*Correction (6/16/08): The statistics in this sentence have been corrected since the original posting.
Subscription Center
Recent NASA photos showed the opening of the Northwest Passage and that a third of the Arctic's sea ice has melted in recent decades. Are sea levels already starting to rise accordingly? If so, what effect is this having?
*Correction (6/16/08): The statistics in this sentence have been corrected since the original posting.
See what we're tweeting about
philipyam @dcastelvecchi @Yahoo It's annoyingly hidden in your name, forcing you to hover over it to see. But still not as bad as Gmail's
BoraZ I can co-sign: Alexis Madrigal: “Follow your own curiosity” http://t.co/8HLCJ1wX8W #sci4hels BoraZ How to Really March Against Monsanto. http://t.co/u93UxagQfT cc @Kevbonham @sci2mrow @patrickmustain @juliannewyrick
Deadline: Jul 30 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Seeker desires a method for producing pseudoephedrine products in such a way that it will be extremely difficult for clandestine che
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
55 Comments
Add CommentI noticed there is no mention of the decadal flow that also sends warmer water north. I believe this was documented by NASA. Is this just another panic piece designed to support the global warming, green, money machine??? I would expect better from SciAm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre there any factors that will increase or decrease the rate of melting? I ask because melting that causes approximately 2" per 15 years seems glacial, even in Geologic terms. I get about 90 years for a foot of ocean rise. Is this wrong? I'm using your figure of about 45mm since 1993. Am I missing something here? Thanks
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTom S.
This is a very elementary blooper for Scientific American to make and you need to correct this. Arctic sea ice is ALREADY in the water. Melting of Arctic sea ice per se will have NO effect on sea level. Only the melting of ice on land - in Greenland, Antarctica and glaciers around the world - will raise sea levels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPaul Harrison Ph. D.
Rainhorse is exactly right, and this hit me subsecond from the headline. Further down, the article says:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[I]With about a third of the world’s population—and 25 percent of Americans—living within 300 feet of an ocean coastline, sea level rise is a big deal.[/I]
I guess this is another blooper: maybe a third of the worlds population lives less than 300ft above sea level, but certainly not within 300ft of an ocean coast line!
Lets see how ridiculous this proposal is: The coast line of the USA is 12,383 miles long, 5,580 is bordering Alaska, and 750 miles Hawaii. If 75 million people in the USA would be living along the entire rest of the coast line, this would amount to 12390 per mile or 2.3 per foot. Total area of the coastal front per inhabitant would be 120 sq.ft, about as dense as cubicle space in an office....
Pardon my nescience. Is SciAm really serious about the question?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWater from the melting sea ice will not increase the sea level, but that from the land ice would high school physics.
Perhaps SciAm has something new in mind.
Thank you, I am passing your reply on. The SCIAM community blog will be closing as of July 1, so I don't think many will see your reply; I am glad I did. I am trying an experiment right now with fresh water ice, salt water, and fresh water in beakers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--------------------------------------------
The author has replied about this, please see below.
Also, please see related document here:
http://nsidc.colorado.edu/news/press/20050801_floatingice.html
----- Original Message -----
From: EarthTalk
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 7:39 AM
Subject: Complaint Department
Hi,
Our "300 feet" error was caught immediately and we sent editors a correction. Unfortunately some had already run the piece with that error.
Regarding sea ice, I understand what you are saying, but some sea ice rises above sea level itself, doesn't it, such that, if it melts, it would raise sea levels? I don't think "sea ice" implies that it's one massive flat skating surface...
Doug Moss
Editor
------------------------------------------
To: earthtalk@emagazine.com
Subject: Attn: Complaint Department
Several readers have found problems with an article downloaded appearing on the Scientific American website and linked to your address.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=arctic-ice-melts-cause-rising-sea
At first I did not see the problem, but having found it, I am sending it on for your consideration.
=====================================
[i]"Dear EarthTalk: Recent NASA photos showed the opening of the Northwest Passage and that a third of the Arctic’s sea ice has melted in recent. Are sea levels already starting to rise accordingly, and if so what effects is this having?
-- Dudley Robinson, Ireland"[/i]
--
Edited by Bradley at 06/28/2008 10:03 AM
In regard to your question and comment:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[i]"Is this just another panic piece designed to support the global warming, green, money machine??? I would expect better from SciAm."[/i]
I regret to inform you that you cannot make the problems posed by global warming go away by demonizing those who discuss the phenomenon.
It would be far more rewarding to you to educate yourself using college texts for earth science, meteorology, and climate science. You might as well also read up on oceanography and physical geography while you are at it.
If college level is too difficult, try high school and middle school texts of the same sort.
If that is too expensive for you, try going to a library and asking for the type of texts as described above; the library may be able to obtain them from one of their branches.
Your opinion may change if you have more information. If you already have sufficient information, your comment did not show it, which why I wrote.
--
Edited by Bradley at 06/28/2008 10:05 AM
Where did yo get the data re: Tuvalu and Samoa and rising sea levels? Tuvalu has not experienced any sea level change in the past 25 years. As for Samoa - you really are making it up. Science used to be about facts - not any more - it more politics and spin. There is plenty of research that would strongly suggest that the world is entering a cooling phase - which will actually have a detrimental effect on the world re food production (whereas warming has positive effects). Start to review all available research and stop picking only the work that conforms to your pre-conceptions. In other words go back to the Scientific Method.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn regard to your question:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[i]"Where did yo get the data re: Tuvalu and Samoa and rising sea levels? Tuvalu has not experienced any sea level change in the past 25 years. As for Samoa - you really are making it up."[/i]
I do wonder where the article's authors got their data, and I also recall there was an embedded link (to the authors, I presume) where one might receive an answer. Thank you for asking.
Where did you get your data? Certainly this is not common knowledge, but you seem to be confident in your claim.
And regarding:
[i]"There is plenty of research that would strongly suggest that the world is entering a cooling phase - which will actually have a detrimental effect on the world re food production (whereas warming has positive effects)."[/i]
In your opinion, was the issue adequately addressed at the website below?
http://www.ipcc.ch/
-------------------------------------
--
Edited by Bradley at 06/13/2008 11:31 PM
Hi,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was surprised to read that the wwf says : "Rising seas have already swallowed up two uninhabited islands in the Central Pacific. " - it would mean the islands were only 45 mm high, no ?
I do agree with the comment "science is about facts" - and of course it never has been :-) I am sure it has always been very influenced by current politics/philosophy etc. (I would love to find a study which analyses how historicaly preconceptions have affected science and how this has evolved - I think it would help enormously helpfull in interpreting current thinking more accuratly) . But I would also expect that SCiAM would check more carefully what it publishes - or do you stand by the facts in this article ?
As soon as the author put the word 'natural' in quotes, their hand was tipped.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe science books one needs to concentrate on are books on solar science. NASA is also a good source of information.
NASA has measured global warming on Mars and Jupiter. Both are attributed to the current solar cycle and not SUVs.
And no, the martian rover is not running on gasoline. It uses solar cells to power itself.
Must learn to swim then!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnalysing the problem, what is the proposed solution to prevent this?Rise in Global warming need to be stopped for sure .Anything else too??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe questioner, Mr. Robinson, asked if sea levels are starting to rise due to the melting of Arctic ice. The answer to *his* question is no, absolutely not. All Arctic ice floates in the Arctic ocean. As when ice cubes melt in your drink, they do not cause the water level to rise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe rest of the Earth Watch column answered a different question, "Are level rising because of melting of the *Greenland and Antarctic* ice caps?" Here the case can be made. But the article's response could be more specific on this point.
Regarding:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[i]"The science books one needs to concentrate on are books on solar science. NASA is also a good source of information.
NASA has measured global warming on Mars and Jupiter.
Both are attributed to the current solar cycle and not SUVs."[/i]
Will you please get to the point? Do you think there is some connection between this article and solar cycles, or between global warming on Earth and solar cycles?
If so, please state it up front. You are not communicating rationally by inviting people to take wild guesses at what you might be thinking.
If you have a point and you think NASA will supply data to back it up, please supply a link to the specific data.
Whatever your claim, it is up to you to communicate it and supply the support you think makes your claim plausible.
Thank you.
In a world seemingly full of naysayers I can only say this. Swallows haven't nested near my house for two years now, we are seeing new species of birds, my Brother in Law reports seeing record numbers of jackrabbits were there were none before and we are having record numbers of fires in California for this time of year. Now all this just may be coincidence. We probably won't see significant sea level rises till the biggest glaciers melt and the specific gravity of the ice and resultant land upheaval is factored in. Now I wouldn't "bet the farm" on worst case scenario happening, but sitting around on your backsides shouting invectives at the messenger for typos isn't solving anything. It took a couple hundred years for most "authorities" to refute the Geocentric Universe, we don't have that much time this go around.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt never ceases to amaze me that those people who would warn those in society about experimenting with our bodies, have no problem throwing caution to the wind when it comes to taking chances with the one body we all share.... Would it not be better to be cautious rather than finding out once it is too late that the "Greenies" are right. What's to lose if they are wrong, and the outcome is not as bad as some of the more dire predictions. We all learn to live a more sustainable life and leave more instead of less for the next generation. I wonder how many people who shout "heretic/witch" at those making dire predictions have children, and "say" how much they love them. Then again maybe we deserve dire consequences for our abuse of this planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUpon circumspection this article is weak to base it's evidence for rising sea levels on "flooding islands". There is more than ample documentation in support of evidence for SINKING ISLANDS that has been going on for years now. The Polar Ice Cap could melt entirely with negligible impact on sea water levels because the ice is already in the water. It's the implied trend of course is what catches our attention here. My observations were not to make a case for inductive reasoning, but if anyone else had similar observations it might confirm my suspicions. If I see lots of smoke & flames with trees being consumed, I don't need the services of a scientist or "faith based" analyst to tell me what I'm observing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou state that sea levels have been risin 3.1 mm per year since 1993. What was it doing before that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease do not be concerned about sea level rises from ice melting in the sea. Only ice melting over land can have any effect upon the sea level rising. The same volume is taken up in the ocean whether the water is frozen or not. If the Greenland ice sheet melts or Antarctica, then there may be a problem, but the latest indications show that in some areas the ice is retreating at the edges but thickening in the centre, thus retaining volume. Studies were carried out over the past 10 years in the low laying Maldive Islands, only to find that sea levels had risen by such a small amount that it was not a problem, so the study was concluded. Remember that over the past 10 years whilst CO2 levels have increased by the largest amount in history, global temperatures have NOT increased and in fact have reduced very slightly. The IPCC only used the 28 years of warming up to 1998. If they had used the previous 30 years or the past 10 years, they would have concluded the opposite as regards CO2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMelting floating ice does not impact water height in your tea, nor the ocean.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI compute that adding a block of water that is 13x13x13 miles would add 1 inch to sea levels.
So, we'll get 213 ft of sea level rise out of the three biggest ice sheets IF it stops snowing totally, and IF the temp in the MIDDLE of these massive icesheets raises by about 82 degrees F. (because last I heard, the middle of Antarctica is still about -50 degrees F on average) Oh, wait, global warming is only supposed to cause a maximum of 12 degrees F of temperature rise by the end of the century. So what do we have, another 600 years left? By then, we'll have 600 years worth of nuclear waste we have no way of disposing of, (THAT should cause some REAL global warming)and we'll have 95% less population to worry about, (attrition due to starvation, it takes energy to grow food). And we'll have 600 years to move these people who live within 300 ft of an ocean up the hill a little into the dense jungle that will cover most of the planet due to global warming. Ooookay.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this25% of Americans live 300 feet from the ocean?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat ice cube in my tea sure does when it's sitting at the bottom of my cup.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThink. Then post.
Ya, Be Happy Dont Worry. We will all be dead anyway. The planet has a way of dealing with the likes of us. If about six billion people would commit suicide tommorrow we might survive. QUIT COPULATING!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyeah, you run, and hide. Leave it to the poeple with brains to figure out a way to fix the problems that simple minded people have made. I give you the fact that we did it unawarely, but now we know the problems we have created for ourselves. Don't you think we owe it to ourselves, and our future to fix this jam were in. We our destructive by nature,as humans. Even science can destroy something in search for answers. Your comment is an insult to every American devoting themselves to finding a solution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't most of that ice floating on the ocean? If it melts the ocean won't rise at all, you dumby.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't most of that ice floating on the ocean? If it melts the ocean won't rise at all, you dumby.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the artic melts that which is not being supported by land will not cause the sea to rise. Antarctica and Greenland are a different story though. If they melt, something that is also happening the oceans will rise by about 250 feet. In other words you can say goodbye to Florida.
P.S. You spelt dummy wrong, you dummy.
I have a couple issues with the whole "eco-terror" that has been going on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet us say that we miraculously get this human-made global climate change thing under control. We are able to keep our impact at a minimum and the normal periodic cycling of the earth progresses as it has for billions of years.
Since we are currently between ice ages, would this not cause billions of people to die? With glaciers pushing their way south covering about half the earths surface what would we than do? Would we pack our bags and say "i guess this is it for us" hang our hats and die off like so many other sepcies... Or would human-made climate change be good than?
The earth doesn't need saving. People do. This global warming thing is all about making sure we, and all the animals and plants we like, survive.
It is self-preservation, nothing bad with that, but it also isn't the moral high ground. We are a blip on the history of the earth. A flaring match head trying to burn for as long as it can.
Birds not seen for 2 years? so what.... Record number of fires in 20 years? yeah, what is your point....
We've only been studying this for the past 30 some years. Records barely go back 100's of years.
This rant reminds me of a good joke: [i]What is the difference between an American and a European? A European thinks 100 miles is far and an American thinks 100 years is old.[/i]
Never mind the fact that the ANTarctic ice is thickening...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWill melting ice/ice caps/ice sheets cause water levels to rise, probably. Is there global warming going on, probably. If there was an ice age, then there sure enough can be a heated age. Will all the water cover most of the land and kill off a large percentage of humans? I hope so. It's time for the earth to be cleansed. We've been hunting animals till extinction. Man has been polluting the earth, air and water for far too long. It's time for the Earth to heal itself and that can't be done with Man constantly destroying it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW, some of you think you are so clever with your knowledge of frozen ice doesn't displace any more water then melted ice. But what you failed to think about is the amount of ice above the water level. The ice that's above the water level is in the air not the water, when it melts it melts into the water adding to it, thereby raising the water level. By arguing with the story about whether the sea ice melting will raise the level of water on earth, you are just arguing semantics, and showing your ignorance. Global warming is causing all the ice in the arctic/antarctic regions to melt, and you know what was meant by what was said in the article. If you don't then you need to go back to school and see if someone can teach you some common sense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf Ice floating on water melts, there will be no change in the water level (see Archimedes law). The ice floats only because its density is a little less than water - when it melts, it becomes water displacing exactly the same amount as before. You can check it yourself - put ice in a glass of water and make a mark at the water level. When all of the ice melts, check the water level - it will be the exactly same as before. For the dummies: go to grade 5 physics textbook and look up the Archimedes law.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by Kantorek at 06/17/2008 12:47 PM
The article takes what is happening in the Arctic and applies it to the entire world. This is simply flawed logic and it defies me that SA failed to discuss this fact. The intellectually honest approach is to deal only with the data given. So let's see, 3.1mm*15yrs/20% = 9 inches. Note this is quite liberal since 20% was lost in 2 years while the change in sea level is over a 15 yr span. Thus, the actual level change caused by a 20% loss is less than or equal to the change over 15 yrs. Why did not the writer point this out? Why didn't the editor insist on it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease SA don't take the alarmist sky is falling approach unless the data truly backs it up. We get plenty of the other in the mainstream media, We look to SA for a rational discourse, not this.
Isn't the Antarctic Ice Sheet building up, not melting? And if so, doesn't that negate some of the presumed melting of Greenland and the Western Penn.? As for sinking islands, could some of that be the result of islanders drawing water levels down from their wells and causing land to compress? (It happens in Florida). Since the oceans have gotten colder over the past few years as confirmed by JPLs Argo project, shouldn't the Arctic now be building up? Also, isn't the presumed rising of the ocean only about 1/2 inch over the past decade or so? If GWGs are increasing, its probably more due to clearcutting for food-to-fuel production.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKantorek, you think you are so quick. Archemedes Law is about how much water is displaced by something submerged in water. Glacial ice is not entirely submerged. The ice that's above the water, melts and raises the level of water, the ice that's submerged does nothing to the water level. Think about it. You're ice cube trick works because your ice cube is totally submerged in your glass. If you have an ice cube, shaped like a pyramid/cone, in your glass of water (like a glacier), approximately 10% of that is going to be above the water line. Do you really think that when that 10% melts/submerges you're water level won't rise?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this10% of the ice is typically above the water. The 90% below the water is displacing more volume than the same mass of water. Since the density of ice is 90% that of water, (91.67% to be exact), Kantorek is correct, Carl S is not. I agree with Carl S, think it through. Unfortunately, Carl did not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarl S. please act on your belief that there are too many people and kill yourself. That would show us that you are sincere and not just some dolt seeking attention. It is true that nature purges excess population on a regular basis. It is also true that the supportable population of any given area may change due to factors not directly controled by the population in question. Personally, I feel that we need to be thinking more dynamicaly about the environment and quit acting as if it is a stagnant system. I don't know what the real problems are so I offer no solutions. All I can say is that doom and gloom sells papers and wins elections.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe earth is not perfectly spherical. Due to gravitational / centrifugal forces, it is much wider around the equator than the poles. So any additional water will not be equally distributed. The lower latitudes may well be submerged under hundreds of feet of water while the sea level increase, at say 45 degrees, may only be a few feet. We could move inland off the coasts and help relocate a relatively few tropical islanders to continental higher ground.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHoldit a minute, the arctic ice cap is floating on the arctic ocean no net change when it melts. There are serious concerns with the Antarctic Ice Cap whis is mostly layed down over graoun, and the same for the greenland ice cap. The melting question that seems to be ignored is the vast amount of permafrost in Alaska, Canada and the Soviet Union. I took a drill rig from the Yukon river to the top of the brooks range during the construction of the Trans Alaska Pipeline. probabl;y 80% of the rout was underlain by nearly pure ice to depths greater than 20 feet. The conental glaciwers did not go anywhere, they are mearly hiding under the Moss.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFloating ice melt doesn't cause a rise in water levels. Only the melting of ice over land and the collapse of ice shelves, cause a rise. Unfortunately, this is occurring also.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismay be we should go to work by bus instead of by car,so the out put of carbon dioxide will decrease.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMelting ice floating does not raise the ocean levels anymore than the ice melting in your Iced Tea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDUH!
Regardless of the question of the capability of anything people can do altering the natural course of the Earth's warming and cooling cycles...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real danger of ice leaving the Arctic will be the thawing and subsequent rotting of all those cubic miles of muskeg.
Then you'll see some greenhouse gas release.
its time to pray.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is too late, we now have to be concerned with the consequences of uncontrolled and continued population growth. Having children is not man given right when the destruction of the planet is the consequences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile it is true that melting sea ice does not cause sea level rise, it exposes dark water where ice used to be resulting in increased average temperature of the water. Water does expand when it is warmer, and as a result there may be a small rise in sea levels when sea ice melts in massive amounts, though not as a direct volumetric result of the floating ice melting. The real fear is that the sea ice is actually protecting the land based ice and keeping it from melting or just flowing like a river into the sea, which would raise sea levels just like adding ice to that already filled up cup of tea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author has replied about this, please see below.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you, I am passing your reply on. The SCIAM community blog will be closing as of July 1, so I don't think many will see your reply; I am glad I did. I am trying an experiment right now with fresh water ice, salt water, and fresh water in beakers.
--------------------------------------------
Also, please see related document here:
http://nsidc.colorado.edu/news/press/20050801_floatingice.html
--------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: EarthTalk
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 7:39 AM
Subject: Complaint Department
Hi,
Our "300 feet" error was caught immediately and we sent editors a correction. Unfortunately some had already run the piece with that error.
Regarding sea ice, I understand what you are saying, but some sea ice rises above sea level itself, doesn't it, such that, if it melts, it would raise sea levels? I don't think "sea ice" implies that it's one massive flat skating surface...
Doug Moss
Editor
------------------------------------------
To: earthtalk@emagazine.com
Subject: Attn: Complaint Department
Several readers have found problems with an article downloaded appearing on the Scientific American website and linked to your address.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=arctic-ice-melts-cause-rising-sea
At first I did not see the problem, but having found it, I am sending it on for your consideration.
=====================================
[i]"Dear EarthTalk: Recent NASA photos showed the opening of the Northwest Passage and that a third of the Arctic’s sea ice has melted in recent. Are sea levels already starting to rise accordingly, and if so what effects is this having?
-- Dudley Robinson, Ireland"[/i]
--
Edited by Bradley at 06/28/2008 9:28 AM
There is no mention in the article about "melting sea ice". It refers to the east and west antarctic ice sheets, much of both lie on land. Basic stuff, reading.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSoothseeker, I came to the same conclusion. Further down in the comments someone was of the opinion that water is not evenly distributed over the earth - that the rotation causes more of an affect at the equator. My question is "where (geographically) is the rise in sea level measured in this article?" If a small rise at the poles does indeed cause a larger rise at the equator, then the global warming alarmists would undoubtedly use measurements taken there. I am convinced that SciAm is trying to skew the layman's view of global warming after reading numerous articles they print on the subject. There are a few glaring misrepresentations. After several years of simple personal observation of low lying islands, it is obvious they are disappearing, but not from any rise in sea level, but from normal weather affects including wash from tidal flow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEhm, take one look at a map and think for one second pls.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no land under the north pole.
All this Arctic ice ice already a part of the ocean. Floating ice does not add to the volume of the water when it melts cause it is already displacing the same volume of water that is in the block of ice.
Ehm, take one look at a map and think for one second pls.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no land under the north pole.
All this Arctic ice ice already a part of the ocean. Floating ice does not add to the volume of the water when it melts cause it is already displacing the same volume of water that is in the block of ice.
if the antartic melted it would add at least 61 meters of water to the world although that might be hard to happen at the temp of -37c.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSciAm-You are no scientist...that you permit such trash to be printed? Have you no peer review as other scientific journals demand? Such nonsense should be banned from the bookshelf. You'll not get my subscription $$.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRainhorse has it right. It doesnt take a Ph. D. to understand. He is incorrect only if ice melting in your margarita causes it to overflow the rim?
David Boleneus
rdholland, the reason Mars' and Jupiter's global warming is not attributed to SUVs is because THERE ARE NONE ON THOSE PLANETS!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this