Aw hell.....why not say “could raise 100” feet?
Wouldn’t cloud cover also increase? If it is warm enough to melt enough ice to raise sea levels by 1.5 metres, then isn’t it warm enough to turn more sea water into vapour? If that is the case, then are we likely to see increased rainfall in areas that are currently parched (areas such as the American aouthwest which was once much more green than now)?
I would challenge the merits of that "scientific" analysis because it does not make sense. There are puts and takes in connection with the ice sheets; while they are melting in the arctic, they are solidifying in the antarctic. Global warming peaked out in 1998. How much of the ice is floating? What are their assumptions, data, and methodology to come to such a strange conclusion? Is it political or scientific?
***Sea levels could rise by up to one-and-a-half metres by the end of this century...***
Call me back when they say “WILL rise”.
Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass, though the much bigger East Antarctic sheet may be gaining mass.
Gee, I guess Sea Level is going to fall in East Antartic...The a##’s need to change their models to include “RAIN.”
Ping.
In the meantime, Drudge is reporting that two bulldozers broke down trying to clear the roads in Yellowstone before they open the park for spring. I guess all that snow will suddenly melt and inundate coastal areas worldwide.
[/sarcasm throttle at station-keeping]
I predict the extra pressure at the bottom of the oceans will push water into the crust of the earth and a rise will only be negligible.
Doesn't anyone believe me? /sarcasm
What I want to know is: Why won’t George Bush allow the EPA to put flying monkeys on the endangered species list?
Hmmmm....
Not deep enough to cover D.C. & California......
Do these guys even read what they write? If they do read it, do they understand what they have written?
The title of this piece is "Forecast for big sea level rise". However that headline completely misses the "shocker" buried in this article. We have all known about forecasts of the sea level rising, big time, for a long time. Al Gore was awarded a Nobel Prize for saying the same thing. That is simply not news. What is news and ought to be trumpeted as such by the media (but don't hold your breath waiting for it) is in the following suggested replacement headline:
Scientist Declares that IPCC Sea Level Rise Forecasts are Wrong.
Now, that's a headline that you don't see from the BBC, ever, yet that is the gist of the report covered in this article. The BBC's not-very-well-hidden agenda and narrative goes something like, "You see? This forecast is even more dire than the previous one, therefore the crisis is even worse than previously thought". However there's no basis for such a conclusion. Rather, what an open-minded reporter should conclude is that if you believe this forecast, then of necessity you must disbelieve the IPCC forecast. One forecast or the other (or both) must be wrong. So, rather than impelling governments and people to act with greater urgency, this should be interpreted as casting doubt on the forecasting methodology or data or theories (or all of the above) that went into producing the IPCC forecasts. The take-home message is that we need to proceed much more carefully and judiciously when setting policies based on forecasts whose accuracy and worth have neither been proven nor independently tested and verified...
Excellent! I'll enjoy sitting on my porch watching the waves roll in 200 years from now...
The BBC lost its objectivity long ago and is now one of the most persistent global warming evangelists.
Don't these third world idiots have enough sense to move back from the shore?
So, if you put ice in a cup, then fill it with water, when the ice cubes melt, the cup will overflow?
I don’t think so.
What a bunch of morons.
LOL, that is funny. It was just a while back Al Gore was telling us the IPCC was predicting it was gonna rise 20 feet by the end of the century. Now that have 'raised' the forcast to 1.5 meters. Bull crap. It has been significantly lowered.