NASA Says Three Feet of Sea Level Rise Is Unavoidable

originally posted by: avgguy
2.3 millimeters a year is what was mentioned in the same article. So how does 430 yrs for 1 meter equal 100yrs or as soon as a decade? NASA can't math

So nobody wants to explain the fuzzy math?

originally posted by: avgguy

originally posted by: avgguy
2.3 millimeters a year is what was mentioned in the same article. So how does 430 yrs for 1 meter equal 100yrs or as soon as a decade? NASA can't math

So nobody wants to explain the fuzzy math?

As if anyone could.... without lying.

Käptn Obvious strikes back...

“It’s a larger problem than we initially thought.” Co-author Carling Hay added in an interview with BBC: “The acceleration into the last two decades is far worse than previously thought. This new acceleration is about 25 percent higher than previous estimates.”

www.washingtonpost.com...


Previous estimates?

A United Nations subcommittee led by Dr. Clark and Dr. Church said last year that if human emissions of greenhouse gases continued at a high level, the sea could rise as much as three feet by the end of this century, or possibly even more in the worst case. The research from Harvard and Rutgers has already set off efforts to develop new forecasts, with results due in the coming months.

www.nytimes.com...

And that, my dear ATSliens, is just a very conservative premise. You do the math now!

Nasa really didn't lie this time, eh?
Hmm... they must be in desperate need for some good PR then.



a reply to: lostbook

S&F, OP - educate 'em! Time is running, waters keep rising.

There are actual real scientists there doing real research telling us that so...just like with Vaccines, Gravity and evolution, I'm going to have to go with the scientists.

I will not be buying ocean front property and will be studying the potention effects of mass migration in third world countries and how that will effect our US economy. Also the national migration. If people move from New Orleans or Orlando...where would they go. That's exactly where I don't want to be.

Science. Always chose science.

Funny also, how some of you believe NASA when they talk about the Apollo missions and Aliens etc...it's like you pick and chose what statements from NASA you want to believe. If you think NASa is lying about Global Warming, they why would you think they are telling you the truth about everything else?

a reply to: amazing

Yeah... things got somehow out of hand since that McKinnon hack.

I think we don't need to believe in any premise of this thead to see the problem rising literally. There are huge gaps between all those different estimates. The articles above provide a good view on some difficulties and obstacles in this Herculaen task, to provide us with exact predictions.

The irony to see how people fight over some years when things look this bad. Priceless.

a reply to: amazing

If we are to believe the article, there is NOT A DAMN thing we can do about it. So I'd say buy a place second row at the beach and hopefully, but retirement, it will be ocean front. (that's living smart)

But then even if all your beans being in the same basket don't work out, and somehow the temperature increase turns around, I am sure we will be able to find a new "end of the world" scenario to panic about.

this one just seems like worrying about when we will get hit by a giant meteor. If it happens, I sure can't stop it, and if I worry about it and it never comes, I wasted good beer drinking time worrying about nothing. Go look at the CO2 levels. Even with our, super conscious efforts, they are still steadily rising like clockwork. Find another hobby. It will make you live longer.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: amazing

If we are to believe the article, there is NOT A DAMN thing we can do about it. So I'd say buy a place second row at the beach and hopefully, but retirement, it will be ocean front. (that's living smart)

But then even if all your beans being in the same basket don't work out, and somehow the temperature increase turns around, I am sure we will be able to find a new "end of the world" scenario to panic about.

this one just seems like worrying about when we will get hit by a giant meteor. If it happens, I sure can't stop it, and if I worry about it and it never comes, I wasted good beer drinking time worrying about nothing. Go look at the CO2 levels. Even with our, super conscious efforts, they are still steadily rising like clockwork. Find another hobby. It will make you live longer.

Not worried but concerned and listen to scientiest, not political pundits. All the scientists are telling me this is happen and to prepare. Any reasonable person prepares, does't panic but is ready. Plan for the worst and hope for the best. But even with that we know that, with the exception of increased costs or taxes, All of our Global Warming Mitigation is, in the end, good for us, the environment and more. Solar panels, smarter sea level and below sea level construction and development. Sea walls, more energy efficient cars, appliences and houses, Wind energy, Better battery technology, electric cars and motorcycles, recycling, etc. It's all good stuff. Be smart my friend, be smart.

a reply to: lostbook

Which nations are affected?

originally posted by: yulka
a reply to: lostbook

Which nations are affected?

Woe be unto thee island dwellers. Including Manhattan....

a reply to: olaru12

Woe to the people that believe the crap, its just more BS to guarantee nasa's funding whilst real longer term studies of Antarctica ice melt, which they base their sea rise, shows no significant trend at all.

A total of 67 SMB records from the AIS over the last 800 yr
were analysed to assess the temporal variability of accumulation
rates. The temporal and spatial variability of the
SMB over the previous 800 yr indicates that SMB changes
over most of Antarctica are statistically negligible and do not
exhibit an overall clear trend. This result is in accordance
with the results presented by Monaghan et al. (2006), which
demonstrate statistically insignificant changes in the SMB
over the past 50 yr. However, a clear increase in accumulation
of more than 10 % (> 300 kg m−2 yr−1
) has occurred in highSMB
coastal regions and over the highest part of the East
Antarctic ice divide since the 1960s. The decadal records of
previous centuries show that the observed increase in accumulation
is not anomalous at the continental scale, that highaccumulation
periods also occurred during the 1370s and
1610s, and that the current SMB is not significantly different
from that over the last 800 yr.

link

a reply to: glend

It is not just the antarctic, that is only 1/3d of it.

Scientists estimate that about one-third of sea level rise is caused by expansion of warmer ocean water, one-third is due to ice loss from the massive Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and the remaining third results from melting mountain glaciers. But the fate of the polar ice sheets could change that ratio and produce more rapid increases in the coming decades.

www.jpl.nasa.gov...

You really believe that nothing is happening and it is all for funding?
(serious question)

a reply to: Darkblade71

You really believe that nothing is happening and it is all for funding?

Of cause something is happening, the only constant in climate is change. But when you see fear being abnormally pushed by media (their propaganda machine) you should suspect foul play and research their links.

originally posted by: charolais
Maybe they are trying to get in the spotlight for more funding

I'm not expert but I think that a rise of 3 feet is a sh!tload of water and I'm not sure how to arctic/antarctic ice would do that much.

The Arctic wouldn't make any difference if it melted as it's just floating ice that displaces roughly the same amount of water it contains (in fact it's been said by some scientists the sea level might drop by a few centimetres if just the Arctic melted).Roughly 80% of the worlds ice is in the Antarctic (up to 3 miles thickness of ice on top of rock) and Greenland,they estimate a global sea level rise of up to 200 feet if all that lot melted.

a reply to: glend

This is why i love this place!!! And you are one of the most interesting ones in here, can you see it?

That should be just enough to make my house and property Ocean front =).

a reply to: yulka

Thanks yulka but a lot of people think the same as me about climate but tired of banging their head against the wall all the time so guess I'm just more stubborn than most! ATS is a great community for airing diverse views.

a reply to: glend

Text are just words, you can alter words with whatever you want it to be.

a reply to: glend

Actually it's not that easy.

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Just saying...

a reply to: avgguy

Text2.3 millimeters a year is what was mentioned in the same article. So how does 430 yrs for 1 meter equal 100yrs or as soon as a decade? NASA can't math

I read the article several times and did not see 2.3mm mentioned . Perhaps the paste below explains that .

This post has been revised to reflect the following correction: An earlier version of this article misstated the time frame for how long scientists estimate it will take sea levels to rise three feet.

So if NASA were misquoted by the article will you now apologise for the math skills quote or does that not fit your agenda .

a reply to: lostbook

Haven't read the whole thread yet - just responding to the OP....
I heard on the radio (NPR) that because of "energy mining", Katrina hit New Orleans MUCH WORSE than it would have....
Because of the fossil fuel mining....

Anyway. Just saying.


Link