Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Forecast for big sea level rise
BBC News ^ | 15 April 2008 | Richard Black

Posted on 04/15/2008 6:25:11 PM PDT by Aristotelian

Sea levels could rise by up to one-and-a-half metres by the end of this century, according to a new scientific analysis.

This is substantially more than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecast in last year's landmark assessment of climate science.

Sea level rise of this magnitude would have major impacts on low-lying countries such as Bangladesh.

The findings were presented at a major science conference in Vienna.

(snip)

"The rapid rise in the coming years is associated with the rapid melting of ice sheets."

(snip)

The latest satellite data indicates that the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass, though the much bigger East Antarctic sheet may be gaining mass.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: agw
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: Eccl 10:2
I absolutely loved that part of the movie. My great grandchilron will call their Nevada seaside resort.......

NAILERVILLE

41 posted on 04/15/2008 8:03:29 PM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in small groups or in whole armies, we don't care how we do it, but we're gonna getcha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian
So what is the probability of this outcome vs. the probability of the sea level remaining virtually unchanged?

Does this "scientific analysis" have predictions for the near term (5-10 year time frame)?

The problem with these predictions is they are just sensationalism to generate media buzz. It's not about the science, it's about the media recognition so they can get more grant money to generate more dire predictions.

42 posted on 04/15/2008 8:07:23 PM PDT by eggman (Democrat party - The black hole of liberalism from which no rational thought can escape.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
All 100 million Bangladeshis would be delighted to move to California, given the opportunity.

Oh, those poor, misguided souls.

43 posted on 04/15/2008 8:12:40 PM PDT by Rudder (Klinton-Kool-Aid FReepers prefer spectacle over victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

You obviously have no idea of living conditions in Bagladesh.


44 posted on 04/15/2008 8:17:35 PM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (The women got the vote and the Nation got Harding.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
Both ice sheets are gaining in mass.

Greenland and West Antartica are losing mass, while East Antartica is gaining mass, according to the article.

Which two ice sheets do you think are gaining mass? Source?

45 posted on 04/15/2008 8:20:43 PM PDT by secretagent ((editorial question))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
Which two ice sheets do you think are gaining mass? Source?

Greenland is losing ice around the edge, but that's always going on, inevitably. However, in the interior, Greenland is gaining ice at a rate faster than the loss around the edges, so much so, it has been calculated that the sea level has actually been decreased recently by something a millimeter. Anyway, as a whole, Antarctica is also gaining ice mass regardless of West Antarctica. I'll look for the source and post it.
46 posted on 04/15/2008 8:35:42 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian

Not gonna happen - global cooling will turn so much sea water into ice that the increased weight at the polar ice cap will cause the globe to flip over.

Sorry, goron, you picked the wrong weather cycle.


47 posted on 04/15/2008 8:43:59 PM PDT by Let's Roll (As usual, following a shooting spree, libs want to take guns away from those who DIDN'T do it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
Which two ice sheets do you think are gaining mass? Source?

Greenland is losing ice around the edge, but that's always going on, inevitably. However, in the interior, Greenland is gaining ice at a rate faster than the loss around the edges, so much so, it has been calculated that the sea level has actually been decreased recently by something a millimeter. Anyway, as a whole, Antarctica is also gaining ice mass regardless of West Antarctica. I'll look for the source and post it.

Sorry, that was about 1/10mm/year.

In Greenland, the ice loss at lower altitudes is "-2.0 ± 0.9 cm/year, in qualitative agreement with reported thinning in the ice-sheet margins," but that "an increase of 6.4 ± 0.2 cm/year is found in the vast interior areas above 1500 meters." Spatially averaged over the bulk of the ice sheet, the net result is a mean increase of 5.4 ± 0.2 cm/year, "or ~60 cm over 11 years, or ~54 cm when corrected for isostatic uplift.""
48 posted on 04/15/2008 8:51:03 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne

I wonder how much the bodies of all the global warming demagogues would cause the sealevel to rise? ;’)


49 posted on 04/15/2008 8:58:35 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_____________________Profile updated Saturday, March 29, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

yikes...that could mean the Sahara Forest


50 posted on 04/15/2008 9:07:09 PM PDT by stylin19a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps; proud_yank; FrPR; enough_idiocy; rdl6989; IrishCatholic; Delacon; ...
Thanx!

 




Beam me to Planet Gore !

51 posted on 04/15/2008 9:16:06 PM PDT by steelyourfaith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Clioman

You just took the first step of the rest of [y]our life’s journey - why else would such outrageous predictions be made based on a point where verification is rendered humanly impossible?


52 posted on 04/15/2008 9:23:33 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

No, that’s why you see all those houses out in the ocean that were built a hundred years ago.


53 posted on 04/15/2008 9:25:23 PM PDT by willyd (Tickets, fines, fees, permits and inspections are synonyms for taxes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian
I live just above sea level on the Big Island and over the past three years we have seen minus three + low tides regularly.

Of course this isn't a scientific study....just another fishing tale.
54 posted on 04/15/2008 9:31:46 PM PDT by BIGLOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zeppo
You are far too analytical and logical to be still here; us old-timers must recognize when it is time to go.

But, before we leave, today's sunspot image gives rise and hope to the AGW crowd as we see a new spot (at least the number) in the anticipated latitudinal location; perhaps Cycle 24 has started after all and doom awaits:

[this image automatically updates each day]

55 posted on 04/15/2008 9:35:12 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian


56 posted on 04/15/2008 9:38:14 PM PDT by dixiechick2000 (Renegade conservative, now registered as a 'Rat, in support of Operation Chaos.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: willyd

This is not a designated fishing area...

Facts, pictures or citations, please.


57 posted on 04/15/2008 9:38:40 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

Glad I’m at 6800 ft.

For now... In 92 more years, you’ll be at only 6795 feet, and THEN you’ll be in trouble, mister!


I don’t care who you are, that’s funny right there.


58 posted on 04/16/2008 5:19:51 AM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

LOL-Good reply.


59 posted on 04/16/2008 10:44:58 AM PDT by unkus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: urabus
"land rises"

That is called isostatic rebound. It is the reason why most of the lower U.S. has few lakes and Canada has a gazillion of them. When the huge two mile high ice mass retreated (melted actually) ten thousand years ago or so, it left some huge lakes in its wake. Like glacial Lake Agassiz which covered much of northern Minnesota and Wisconsin. Now there are no huge lakes inside Minnesota and Wisconsin boundaries. We have the Great Lakes, and Canada has quite a few . But in another ten thousand years or so if the the rebound continues many of these huge lakes will drain as the land rises.

60 posted on 04/16/2008 12:05:19 PM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson