NASA Scientists Paint Stark Picture of Accelerating Sea Level Rise 382
A NASA panel yesterday announced widely reported finding that global sea levels have risen about three inches since 1992, and that these levels are expected to keep rising as much as several more feet over the next century -- on the upper end of model-based predictions that have been made so far. From the Sydney Morning Herald piece linked above: NASA says Greenland has lost an average of 303 gigatons [of ice] yearly for the past decade. Since it takes 360 gigatons to raise sea level by a millimetre, that would suggest Greenland has done this about eight times over just in the last 10 years or so.
"People need to be prepared for sea level rise," said Joshua Willis, an oceanographer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge. "It's not going to stop."
Action Required !! (Score:2, Insightful)
If this is actually a credible report, then the U.S. government needs to stop funding the rebuilding/construction of areas that are CURRENTLY under sea level like New Orleans and the dikes and berms around it. No more federal funds of any kind for regions currently under water!
Until basic common sense measures like these happen, then we can rightly conclude this is just another "climate change hysteria" study. If the government doesn't believe in their own studies, then it is wrong to use them to force acti
That would be penny wise and pound foolish (Score:5, Insightful)
If this is actually a credible report, then the U.S. government needs to stop funding the rebuilding/construction of areas that are CURRENTLY under sea level like New Orleans and the dikes and berms around it. No more federal funds of any kind for regions currently under water!
By that logic we should just write off large swathes of the Netherlands. Dykes and berms work just fine, and we have the engineering means to keep portions of land we consider valuable dry even if the waters rise 10 or 20 feet. New Orleans would fit in this category in my opinion. It is a unique part of American heritage and a cultural gem (one of not-so-many the US possesses), well worth the investment of Federal dollars to keep around.
Not to mention that it is by far less expensive to retain land by shoring up or building new dykes, than it is to reclaim land already submerged. Not as cheap as ditching it of course, but in places where it is worthwhile (New York City, Hoboken, New Orleans, Holland, and various other places) it is much smarter to keep existing places dry than leave them to be inundated and then realize our mistake later and either lose them forever, or pay even more to reclaim them.
Re:That would be penny wise and pound foolish (Score:5, Funny)
Hoboken is worth keeping? Now that's something :)
I'm not radicalized in either direction on climate change, but there are very talented people at NASA. Maybe we should listen.
Re: (Score:2)
At what point would it make more sense to abandon a low-lying city or relocate it to higher ground than to shore it up? Until this question is answered, nobody can say for sure that New Orleans or New York City is worth saving.
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic we should just write off large swathes of the Netherlands.
That doesn't follow. The Netherlands don't have a choice. We do.
Dykes and berms work just fine, and we have the engineering means to keep portions of land we consider valuable dry even if the waters rise 10 or 20 feet.
That also doesn't follow. The dyke and berm system in New Orleans was being "shored up" using local, State, and Federal money, yet "somehow" a very large part of the money mysteriously ended up elsewhere, and not spent on building or maintaining dykes and berms.
The engineering and technology do work just fine... but the "system" of dykes and berms did not.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, a lot depends on how your actions fit into your long term vision, if anything. "We'll just rebuild this neighborhood and everything will be hunky-dory" is obviously not a long term plan.
The reason the Netherlands flood control makes sense is that the value of 25% of their country's land area far outweighs the cost of reclaiming it, as simple as that. When the net present value of keeping the flood waters off a piece ofland exceeds the net present value of the use you'll get from it, then it's time
Re: (Score:2)
If this is actually a credible report, then the U.S. government needs to stop funding the rebuilding/construction of areas that are CURRENTLY under sea level like New Orleans and the dikes and berms around it.
New Orleans was built on the high ground. But over time, parts of it slowly sank into the soft marshland underneath. There is no way they will abandon it. It's cheaper to continue to keep the water out. And it is mostly state and local money being spent, so let the locals vote with their pocketbook. I'm glad, because it is indeed a very special place.
Re: (Score:2)
They won't abandon NO. But the 9th ward isn't going to be rebuilt. The residents don't have the resources and are stuck living in the next cheapest available housing.
That said the 9th ward should not be rebuilt at all. It should be a park that is used as a flood basin, being the lowest part of NO.
The 9th was also a culturally self reinforcing shithole. The residents are better off spread out, so they can be slowly civilized by their new neighbors.
Re: (Score:2)
But over time, parts of it slowly sank into the soft marshland underneath.
But the fourth one stayed up!
Re: (Score:2)
New Orleans has the inherent problem of being built ion a river delta. All deltas subside slowly with time, even given the same sea level, but in nature are continually replenished at the surface by new silt coming down the river. After you build a city, this process cannot continue.
Has anyone thought of drilling a grid of injection wells throughout New Orleans so that fresh mud could be injected at some calculated level under the city to slowly raise it? This would obviously have to take place at the same
Re: (Score:2)
Until basic common sense measures like these happen, then we can rightly conclude this is just another "climate change hysteria" study. If the government doesn't believe in their own studies, then it is wrong to use them to force actions on others.
You expect government to act sensibly?
And you propose we ignore scientific studies until governments take action?
Sounds like a recipe for doom.
Re:Action Required !! (Score:4, Insightful)
The 9th Ward *will* be rebuilt with condos once all the poor people have been kicked out and the developers have their hands on it.
Easy to say, hard to do (Score:3)
If this is actually a credible report, then the U.S. government needs to stop funding the rebuilding/construction of areas that are CURRENTLY under sea level like New Orleans and the dikes and berms around it.
That turns out to be harder than you would think.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea... [fivethirtyeight.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If this is actually a credible report, then the U.S. government needs to stop funding the rebuilding/construction of areas that are CURRENTLY under sea level like New Orleans and the dikes and berms around it.
That turns out to be harder than you would think.
Uh no. No it isn't, at least, not to do a pretty decent job. You just don't give any funding for rebuilding, you prohibit any funding given for other purposes from being used for rebuilding, and you prohibit any disaster relief check recipients from using the money for buying back into their ruined communities. Some people will do it anyway, spend the minimum effort preventing that during the escrow process, some people will slip through but you can catch most of 'em.
You may not be able to stop people from
Re: (Score:2)
It should be noted that with the current levees around New Orleans, the sea level rise referred to in TFS will become a problem somewhere around 4000AD (the city averages about 500 mm below sea level, the levees rather more than 1500 mm above sea level)....
And this assumes we don't just shovel another foot of dirt onto the levees every couple centuries....
Re: (Score:2)
When you look at the levees height you have to look at maximum high tide but possible storm surge (or maximum flood of the river, God forbid all 3 happen at the same time). SLR will be a problem for New Orleans a lot sooner than you think.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If this is actually a credible report, then the U.S. government needs to stop funding the rebuilding/construction of areas that are CURRENTLY under sea level like New Orleans and the dikes and berms around it. No more federal funds of any kind for regions currently under water!
Until basic common sense measures like these happen, then we can rightly conclude this is just another "climate change hysteria" study. If the government doesn't believe in their own studies, then it is wrong to use them to force actions on others.
The problem with New Orleans is that it's the major port city at the mouth of the Mississippi River. As long as it's feasible they'll keep it going. If the IPCC projections are correct 'Nawlins has maybe another 50 or 75 years.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI the port of New Orleans was up and running in time for the crop the year of Katrina.
The 9th ward is still even more of a ruin than it was prior to the hurricane.
One of these things is not like the other.
Nobody is going to rebuild a slum. Slums are the leftovers. Poor people live where nobody else wants to. Sucks to be them.
Republican response: (Score:2, Funny)
*takes out a cup filled with ice* See! The ice melting doesn't raise the water. So obviously global warming is fake. May God smite those heathen nerds!
I live on a hill (Score:2)
I live on a hill, so I guess I'm safe. Can't wait till I have waterfront property though.
Re: (Score:2)
Here [bbc.com] are some people who lived on a hill near the ocean. Hope you do better than they did.
Re: (Score:2)
Here [bbc.com] are some people who lived on a hill near the ocean. Hope you do better than they did.
Thats not a hill, it's a coastal sand dune. Building your home on a beach dune is idiotic at the best of times.
So long Bangladesh (Score:2)
So long Bangladesh.
La Cañada? (Score:2)
3mm is the key (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:3mm is the key (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.skepticalscience.co... [skepticalscience.com]
Scroll down to figure 3... "Global mean sea level from 1870 to 2006 with one standard deviation error"
What is the first thing that you notice about the character of this plot? Is is linear? Does your statement make sense from what you know of trends and basic algerbra?
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.skepticalscience.co... [skepticalscience.com]
Scroll down to figure 3... "Global mean sea level from 1870 to 2006 with one standard deviation error"
What is the first thing that you notice about the character of this plot? Is is linear? Does your statement make sense from what you know of trends and basic algerbra?
Looks pretty close to linear from where I sit. For absolute certain it's slight acceleration is grossly slower than temperature rise, so that's hopefull we aren't facing any grossly non-linear sea rise. Bonus is that in the IPCC latest report they graph instrumental to projected and it has tracked at the low end of projections.
Re: (Score:2)
Scroll down to figure 3... "Global mean sea level from 1870 to 2006 with one standard deviation error"
What is the first thing that you notice about the character of this plot? Is is linear? Does your statement make sense from what you know of trends and basic algerbra?
Does it matter?
The sea will rise, or it won't... we aren't going to stop burning coal, oil, or natural gas in either case...
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I see meteorologists, hydrographers and satellite image analysts driving around in Ferraris.
No, wait, that's oil company executives, you fucking idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
How much of that $32 billion was spent on satellites, building, launching and downloading and processing the data over the lifetime of a satellite? How much of it was spent on constantly improving supercomputers to run models on? How much on 10s of thousands of Earthbound devices to monitor climate and collecting and processing that datta? The tools of the trade are expensive.
Re:3mm is the key (Score:5, Informative)
So where are the government founded profits, in launching satellites and building expensive computers for weather forecasts and climate modelling at $1.6 billion per year and which aren't profitable to sell, or in mining coal and oil and gas for $25 billion in subsidies, and which you can then sell for a profit on the market?
So whoever brings up the financial gain argument against the climate scientists, has to honestly conclude that the financial interest on the anti-climate-scientist-stance is much more plausible. If you want to follow the money, the big stinking trace goes to oil and gas, and not to climate research and renewables.
Maldives (Score:2)
I can tell from the comments (Score:5, Interesting)
I can tell from the comments most of you don't live near the ocean. Down here in South Florida it's already making an impact. There are storm drains that flow water during high tide up and down the coast and boat docks underwater. Miami is worse. Hallendale Beach has five of their seven fresh water pumps closed because of salt water intrusion.
The real problem that no one is talking about is what happens when Miami gets nailed by a Cat 4 or 5 hurricane? We're going to have boats washing up on I-95. Do we spend the money to rebuild Miami just to have it flood 40 years later? Or when it gets nailed by another hurricane?
Re: (Score:2)
It's three inches since 1992. Not that that's so terrible - unless you live somewhere like South Florida. It looks like they might get hit by a small hurricane in the next few days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Storms change beaches a lot faster than the alleged ocean level change.
It's funny you mention storms, because a small change in ocean level rise equals a substantial increase in flood surge distances inland. It's obviously going to be greater than 1:1 because the land slopes, on average, at less than 45 degrees; especially around FL, LA, etc.
Three inches of ocean level rise means feet less beach, even without storms.
In other words ... (Score:2)
Only Greenland? (Score:2)
that would suggest Greenland has done this about eight times over
Isn't there land based ice melting into the oceans from other places, like say, Antarctica?
Re: (Score:2)
For now, Antarctica is losing much less ice than Greenland.
Re: (Score:2)
what they don't take into account is the amount of sea ice that reforms during local Winter.
Or the fact that in Summer in the Northern hemisphere, it's Winter in the South and vice versa.
Plus they ignore data prior to 1976 for the simple reason that according to them it's not accurate enough when the truth is it doesn't fit their model.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, water expands when it warms. The density of water is greatest at around 4C. Given how deep the ocean is, it doesn't take a lot of warming to raise the sea level noticeably. I read recently that around 1/3 of the sea level rise is due to melting mountain glaciers, 1/3 from increasing ocean temperature and 1/3 from Greenland ice melting. I suspect the amount of ice from Antarctica will increase significantly now that the ice shelves are breaking up which are holding back a lot of ice.
Severe shortsightedness (Score:2)
Only bad if you don't live in North Carolina (Score:2)
<sarcasm>It won't be a problem in North Carolina because they banned sea level rise [scientificamerican.com] planning. Texas and Florida should be fine too because you can't talk about climate change there or plan for it, so therefore it's not happening there. Clearly this so-called sea-level rise only happens in places where those pesky liberals who believe this so-called science live. Why, God will just protect these states just like he parted the Red Sea for Moses.</sarcasm>
8mm a decade is NOT 76.2mm over 2 (Score:2)
Simple math exposes the blatantly fraudulent claims being made here. Also where does TFS make the switch between imperial and metric measurement and where does it distinguish between the two for those who don't know what the fuck an inch is? (it's 25.4mm)
Military can solve this! (Score:2)
Can't America send in some drone strikes against those pesky Greenlanders who are dumping their ice in the water? Bombing them will teach them a lesson!
There's only one thing to do (Score:4, Funny)
There's only one thing to do: buy real estate in Greenland.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
If you live 1,000 ft above current sea level, you may need to be concerned in just 90000 years or so! The threat is real. (but yes, also other bad things can happen.)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:"...need to be prepared..." (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"...need to be prepared..." (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, it will be noticed.
A one foot rise in sea level is going to create a lot more shallow water basins and tidal flat areas. All that increase in surface area is going to increase evaporation rates. That will result in an increase in atmospheric water vapor, which is one of the more potent greenhouse gases, which introduces a new positive feedback to global warming.
But in turn the increased atmospheric water vapor will, under some conditions, create an increase in clouds, which will lower the insolation of the land and ocean below them and tend to counter global warming. Since evaporation and cloud formation will be regional, there will be a stronger thermal differential between regions, which will make severe weather incidents more frequent and more intense.
People are going to be displaced by storm damage more than by the simple rise in sea level. If every year 3 to 5 port cities on the East Coast of the USA were hit by an incident on the level of Hurricane Katrina, what would that permanent stream of refugees look like? How could even the wealthiest nation keep up the infrastructure repairs needed to keep those cities functional?
No one knows how to model this, so there can be no scientific talk about it yet. All we can know is that somewhere along the way as the seas rise to 21 feet above their current level, these kinds of effects are going to occur. I think the flooding that will happen with a one foot rise will be enough to change the Earth's weather engine. I may be off by a few feet... or by a few inches. We'll have to wait and see.
Re:"...need to be prepared..." (Score:4, Insightful)
I think his point is that a lot of the alarmism seriously damages the ability for AGW proponents to reach people. Cities are quite fluid creatures, and as long as the seal level rise doesn't make specific sections of land uninhabitable overnight but rather in a 10-20 year period, we can plan for it and react timely. Of course, this doesn't account for problems like the severe weather you mentioned and a Katrina-level event, but we have completely different systems in place to deal with the more severe changes associated with them ("National Emergeny", aid injections, etc).
There's a lot of people who aren't deniers that anything is happening, but just don't see a reasonable solution available that would prevent the problems we anticipate happening. Our global society is simply too fragmented to apply and enforce a stop or reduction in CO2 PPM. So, we focus on damage prevention rather than problem prevention - what technical solutions can we come up with over the next 30 years that might make this problem, not a problem at all. Or, what problems are something we can adapt to on a normal time scale with our current setups. This latter category is one that I and many others think the "sea level rise" problem falls into, and feel that people terrified of New York City magically being underwater in 100 years drastically underestimates human ingenuity.
Re: (Score:3)
Since you bring up Katrina level event, I would like to have a list of cities built 5 feet below sea level so we can start talking about evacuating them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So, those few cities should be moved, but the vast majority of cities are not below sea level, so there is zero chance of a Katrina level event happening in the wide majority of the US. I have been to New Orleans, I have seen the levies, I have seen the 5 foot or so of water elevation there. I am still dumbfounded that peo
Re: (Score:3)
the problem with sea level rise that deniers miss (willfully ignore) isn't the (roughly) steady state level of the water (a threat, but a much more long term threat for all but the low lying island peoples).
The much more immediate short term problem is surge, both normal and storm. Particularly storm.
Some places have more surge than others and will experience rising sea levels more quickly.
So move everyone inland 20 miles... or 50...
This isn't rocket science...
Let me turn this around... ask yourself why New Orleans was reopened and rebuilt and why not one mile of the city was closed off to homes?
Re: (Score:3)
There are helluva lot of people who live very close to sea level.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Sure, but the people on the inland side of the road will be able to look forward to owning beachfront property!
True, but probably in several hundred years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You need to get a life and to get on topic here. Try being yourself even though you're a fake online name loser.
OK I have to ask: as a stalking arsehole, how long did it take before you could tolerate your own hypocrisy?
Perhaps you've become immune by starting small and growing accustomed to it, like the Man in Black did with Iocain powder?
Re:"...need to be prepared..." (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure. Or sooner if you are economically tied to businesses or people near the coast; or businesses or people not near the coast; or businesses or people not near the coast but dependant on others that are. That's the downside of living in a modern economy. I didn't hold any toxic mortgage backed financial instruments, but I sure felt the pain when the capital markets went tits up in 08.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"If you live 1,000 ft above current sea level, you may need to be concerned in just 90000 years or so! "
Actually no, because if all the land-based ice (the kind that affects sea level) in the world were to melt, the sea would rise 70m (about 230').
Not all of the effects of global warming even of that magnitude would be catastrophic, or even negative. For example, Florida would disappear entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
There is still steric sea level rise, the rise from heating water and salinity changes. But that probably still leaves you under 300 feet.
Re: (Score:2)
The sea level rise is expect to accelerate and go up over three feet in the next 100 years. Still, that's not going to drown anybody. Sea level rise is annoying, but it gets far too much attention.
Droughts and ocean acidification are scarier. I don't know where it will dry out or what problems the acidification will cause, but doing an experiment on our environment is not a sane way to find out.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the billion plus people it brings more storm surge damages or routine flooding to will cost the world (that's you, taxpayer) trillions of dollars in damage mitigation. Sea level rises thousands of years ago cost you nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
I will never understand why some people accept that "sea levels rose 125m in the last 10,000 years", but call BS when the same people tell them "AGW is a serious problem"? It seems to be related to the common religious behaviour where people pick and choose the bits they like, then labels the rest as BS?
Re: (Score:2)
Sea levels rose 125m in the last 10,000 years or so
fell 10m in the last 1,000 or so
We care about 3 inches because??????
Seriously, isn't everyone tired of this BS by now?
Where do you get the idea that sea level fell by 10m in the last 1,000 years or so? As far as I can see by eyeballing graphs sea level rose maybe 0.15m (~6 inches) during that time.
Re: (Score:3)
Because New Orleans and Miami are already mighty close to being drowned at high tide, and doing the logical and cheap thing (moving them to Detroit, which has perfectly fine water resources, is 500-600 feet above sea level, has plenty of space to build new housing, and no hurricane issues) is a political non-starter.
Moreover these estimates aren't really shrinking, so it's entirely possible that in 2115 mSparks43 III will read that comment and say "Geez, grandad sure was wrong about what would happen to Lad
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "...need to be prepared..." (Score:5, Interesting)
AKA your kids get to grow up in permanent refugee crisis world.
And you know what ? I am a fool to care about this, because I'll be dead before shit gets really real. Hope you leave your kids some money!
Re: (Score:3)
That is just Greenland and does not cover Antarctica.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Consider...
Why should you be expecting anyone else to think when you clearly can't even be bothered to?
measured data [Re:Oversimplification] (Score:5, Informative)
Scientists dumb down data so science magazines can understand. Mainstream media further simplifies for the general population to understand. Even the summary states that this guestimation is based on a different guestimation of how many gigatons of ice have melted. If 360 gigatons of ice on land melt, it is estimated that it will raise the sea level by 1 mm. However, if the ice is already in the sea, it won't raise the sea level. The dumbed down story doesn't say how much of the missing ice was already in the ocean vs on the land, so we can't use numbers to say that sea level has risen 8mm over that decade.
The 303 gigaton number was for Greenland ice. Greenland ice is on land.
Since we are talking about NASA, why don't they measure the actual sea level instead of playing this numbers game?
They do. Read the linked articles. These are satellite measurements of sea level.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/n... [nasa.gov]
http://www.nasa.gov/risingseas... [nasa.gov]
Greenland is land (Score:2)
Re:Greenland is land (Score:4, Funny)
But if the sea level rises enough then Greenland will be underwater. Then the ice will have been going to be in the water, so it will be have been sea ice. So the sea level will be not have been going to rise!
.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists dumb down data so science magazines can understand. Mainstream media further simplifies for the general population to understand. Even the summary states that this guestimation is based on a different guestimation of how many gigatons of ice have melted. If 360 gigatons of ice on land melt, it is estimated that it will raise the sea level by 1 mm. However, if the ice is already in the sea, it won't raise the sea level. The dumbed down story doesn't say how much of the missing ice was already in the ocean vs on the land, so we can't use numbers to say that sea level has risen 8mm over that decade.
Since we are talking about NASA, why don't they measure the actual sea level instead of playing this numbers game?
The summary says sea level has gone up about 9 inches since 1992. That's 76 mm, divide that by 23 years and you get about 3.3 mm per year since 1992.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops, I said 9 inches but it was only 3 inches. Nevermind.
Re: (Score:2)
You really are a nut
Re: (Score:2)
What's it like hiding behind online fake names for 20 yrs. as you're a loser in life? It's symptomatic of your kind, losers, you know.
Says the AC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's the cherry-picking I was talking about. See how there's no corresponding list of times you were DOWN-modded? Yeah, that's the APK way!
You really are stupider than you appear if you think that MM and I are the same person.
Oh, and as it happens I would happily defend my Slashdot FOES against you, Alexander "Anus-Cancer Of Slashdot" Kowalski, if you're busy engaging in antisocial behaviour.
Anti-social behaviour: try to see the thread here, I know it's hard for you. You don't get thrashed by me when you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, that's easy. If neither facts, statistics, common-sense nor reason can get through to you then why would I expect you to accept an answer I give you now? That would be delusional.
Re: (Score:2)
U.S. Naval map backs him. Your 20 year fake online name's delusional and nothing backs you. Grow up little boy.
And so it begins. I'm not APK, no, I'm just an anonymous friend who shows up to assist APK in his assault against the whole world.
Nope, no APK here, nope! Everyone is dreaming, APK is right! Watch as all his anonymous friends line up to support him! Look, they're accusing people of 'hiding behind fake names'. Do you think they get the joke?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Please don't engage him. He's not even amusing. I'll take a good tranny furry slashfic troll over host file shilling.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I think your brain is failing you again old fool - if you look carefully, you'll see it's actually yourself who is posting anonymously.
Now, as to your hypocrisy, I don't need to state anything, your idiot words are there for all to read and your blind stupidity at then denying your hypocrisy provides entertainment for all.
I do so love playing with low-IQ trolls like you because your type always twitches amusingly when poked with a stick.
Best of all, you're outraged that someone distracted you from your own
Re: (Score:2)
The rise will stop. There is a finite amount of water on the planet that can end up in the oceans.
True but the sea could rise quite a bit before we get to that if you have a look at the sea level over the past 500 million years [wikipedia.org]. Interestingly it seems that we live in a time of surprisingly low sea levels. A 200 metre sea rise would affect quite a few people.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you *insist* on being pedantic, what they mean is "It's not going to stop before it causes a degree havoc most people would find inconceivable."
I think they kind of expect people to understand they're not claiming that the water levels will rise, drowning the Moon, inundating the Sun, and eventually filling up the entire universe.
What emissions are used for: (Score:2)
Yes, because the majority of emissions are from cars, and cars aren't such a minor contributor as to actually be diverting interest and resources away from the major polluters, or even legitimate minor ones
About 13% of global carbon emission is from transportation:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechan... [epa.gov]
--although transportation accounts for twice that in the US, 28% of the US emissions:
http://climate.dot.gov/about/t... [dot.gov]
about a third of which is cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Conservatives should purchase beach-front property if they are so confident in hoaxing. Some is already selling at a discount due to climate change risk.
Can we get a citation on that? I don't have a lot of cash, but I'd love to buy some beachfront property if it is cheap. And I'd be willing to adapt to the ocean rising 0.13 inches per year. That should give me enough time to move my lawn chair.
Meanwhile, don't forget that Al Gore spent $8.87 million on his beachfront getaway. But what does he know?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Gore's house in Montecito is half a mile from the ocean and around 500 feet above sea level which you would have figured out if you'd looked at the photos in your link. It's in no danger due to sea level rise now or in the future as the maximum possible rise is less than 300 feet.
Re: (Score:2)
Al Gore bought a 3rd house that is only a few feet above the current water line.
Re: (Score:2)
Coming out of the last glaciation sea level rose over 100 meters but since about 6,000 years ago it has hardly varied more than about 1 meter.
Re: (Score:2)
The extra eruptions may actually be a good thing as the ash clouds will have a albedo increasing, therefore cooling, effect. To bad if you live near one, or in California.
I live in the world's largest volcano field, in California, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the great ice sheets are behind the curve on melting and even if it stopped getting warmer tomorrow they would continue to melt for several centuries until they caught up to the new equilibrium point. I'd be surprise if there was less than 20 feet of sea level rise by 300 years from now and what we do now has an effect on how much total SLR there will be in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the maximum possible sea level rise is probably in the 300 foot range from current levels.