Rising oceans - too late to turn the tide?

Jul 15, 2011 By Daniel Stolte
If sea levels rose to where they were during the Last Interglacial Period, large parts of the Gulf of Mexico would be under water (red areas), including half of Florida and several Caribbean islands. (Photo illustration by Jeremy Weiss)

Melting ice sheets contributed much more to rising sea levels than thermal expansion of warming ocean waters during the Last Interglacial Period, a UA-led team of researchers has found. The results further suggest that ocean levels continue to rise long after warming of the atmosphere has leveled off.

Thermal expansion of contributed only slightly to compared to melting ice sheets during the Last Interglacial Period, a University of Arizona-led team of researchers has found.

The study combined paleoclimate records with of atmosphere-ocean interactions and the team's co-authored paper is accepted for publication in .

As the world's climate becomes warmer due to increased in the atmosphere, sea levels are expected to rise by an estimated three feet by the end of this century.

But the question remains: How much of that is due to sheets and also the expansion of the oceans' 332 billion cubic miles of water increasing in volume as they warm up?

For the study, UA team members analyzed paleoceanic records of global distribution of sea surface temperatures of the warmest 5,000-year period during the Last Interglacial, a that lasted from 130,000 to 120,000 years ago.

The researchers then compared the data to results of computer-based simulating during a 200-year snapshot as if taken 125,000 years ago and calculating the contributions from of sea water.

The team found that thermal expansion could have contributed no more than 40 centimeters – less than 1.5 feet – to the rising sea levels during that time, which exceeded today's level by about eight meters or 26 feet.

At the same time, the paleoclimate data revealed average ocean temperatures only about 0.7 degrees Celsius, or 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit, above those of today.

"This means that even small amounts of warming may have committed us to more melting than we previously thought. The temperature during that time of high sea levels wasn't that much warmer than it is today – less than two degrees Celsius," said Nicholas McKay, a doctoral student at the UA's department of geosciences and the paper's lead author.

McKay pointed out that even if rose to similar heights, they would do so very gradually, on the order of three feet per century.

"The atmosphere is warming faster than the oceans. They are absorbing most of that heat, but they lag behind. Especially the large ice sheets are not in equilibrium with global climate," McKay added. "Even if we stopped greenhouse gas emissions right now, the Earth would keep warming, the oceans would keep warming, and sea levels would keep rising for a long time."

Jonathan Overpeck, co-director of the UA's Institute of the Environment and a professor with joint appointments in the department of geosciences and atmospheric sciences, said: "This study marks the strongest case yet made that humans – by warming the atmosphere and oceans – are pushing the Earth's climate toward the threshold where we will likely be committed to four to six or even more meters of rise in coming centuries."

Overpeck, who is McKay's doctoral advisor and a co-author of the study, added: "Unless we dramatically curb global warming, we are in for centuries of sea level rise at a rate of up to one meter or more per century, with the bulk of the water coming from the melting of the great polar ice sheets – both the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets."

According to the authors, the new results imply that 4.1 to 5.8 meters, or 13.5 to 19 feet, of sea level rise during the Last was derived from the Antarctic Ice Sheet, "reemphasizing the concern that both the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets may be more sensitive to temperature than widely thought."

"The central question we asked was, ‘What are the warmest 5,000 years we can find for all these records, and what were the highest sea levels reached during that time?'" McKay said.

Evidence for elevated sea levels is scattered all around the globe, he added. On Barbados and the Bahamas, for example, notches cut by waves into the rock six or more meters above the present shoreline have been dated to being 125,000 years old.

"Based on previous studies, we know that the sea level during the Last Interglacial probably reached about 8.5 meters above today," McKay explained.

"We already knew that the vast majority came from the melting of the large ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, but how much could the expansion of seawater have added to that?"

Given were about 0.7 degrees warmer than today, the team calculated that even if the warmer temperatures reached all the way down to 2,000 meters – more than 6,500 feet, which is highly unlikely – expansion would have accounted for no more than 40 centimeters, less than a foot and a half.

"That means almost all of it must have come from the large ice sheets, plus a small contribution from melted mountain glaciers and small ice caps," McKay said.

According to co-author Bette Otto-Bliesner, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo., getting the same estimate of the role ocean expansion played on sea level rise increases confidence in the data and the climate models.

"The models allow us to attribute changes we observe in the paleoclimate record to the physical mechanisms that caused those changes," Otto-Bliesner said. "This helps tremendously in being able to distinguish mere correlations from cause-and-effect relationships."

The authors cautioned that past evidence is not a prediction of the future, mostly because global temperatures during the Last Interglacial were driven by changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun. However, current global warming is driven by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.

In addition, seasonal differences between the northern and the southern hemispheres were much more pronounced during the Last Interglacial than they are today.

"We expect something quite different for the future because we're not changing things seasonally, we're changing things everywhere," McKay said.

"The question is, when we think about warming on a global scale and letting the climate system come to an equilibrium, what would we expect based on the paleoclimate record? The Last Interglacial is the most recent time when sea levels were much higher and it's a time for which we have lots of data," McKay added.

"The message is that the last time glaciers and ice sheets melted, sea levels rose by more than eight meters. Most of the world's population lives relatively close to sea level. This is going to have huge impacts, especially on poor countries," he added.

"If you live a meter above sea level, it's irrelevant what causes the rise. Whether sea levels are rising for natural reasons or for anthropogenic reasons, you're still going to be under water."

Explore further: NASA sees warmer cloud tops as Tropical Storm Hernan degenerates

Related Stories

Sea level rise of 1 meter within 100 years

Jan 08, 2009

New research indicates that the ocean could rise in the next 100 years to a meter higher than the current sea level - which is three times higher than predictions from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ...

Warming ocean layers will undermine polar ice sheets

Jul 03, 2011

Warming of the ocean's subsurface layers will melt underwater portions of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets faster than previously thought, according to new University of Arizona-led research. Such melting ...

New findings on why Antarctic ice sheets melt

Jan 17, 2011

Research from Victoria University has revealed new findings on why Antarctic ice sheets have melted in the past, as well as how future melting may affect sea levels.

Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet melting, rate unknown

Feb 16, 2009

The Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets are melting, but the amounts that will melt and the time it will take are still unknown, according to Richard Alley, Evan Pugh professor of geosciences, Penn State.

Recommended for you

Wave energy impact on harbour operations investigated

3 hours ago

Infragravity period oscillations—waves that occur between 25 and 300 seconds with a wavelength between 100m and 10km—can have an impact on berthing operations, depending on a harbour's geometry.

Huge waves measured for first time in Arctic Ocean

21 hours ago

As the climate warms and sea ice retreats, the North is changing. An ice-covered expanse now has a season of increasingly open water which is predicted to extend across the whole Arctic Ocean before the middle ...

User comments : 45

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

kevinrtrs
Jul 15, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mayday
3.6 / 5 (14) Jul 15, 2011
It continues to fascinate me how so much energy is spent debating how to do the impossible: reducing co2 emissions to negative levels. And so little energy (like none) is spent planning how to properly prepare humanity for these inevitable changes to the global map.
Shootist
1.9 / 5 (22) Jul 15, 2011
See the included photo? See the Continental Shelf (the lighter area adjacent to the current shore line)? That outline is where the Sea used to be before it started rising.

Glaciers have been melting off and on for 10000 years. Why does Glacier Melt cause concern? Because it can be used to scare gullible voters into voting for things that will keep AGW supporters in power and money.

"The Polar Bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson
Shootist
1.2 / 5 (19) Jul 15, 2011
It continues to fascinate me how so much energy is spent debating how to do the impossible: reducing co2 emissions to negative levels. And so little energy (like none) is spent planning how to properly prepare humanity for these inevitable changes to the global map.


Humans can walk. They have done so before. Any change will be so slow as to be unnoticed unless compared to what has come before.

New Orleans under 3 meters of water isn't necessarily a bad thing?

"What a terrible thing to say"

Have you ever been to New Orleans?
Pkunk_
2.1 / 5 (15) Jul 15, 2011
Mayday , the solution is simple - Nuclear fission ,the only proven technology with more than 50 years experience that works anytime , everytime . Just burning coal is equivalent to 1 Fukushima every week because of all the radiation present in Coal.

And yeah i know the "green" nuts will talk about Solar , but it's way too expensive and it works only 10 hours a day. They have no solution apart from their longterm agenda - sending us back to the stone age.
djr
3.9 / 5 (15) Jul 15, 2011
"Why does Glacier Melt cause concern?" Well - because they are a critical part of world water supplies - and there is potential for devastating impacts - including water shortages caused by reduced run off. Sitting in my comfortable home in Oklahoma U.S.A. - I may have to start paying more for food at the grocery store. If I am a subsistence farmer in Nepal - I may face crop failure - and starvation. There is a mountain of evidence telling us the glaciers are melting - see http://www.geo.uz...te/wgms/ The evidence is incontrovertible - the glaciers are melting. Do you have evidence that the glaciers are not melting - or that this melting does not present a problem for the farming communities dependent on the glacier run off? I suspect you are an ideologue - and care nothing for research, data, or for the communities that may be devastated by climate change.
djr
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 15, 2011
And yeah i know the "green" nuts will talk about Solar , but it's way too expensive and it works only 10 hours a day.

Stop spewing nonsense - take a look at this quote.

Our largest deal weve ever announced was in January of this year with Southern California Edison thats incredible, that is a 711 megawatt deal; its two power plants in different parts of the state. And whats incredible is that those contracts are below the cost of natural gas.

Full article http://cleantechn...hnica%29

Solar is here now - it is cost competitive - with salt storage - it can produce power 24/7 and the price will only continue to fall.
Spaceman_Spiff
4.3 / 5 (19) Jul 15, 2011
"The Polar Bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson


Another quote from Freeman Dyson. "One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."

Why does Glacier Melt cause concern?

1. 68% of all fresh water in the world is found in icecaps and glaciers.
2. In Europe there are 196 million people living in coastal regions. Also, 53% of the population of the USA live in coastal counties.

Unless you are the God of logistics, cheap building materials, and mass persuasion, your concept of having people simply move is ridiculous.

New Orleans under 3 meters of water isn't necessarily a bad thing?

"What a terrible thing to say"

Have you ever been to New Orleans?


Yes, that actually is a terrible thing to wish upon anyone. Having your life destroyed, even if you can restart and rebuild, would 100% suck.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (10) Jul 15, 2011
It continues to fascinate me how so much energy is spent debating how to do the impossible: reducing co2 emissions to negative levels. And so little energy (like none) is spent planning how to properly prepare humanity for these inevitable changes to the global map.

Because prevention is always better than protection? You only need to prevent once - but you need to protect continually.

The former seems a _lot_ cheaper than the latter in the long run.

And yeah i know the "green" nuts will talk about Solar , but it's way too expensive and it works only 10 hours a day.

Maybe you should check in at physorg more often. This article was posted not 5 days ago which shows the opposite:
http://www.physor...urs.html

(and taking all ancillary costs - like storage of wastes - nuclear is WAY more expensive than any other form of energy production per Watt produced)
lengould100
4 / 5 (13) Jul 15, 2011
The real problem isn't that relatively usless cities will go underwater, but that saltwater will inundate all the deltas of the great tropical rivers (Nile, Mekong, Ganges, Yellow, etc. etc.) These deltas feed a huge proportion of the world's population, and the rich soils they've built up over many millenia cannot be re-produced further upstream in just 200 years.

Ignoring this problem is not only ignorant, its criminal.
SteveL
1.9 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2011
I wonder how much this raise in sea level and change in the earth's mass is projected to slow the earth's rotation.
Martian
3.8 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2011
Climate changes and weather happens.

Until we develop interstellar travel all bets are off regarding human extinction.
frenchie
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2011
I wonder how much this raise in sea level and change in the earth's mass is projected to slow the earth's rotation.


Change in earth's mass? How would melting change earth's mass?
Dichotomy
2.2 / 5 (13) Jul 15, 2011
What I want to know is what caused the global warming that happened appx. 100,000 years ago? Or the time before that, or the one before that one. Also what made the planet cool off after it warmed up? Until these questions can be answered I'm skeptical about not whether our emissions are warming up the planet but by how much. Also unless we know what caused the planet to cool down, all this global warming may not be a bad thing if this cooling effect starts up again. I'll take melted glaciers over another ice age any day.
wiyosaya
4.9 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2011
Humans can walk. They have done so before. Any change will be so slow as to be unnoticed unless compared to what has come before.

Have you studied differential equations?
wiyosaya
2.4 / 5 (7) Jul 15, 2011
"The Polar Bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson

Even the best among us have been known to be wrong from time to time. I cannot say I trust this assessment even coming from Freeman Dyson.
lengould100
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 15, 2011
what caused the global warming that happened appx. 100,000 years ago?
Milankovitch cycles. Minor variations in earth's orbit around the sun, occasionally slightly increases the solar radiation onto the north hemisphere which causes a slight warming which then causes huge amounts of methane to exit storage in northern bogs and ocean clathrates, increasing atmosphere's GHG content, increasing temperatures more, more methane GHG, more heating up..... interglacial, CO2 levels about 280 ppmv. (usually about 10,000 yrs. We're near the end of one now).

Orbit tilts back, eventually GHG levels fall again, new ice age. CO2 levels about 180 ppmv. Lasts another 120,000 years.

No-one has any certainty what happens if you take earth's CO2 levels ups to like 400 ppmv as present, or much higher, say another 100 years of this stupidity. But all indications are it should rapidy get nasty. Droughts on farmlands, dramatic weather events, rich river delta farmlands flooded by seawater
racchole
2 / 5 (16) Jul 15, 2011
Paleoclimate record is practically obsolete because the climate is invisible to us from that long ago. The entire debate on global warming is based on falsities. Glaciers can regrow, orbits can change, none of these scare tactics means anything in reality. This whole debate needs to be restarted because it is plagued with too many lies and scandals.
Shootist
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 15, 2011
"The Polar Bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson


Another quote from Freeman Dyson. "One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."

Why does Glacier Melt cause concern?

1. 68% of all fresh water in the world is found in icecaps and glaciers.
2. In Europe there are 196 million people living in coastal regions. Also, 53% of the population of the USA live in coastal counties.

Unless you are the God of logistics, cheap building materials, and mass persuasion, your concept of having people simply move is ridiculous.

New Orleans under 3 meters of water isn't necessarily a bad thing?

"What a terrible thing to say"

Have you ever been to New Orleans?


Yes, that actually is a terrible thing to wish upon anyone. Having your life destroyed, even if you can restart and rebuild, would 100% suck.


Just move. You have a lifetime.
Shootist
2 / 5 (16) Jul 15, 2011

190 meters (390ft) of sea-level rise in the last 10000 years.

And you want me to worry about another fraction of a meter?

Not gonna do it, even if New Orleans, Holland and Bangladesh end up submerged. Building below sea level is always stupid, if you're near the sea.
djr
4 / 5 (13) Jul 15, 2011
"Just move. You have a lifetime."

156 million people in Bangladesh - just tell them all to move - wonder where you would suggest they move to - and with what resources. Do you care about anyone else besides yourself Shootist? It sure does not seem that way.
lengould100
4 / 5 (12) Jul 15, 2011
Building below sea level is always stupid, if you're near the sea.
You can't just up and move all the farmland of a river delta like the Nile. Your attitude is foolishly self-centered and shortsighted, even if all you care about is yourself.
Spaceman_Spiff
4.8 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2011
Just move. You have a lifetime.


A lifetime would still not be enough to move half a billion people to a new place. While I agree with you that building below sea-level is a poor idea the current location of cities is totally out of our control. The world's biggest and oldest cities that are located on the coast are located there for a very good historical reason. They were ports and places of commerce. Because of this they grew in size as they were the primary places for someone to be employed. People did not have any idea of the potential risks centuries in the future that could arise by urbanizing near the coast.

As for the "Just move". I don't understand how you can't see the enormity of the task. Half a billion people and trillions of dollars of GDP would have to be moved. That is epic. While good in individual theory it is terrible in mass application.
wiyosaya
3.9 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2011
Just move. You have a lifetime.

Sounds like you think you will not have to move? I suppose then one morning you will wake up and everyone that has moved will now reside in your home.

Seems that you place no faith in the adage "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
wiyosaya
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 15, 2011
Paleoclimate record is practically obsolete because the climate is invisible to us from that long ago. The entire debate on global warming is based on falsities. Glaciers can regrow, orbits can change, none of these scare tactics means anything in reality. This whole debate needs to be restarted because it is plagued with too many lies and scandals.

Hmmm...Antarctic ice cores not heard of have you?
wiyosaya
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 15, 2011
What I want to know is what caused the global warming that happened appx. 100,000 years ago? Or the time before that, or the one before that one. Also what made the planet cool off after it warmed up? Until these questions can be answered I'm skeptical about not whether our emissions are warming up the planet but by how much. Also unless we know what caused the planet to cool down, all this global warming may not be a bad thing if this cooling effect starts up again. I'll take melted glaciers over another ice age any day.

To paraphrase, the info is out there; it should not be particularly difficult for you to find.
Isaacsname
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 15, 2011
Sure, sea levels would go up, but what about the weather on the planet ? It's going to get ugly by the end of the century if melting matches the projections.
geokstr
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 15, 2011
No, it simply can't be! Our Megalomaniac-in-Chief promised us Himself on the day of His Immaculate Inauguration that "(t)his was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal". All because His Omnipotence is now in charge.

So kick back and relax.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2011
All U.S. science will be defunded on Aug 2, 2011 unless there is an increase in the U.S. debt ceiling.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2011
Effective prevention follows a known cure. In a medical sense if humanity is decimated down to two sole survivors - female/male? - and then the EXACT cure is found we have a happy Hollywood ending.

Of course, you will be "pressured" to save as many as possible during the time you seek the silver bullet to climate.

Preventive medicine normally has a complete knowledge of the underlying mechanisms and causes.

An ounce of prevention is worth of pound of cure.
Of course knowing the cure is the ideal perquisite for any ounce of prevention.

Is removing CO2 the cure? Where? When? How much? How? How fast? With what? Etc., etc.

With no stretch of the imagination, imagine being able "... to distinguish mere correlations from cause-and-effect relationships." - Otto-Bliesner.

Before inserting the needle into the body of the earth, have research back up a chance that doctors give themselves when applying their training in intensive care.
We have never treated climate before.

ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (8) Jul 16, 2011
-Davey Jones, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

http://www.great-.../2006354

"Based on the most current data it appears that 2010 is going to show the largest drop in global sea level ever recorded in the modern era."

http://wattsupwit...in-2010/

"Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring,"

http://www.foxnew...el-data/

"So how are the V&R2009 predictions holding up?

...not well. ...the observations showed an actual sea level rise that is below the lowest of the V&R2009 estimates from the lowest of the IPCC scenarios.

Actual observations are lower by four standard deviations than the V&R2000 best estimate, and are two standard deviations lower than their lower estimate."

http://www.worldw...a-level/

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2011
My first line drpooed out in editing. It was supposed to read:

HA! You 'fraid to get wet?"

-Davey Jones, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

http://www.great-.../2006354
omatumr
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 16, 2011
All U.S. science will be defunded on Aug 2, 2011 unless there is an increase in the U.S. debt ceiling.


Yes. It should be defunded, . . .

If it continues to support manipulation or distortion of the scientific process by the likes of James Hansen.

If you don't understand, read Bob Carter's paper on "Lysenkoism and James Hansen" and the forward by Vaclav Klaus:

"Todays debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives."

www.quadrant.org....alarmism

I urge Congress to cut all funds for such Lysenkoism nonsense!

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Kikeros
5 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2011
I wonder how much this raise in sea level and change in the earth's mass is projected to slow the earth's rotation.


Change in earth's mass? How would melting change earth's mass?


I think he was talking about increase on moment of inertia.
Isaacsname
5 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2011
I wonder how much this raise in sea level and change in the earth's mass is projected to slow the earth's rotation.


Change in earth's mass? How would melting change earth's mass?


I think he was talking about increase on moment of inertia.

So were the icecaps to melt completely, this would slow down the rotation of earth slightly ? Our planet is an oblate spheroid ( squashed sphere ), so the volume of the melted water would settle towards the equatorial bulge ? Or no ? I remember China's 3 Gorges dam supposedly slowed earth's rotation by ~ 60 billionths of a sec, although this seem's to be heavily argued.
Shelgeyr
2.2 / 5 (9) Jul 16, 2011
@lengould100 said:

Ignoring this problem is not only ignorant, its criminal.


No, it isn't. And despite your obvious wish that it were otherwise, as long as sane, informed, and freedom-loving minds abound, you will continue to be incorrect about this.

You can't just up and move all the farmland of a river delta like the Nile.


Yes you can, if you have a lifetime to do it. But there's no need to. The oceans won't rise as the alarmists are predicting, plus river deltas self-modify over time (which is how they formed in the first place), and since you mentioned the Nile Delta I should point out that it is already farmed to capacity and humans have been irrigating parts of the desert for agriculture for quite some time. Those efforts are increasing and will continue to do so with or without a sea-level rise.

Regardless, we'll adapt.
Telekinetic
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2011
@ Shootist:
I assume you've chosen your username from the film with John Wayne, who's attitude you attempt to emulate. By most Hollywood insider accounts, John Wayne was gay. The macho stance is very often a thin veil for something else. Just figured you wouldn't want to be the last to know, Pilgrim.
Cin5456
5 / 5 (1) Jul 17, 2011
"orbits change"

Here is where you can check our current situation with regard to Mylankovitch Cycles.

http://en.wikiped...h_cycles

According to wikipedia:
"perihelion occurs during the southern hemisphere's summer and aphelion during the southern winter. Thus the southern hemisphere seasons should tend to be somewhat more extreme than the northern hemisphere seasons."

Yet the northern hemisphere is experiencing extreme seasonal variation, and the northern ice pack is the one in the most danger right now. So the Milankovitch cycle is not causing the melt at the north pole and in Greenland.

"Astronomical calculations show that 65° N summer insolation should increase gradually over the next 25,000 years."

"No declines in 65° N summer insolation, sufficient to cause a glacial period, are expected in the next 50,000 years."

So we shouldn't be worried about a orbital variations causing an ice age any time soon.
Telekinetic
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2011
It continues to fascinate me how so much energy is spent debating how to do the impossible: reducing co2 emissions to negative levels. And so little energy (like none) is spent planning how to properly prepare humanity for these inevitable changes to the global map.


Humans can walk. They have done so before. Any change will be so slow as to be unnoticed unless compared to what has come before.

New Orleans under 3 meters of water isn't necessarily a bad thing?

"What a terrible thing to say"

Have you ever been to New Orleans?
I've been to New Orleans and it's full of great people and an irreplaceable musical culture of American historical significance. Your white supremacist inferences belong on AOL's forums. Go back from whence you came, Shittiest.
Shootist
2 / 5 (8) Jul 17, 2011
Sure, sea levels would go up, but what about the weather on the planet ? It's going to get ugly by the end of the century if melting matches the projections.


Why? It's melted before.

IF you think there is going to be a catastrophe, go forth, warn the people. Tell them to move. And yes, a half a billion people, half of whom will be dead from old age, can migrate, if the need be great.

As for whether Dyson is wrong, or not. I trust a guess by Dyson, over any one of the 'facts' presented her.
Shootist
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2011
I've been to New Orleans and it's full of great people and an irreplaceable musical culture of American historical significance. Your white supremacist inferences belong on AOL's forums. Go back from whence you came, Shittiest.


To Grosse Tete? I'm not white, boy, I'm a coonass, a Cajun, from the bayou. New Orleans is a stink hole, a pit of corruption, not fit for human habitation. Sure it has great music, but damn son, the music doesn't come from the city.
Dug
1.7 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2011
While you are debating whether, or how much climate change will raise sea levels over the next hundred years - you might want to think about the priorities that you worry about. Our population growing at predicted rates will be over 9 billion while our phosphate reserves are projected to be running out in 50 years. Modern human agriculture and 95% of human food production is dependent on phosphate to maintain even current food production levels. Long before rising sea level changes our geography significantly, food shortages will have changed our civilization and our ability to worry about much more than where our next meal will come from. Climate change and rising sea levels are much further down the list of lethal priorities that we should be worrying about - and which we can do something about.
SteveL
4 / 5 (2) Jul 18, 2011
I wonder how much this raise in sea level and change in the earth's mass is projected to slow the earth's rotation.


Change in earth's mass? How would melting change earth's mass?


Pretty simple actually. If the ice is melting from the poles the water will redistribute into the lower lattitudes (sea level raising). This is mass redistribution. If you take a round mass and it transformes to a wider shape while maintaining the same rotational momentum it will slow its rotation - hence my question. Granted, I could have worded the question better.
astro_optics
1 / 5 (2) Jul 18, 2011
I peer reviewed this...CRAP!
Cin5456
5 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2011
From: http://www.mii.or...hos.html

"Large deposits of phosphate from igneous rock are found in Canada, Russia, and South Africa. Deep-sea exploration of the worlds oceans has revealed that there are large deposits of phosphates on the continental shelf and on seamounts in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Recovering these deposits, however, is still too expensive, so they remain untouched for now. In the United States, phosphate rock is mined in Florida, North Carolina, Utah and Idaho. Florida and North Carolina account for approximately 85% of phosphate rock production in the United States. U.S. companies export large quantities of phosphate fertilizers all over the world. Phosphate rock is imported to the United States as well. Nearly all of these imports come from Morocco, a major supplier of phosphate rock to the world."

Phosphates aren't that rare.
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2011
Of course the measurements taken as the Last Interglacial could also have been from the Global Flood which evolutionists cannot bear to acknowledge