CSNbbs

Or not.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=..._article=1

Not quite...but...lots in Amsterdam are flying high way above it.

How much of it was below sea level before anyone even dreamt up the concept of "manmade global warming"?

(02-07-2010 12:37 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote: [ -> ]How much of it was below sea level before anyone even dreamt up the concept of "manmade global warming"?

Well, I would venture to guess it was probably a similar amount(give or take some because of erosion and human intervention). Just because something is below sea level doesn't mean it is below water(see New Orleans pre and post Katrina).

(02-07-2010 02:12 AM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2010 12:37 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote: [ -> ]How much of it was below sea level before anyone even dreamt up the concept of "manmade global warming"?

Well, I would venture to guess it was probably a similar amount(give or take some because of erosion and human intervention). Just because something is below sea level doesn't mean it is below water(see New Orleans pre and post Katrina).

Nice try, Robert. The story CLEARLY says that only 26% of the country is below sea level... whether or not it is below water isn't the question.

(02-07-2010 10:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2010 02:12 AM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2010 12:37 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote: [ -> ]How much of it was below sea level before anyone even dreamt up the concept of "manmade global warming"?

Well, I would venture to guess it was probably a similar amount(give or take some because of erosion and human intervention). Just because something is below sea level doesn't mean it is below water(see New Orleans pre and post Katrina).

Nice try, Robert. The story CLEARLY says that only 26% of the country is below sea level... whether or not it is below water isn't the question.

I guess I am not understanding your other post. Of course it hasn't changed much(whether it was the 26% or the near 50% including flood plains around rivers) since before global warming. I am not sure what global warming has to do with the amount of land below sea level. If the seas do rise because of it(if you believe it will happe-which I do) it doesn't automatically mean it will flood(which I kind of thought is what you are getting at) with the rise. It can be protected by expensive manmade barriers.

(02-08-2010 12:58 AM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2010 10:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2010 02:12 AM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2010 12:37 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote: [ -> ]How much of it was below sea level before anyone even dreamt up the concept of "manmade global warming"?

Well, I would venture to guess it was probably a similar amount(give or take some because of erosion and human intervention). Just because something is below sea level doesn't mean it is below water(see New Orleans pre and post Katrina).

Nice try, Robert. The story CLEARLY says that only 26% of the country is below sea level... whether or not it is below water isn't the question.

I guess I am not understanding your other post. Of course it hasn't changed much(whether it was the 26% or the near 50% including flood plains around rivers) since before global warming. I am not sure what global warming has to do with the amount of land below sea level. If the seas do rise because of it(if you believe it will happe-which I do) it doesn't automatically mean it will flood(which I kind of thought is what you are getting at) with the rise. It can be protected by expensive manmade barriers.

I think this WAS my first comment.... no big deal

Your comment "about the same" is correct... but the comment in the report added about 29% that is threatened by river floods (just as it has been for years... like the 100 year flood plain here), but above sea level to make their claim that 55% is below sea level. Not 55% WILL BE BELOW IF THE SEA RISES, but 55% IS CURRENTLY below. If sea levels rise as you think, then of COURSE the amount of land below sea level will increase. The report has been taken by many to show exactly that. They weren't making an estimate... they were stating what was. I expect the IPCC to know the difference.

Your comment that below water and below sea level aren't the same doesn't reflect the comment in the report. 55% is NOT below sea level as reported, whether or not it is below water. Only 26% is... and even some of that isn't below water. I took your comment to imply that they were somehow still right... I apologize if I misunderstood you.