Sorry, I've missed a point of calculations as water circulated in a known natural process round a globe instantly, where human activities just in general a part of.

A question is -to me at least- how does the naturally contributing itself to this circulation alter accustomed human surrounding to a point of a new different human habitat?

Hands up who watched Four Corners on Monday night. If you're a sceptic of global warming I'd like to hear your response.

If you missed it - climate change denial is largely orchestrated by big oil, using dubious scientific findings, presented by the same bunch of academics who cast doubt on the link between tobacco and cancer. It turns out there is NOT ONE credible, peer-reviewed study that disputes the findings of the latest IPCC report.

I have to say that I am more inclined to accept the evidence of Al Gore and an ark load of environmental scientists than a man who has faith in the beliefs of a handful of superstitious fisherfolk two thousand years ago.

Perseus

Thank you for the advice about not connecting education level and cognitive capacity (see below), I'll keep that in mind if I ever make such a claim.

In the mean time, I am interested in finding the data showing a correlation between green voters and substance abuse. Do you know where I can get hold of this information? I am presuming the rest of your claims in relation to green voters are not meant to be taken seriously but just letting everyone know that you resent these people, certain parenting practices and public sector study leave. At least we know where you stand. :-)

Perseus: "The other major correlation with green voters is a past or present history of substance abuse. And this, combined with education levels concentrated in the second quartile, not the first, produces a cohort who got where they are by indulgent parents and lax public sector study leave entitlements. Don't ever mistake education level for cognitive capacity. "

Would Bennie care to tell us how many climate research papers Al Gore has written lately? Or Tim Flannery? Give us a break. Four corners was nothing more than the usual superstitions dressed up for the punters. The same knee jerk stuff Whispering Ted came up with on this very string.

Fester, the only facts we have to deal with are the ice melt numbers to date, everything else is speculation. And where did this 11% increase figure come from? I didn't see any link. So try as will to weasel out of your tight corner, the facts remain that, at current melt rates, it will take 19,000 years for the Greenland Ice Sheet to melt away. And even if this rate did increase by 11% exponentially each year, it would still only be 11% of 0.0000516 of a huge lump of ice.

If you have detailed and verifiable evidence that would justify a different melt rate then by all means present it here. But so far all I have seen is political diatribes and weasel words.

And poor old Julatron, he tries on the old "green voters are smarter" BS and when challenged resorts to some standard bigoted stereotypes. It is a sure sign you just copped a hiding. I simply pointed out that one of the reasons greens appear to be overly represented in the education stakes is the fact that a large proportion of public servants are green (they can survive without reality) because they have such generous study leave. You don't fool us, matey, we know all about the departmental boofheads completing assignments during work time. In the private sector we actually work when we are at work and if we want to know how smart someone is we just get them to open their mouth. A prospect that will normally put a departmental moron in his place real quick.

Perseus

Where did I get the glacial melt rate from? From this:

"The paper by Rignot of NASA estimates that the glacial melt rate has increased from 62KM3 in 1996 to 162KM3 in 2005 "

Remember that? Those figures represent a glacial melt rate of a bit over 11% per year. From 2005 to 2006 the increase in glacial melt rate is over 35%, so I would agree with you that any modelling is highly speculative. In fact, the data shows that the change in melt rate is far from constant, so why then do you confidently assume that it will remain at 129 cubic kilometres for the next 19,000 years? Surely such an assumption from someone concerned with the use of extrapolation is the height of stupidity?

As for your comment:

"And even if this rate did increase by 11% exponentially each year, it would still only be 11% of 0.0000516 of a huge lump of ice."

Again, I would suggest that you have little understanding of exponential growth. Increase 0.0000516 by 11% per annum and by 2080 you have a figure of over 10% of the ice sheet mass per annum.