claimed a small but vocal group of climate scientists that global warming leads to melting of polar ice, as in Greenland. Your scenario involves at once the global sea level rise by up to seven meters. Greenland was now in the early Middle Ages largely ice-free (hence the name), then the sea level was still lower than today. Many today only accessible by boat North Sea islands were at that time, accessible at least at low tide, on foot.
We now observe, then, that in the early Middle Ages (around 1100) was much warmer than now, therefore, have there been less ice at the poles must. However, the sea level was lower than now, and we then asked how these scientists come to the thesis, a melting of the poles could have been a result of rising sea levels. The past proves the opposite.
Interestingly, those researchers appointed to prepare their forecasts accessible to the past. You mean the change in the climate of the past 200 years, one could predict the future development of the global climate. Given the age of our planet 2.4 billion years ago to just a mad undertaking. This illustrates one of the Hegelian way of thinking due misconception. As Hegel once think these researchers, one can conclude on the basis of past data for future development. This approach is at least as serious as the prognosis of the development of the copper price from the data of the copper price development over the past 200 years. A nice theory, which regards scientific untenable and therefore unusable. Curiously, these are just projections of the media, politicians and other kin are called to create a hysteria that seems completely unfounded. So far, there is still no successful scientists to prove that there is a man-made influence on global climate. If one approach, however, the available data (available depending on the region from about 1780) you can find in fact a warming either but also a slowdown. The fact that the global monitoring network was tighter in recent years and more data were evaluated to make the planet warmer still far, here is again on the age of the earth noted the last 200 years are 0.0008% thereof (sic). Satellites can now show the way, no significant increase in global temperatures, they are considered the most reliable measurement instruments are not used frequently.
The climate is far too complex for any scientist could explain climate phenomena. It's quite simple, people (or even better the industrialists) to shift the responsibility for something that one does not understand the victim is marked obsolete the serious discussion of the topic, the public (which does not consist mostly of experts) startled.
The belief in the human Omnipotence (a homo-centric world view) for climate phenomena can be only one explanation, they must be anthropogenic. But that the man himself on this planet no longer has the influence he himself attributes to always like them does not come to mind. What kind of a misanthropic world view must be a researcher who studied the human misery all evil?
would find global warming now, but actually held and the sea level would rise just not (this phenomenon can not be explained climatologically, but physically), this would only be useful for mankind. could in Siberia and the Canadian Northwest territories without further agriculture operated, small non-profitable areas in other parts of the world could be used for settlement. A warmer climate allows plants to grow better and faster, and yields rose, more people than ever could better nourished at even more attractive prices are. But the next cold spell comes for sure, maybe next week already ...
