Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought

[InRareForm]

http://m.livescience.com/51990-sea-l...-unknowns.html

[CosmicCowboy]

If the Jakobshavn glacier had melted completely, "it contains enough ice to raise global sea level by half a meter — just this one glacier in Greenland," Rignot said. If all the land ice on the planet were to melt, it would raise sea levels about 197 feet (60 m), he added.

I would love to see this guys calculation.

I'm calling bull on that claim. 71% of the earths surface is currently covered by water. That is 2.45 times the land surface.

Ice also shrinks by about 10% when it melts.

Doing the math the entire land surface would have to be covered in ice to a depth of 530 feet to raise the sea level 197 feet and that is not even taking into account the surface area of the newly covered land as the oceans rose.

[Splits]

Pfft, climate scientists. Real thinkers like ElNono tell us there's nothing to worry about, or if there is we should just do more research and not actually do anything about it. Ya know, can't do both at the same time, that would be too difficult.

[CosmicCowboy]

When these "scientists" make outrageous claims like this one it certainly makes you question their credibility.

[Splits]

I would love to see this guys calculation.

I'm calling bull on that claim. 71% of the earths surface is currently covered by water. That is 2.45 times the land surface.

Ice also shrinks by about 10$ when it melts.

Doing the math the entire land surface would have to be covered in ice to a depth of 530 feet to raise the sea level 197 feet and that is not even taking into account the surface of the newly covered land as the oceans rose.

Phew, thanks for that analysis. I was getting a bit worried but now that you've called bull I feel much better.

[CosmicCowboy]

Phew, thanks for that analysis. I was getting a bit worried but now that you've called bull I feel much better.

Well, it's fifth grade level math. Why don't you do it yourself?

[Splits]

When these "scientists" make outrageous claims like this one it certainly makes you question their credibility.

Totally agree. Who do these people think they are, with their fancy degrees and higher education? Real smart people like you know better, and have a keen knack for breaking it down so laymen such as myself can understand.

Phew.

[Splits]

Well, it's fifth grade math. why don't you do it yourself?

Considering I used to work for NASA, I already know how much bull these "scientists" spew, just trying to keep their jobs living off the government teet. ing moochers.

[CosmicCowboy]

Care to refute the math Mr. Rocket Scientist?

Or were you a janitor?

[Splits]

Yeah, I was a janitor programming the Space Shuttle math model simulator. Dirty work.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yeah, I was a janitor programming the Space Shuttle math model simulator. Dirty work.

In that case the error in his claim should have been painfully obvious to you.

like I said, you are welcome to refute the math.

[InRareForm]

Its like the director in interstellar with his math equation

[Winehole23]

what math equation? CC didn't show his sums either.

[ElNono]

I'm not opposed to people doing "something about it", or even companies migrating to systems with reduced emissions (which would imply it's not hurting their bottom line). That's silly, who wouldn't want that?

Now, forcing companies to ration their emissions is where I see the problem, as it would have a pretty massive economic impact. That's what the carbon tax/carbon marketplace models are.
For certain industries, like energy, it goes at the core of their business. That translates to loss of compe iveness, increased prices, lost jobs, lost economic output.

And it's debatable it would actually tackle the problem. I mean, China is responsible for almost 25% of the CO2 emissions worldwide. How do you force their hand when it goes directly at their economic compe iveness.

Now, if you want to buy a Leaf instead of a gas guzzler, more power to you.

[101A]

If I understand correctly, the level of CO2 we are currently releasing globally is too high - it must be reduced significantly, else we cross a tipping point - and we spiral with uncontrolled warming as permafrost thaws, etc....

Getting the developed world to reduce emissions has been nearly impossible, and the best that has been accomplished is a slowing of the increase in emissions....

Add to that China and India's development, and there is a larger demand for fossil fuels as these modernizing economies seek to take their respective places firmly in the first world. Their production of CO2 will continue to rise....we have no control over that.

In addition, there are other countries around the world that are just beginning to emerge, or wish to. We cannot expect those to slow their growth by relying almost exclusively on renewable (expensive) energy sources - we enjoyed cheap energy during our economic ascension; they expect nothing less for themselves.

The net result of this is that we cannot hope to reduce the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere. It simply will never be lower than it is now, and in all probability - just looking pragmatically at the situation, is going to increase exponentially.

If the models are correct, we better damn well stop worrying about reducing carbon emissions, and start dealing with, what does this guy say, 200 foot higher seas (oh, and tundra we can actually farm!).

What are the ramifications beyond sea levels? With that much more liquid water, can't we expect more rainfall? More plants, wetter rivers and streams? More rain, less snow...

Returning all of that carbon buried in prehistoric plant and animal matter to the atmosphere will make the world, what, more Jurassic? Things grow bigger and differently, but stuff still grows, right?

What the IPCC (sic) is doing now amounts to trying to buy insurance on a house that is already on fire. There is no point....get about dealing with the wreckage; you're wasting our time.

[hater]

what math equation? CC didn't show his sums either.

Agreed. Waiting on his maths....

[CosmicCowboy]

Agreed. Waiting on his maths....

what math equation? CC didn't show his sums either.

Seriously? I gave you guys all the essential variables. I do simple stuff like that in my head.

197" claimed water rise
Water area is 2.45 X area of land at current sea levels
Water volume increases by 10% when it freezes

The number of feet of of land ice necessary to increase the sea level 197' feet (at it's current surface area) would be 197 X 2.45 X 1.1= ice would have to be 530.915 feet deep on every square foot of land mass.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I would love to see this guys calculation.

I'm calling bull on that claim. 71% of the earths surface is currently covered by water. That is 2.45 times the land surface.

Ice also shrinks by about 10% when it melts.

Doing the math the entire land surface would have to be covered in ice to a depth of 530 feet to raise the sea level 197 feet and that is not even taking into account the surface area of the newly covered land as the oceans rose.

NASA doesn't know how to calculate volume and your napkin math is so definitive over peer review.

Thanks for channelling WC style stupidity.

[CosmicCowboy]

NASA doesn't know how to calculate volume and your napkin math is so definitive over peer review.

Thanks for channelling WC style stupidity.

Thanks for admitting you can't do basic math and just trust what you read on the internet.

[boutons_deux]

China is responsible for almost 25% of the CO2 emissions worldwide. How do you force their hand when it goes directly at their economic compe iveness.

China’s Carbon Count Is Not as High as Feared

Calculations on how much carbon dioxide China produces have been wrong for more than 10 years because the official bodies that calculate it have assumed the country’s power stations burn high-quality coal.

In fact, the world’s biggest polluter uses coal with a lower carbon content than power stations in Europe and the US, and so produces less carbon dioxide per tonne—around 14% less according to experts from 18 research ins utions.

Getting the total quan ies of CO₂ emitted by each country correct is crucial if the world is going to reach agreement on tackling dangerous climate change at the UN conference in Paris in December. One of the stumbling blocks to agreements in the past has been politicians’ need to have a fair system of sharing the burden of cuts.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...eared_20150821

China, and India, are going into wind and solar very aggressively. As in Africa, solar is bringing electricity to places that have none, esp in India.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Thanks for admitting you can't do basic math and just trust what you read on the internet.

All you have is incredulity. I do math just fine. What's funny is that you think that NASA doesn't.

[ChumpDumper]

Thanks for admitting you can't do basic math and just trust what you read on the internet.

I'd like to see your equation written out tbh.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

NASA actually counts all the ice caps and glaciers. Then there is this thing called a spreadsheet. Amazing!

[CosmicCowboy]

As for the "expansion of water" theory the real numbers (lets say from 80 degrees F to 85 degrees F or 26.667 C to 29.44 C) are:

The formula:

change in volume = initial volume X volumetric temperature coefficient of water at that temperature X (final temperature minus original temperature)

1 X .000207 X (29.667 - 26.667) = .000621

In other words, with a given volume of water at 26.667 C and the temperature rises to 29.667 C the volume will increase by only .0006 %

[CosmicCowboy]

I'd like to see your equation written out tbh.

see post #17