The ice sheets have been steadily retreating since the end of the last Ice Age, around 12,500 years ago. Sea level rose more than 100 meters since then.
Florida was three times bigger, the Gulf of Mexico was inhabited, and what’s now Long Island Sound was a valley with a river going through it and people probably living there. Some native American tribe is thinking about doing archeology in the Sound.
We must learn to adapt to Earth’s changes if we are to survive over the short term, 80,000 years or so.
Buying Gorebulbs and solar panels will not stop the oscillation of the ice sheets, look up Milankovitch Theory.
Note that it has taken 18,000 years to melt 60% of the ice from the last ice age. The remaining ice is almost entirely at the north and south poles and is isolated from warmer weather. To melt the ice of Greenland and Antarctica would take thousands of years under any realistic change in climate. In the case of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, which accounts for 80% of the Earth’s current ice, Sudgen argues that it existed for 14,000,000 years, through wide ranges in global climate. The IPCC 2001 report states “Thresholds for disintegration of the East Antarctic ice sheet by surface melting involve warmings above 20° C... In that case, the ice sheet would decay over a period of at least 10,000 years.” [31] The IPCC is the United Nations’ scientific committee on climate change; its members tend to be the minority that predicts global warming and its statements tend to be exaggerated by administrators before release. Given that the IPCC tends to exaggerate the potential for sea level rise, it is clear that no scientists on either side of the scientific debate on global warming fear the melting of the bulk of Antarctica’s ice.
See. “What If All the Ice Melts?” Myths and Realities by Wm. Robert Johnston
last updated 29 December 2005
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html
Okay...
Although variations of the Milankovitch theory can account for some aspects of climate change, there are serious failures that require attention. In particular, we will discuss the status of the "causality problem", the apparent fact that major shifts in climate occur prior to the Milankovitch driving force [Gondring: a fatal flaw, according to climate-change dissenters who point to the 800-year-lag in COfont size=-1>2 behind temp, without considering the fact that we could be reversing the forcing], and the spectral peak problem, in which the spectral shapes predicted by the Milankovitch theory do not match those in the spectrum and the bispectrum of the data. The standard Milankovitch theory ascribes all climate change to the same mechanism: summer insolation in the northern hemisphere. Variations in cloud cover are ignored, even though the net forcing of clouds is (at the present time) approximately 30 Watts per square meter -- substantially greater than the rms variations in insolation (18 Watts per square meter). Thus changes in cloud cover could be more important than changes in the standard Milankovitch parameters. We will discuss mechanisms that link variations in the orbital inclination of the Earth to changes in cloud cover, and how these address the causality problem, the spectral problems, and several other failures of the Milakovitch theory. How can we reconcile the failures of the Milankovitch approach with its obvious successes (e.g. in accounting for the 23 kyr cycle in sapropels, and the atmospheric oxygen variations in the Vostok data)? The answer is that climate is multi-dimensional. Insolation certainly affects climate. But we should not make the logical mistake of therefore assuming it accounts for the 100 kyr cycle of glaciation that has dominated for the past 800 kyr.