, given the amount of water (and ice) on the planet, any claim that mentions a seven metre rise in sea level has got to be suspect.
Ray.
