> The primary item of
>concern is the Greenland ice cap, which may raise sea levels somewhere
>on the order of 3-9 feet.
I would think that to people in the vicinity of, say, Houston, where much
of the land is only a few feet ASL at the moment, 3-9 feet would seem
fairly significant. Changes in temperature and rainfall would probably have
more wide-reaching effects than sea level changes, because these would
effect food production, peak periods of energy consumption, etc.
>This alleged collapse is not imminent, nor is
>it inevitable.
Very few things are inevitable, but if it appears there's a significant
chance of an event that would have major consequences it makes sense to me
to be aware of it and perhaps make contingency plans in case the event
comes about.
>What is of concern is not the environmental effects, but the effects on
>humans.
So you're saying that humans' environment has no effect on them? (them?
maybe I should say us instead of writing as though I'm not a human too)
>If Greenland's ice cap collapses, has anyone understood that
>this means lots of land available in Greenland for settlement and
>cultivation, land that is covered by dirt ground up from many thousands
>of years of ice abrasion?
There could be many net positive effects of global warming, just as there
could be many net positive effects of nanotechnology. An ultimate net good
effect doesn't mean that there won't be a period of adjustment which might
not be fun to live through if one allows oneself to be taken by surprise.
Barbara
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:24 MDT