5 ms·

According to NASA [1], global sea levels have been rising at a fairly steady 3.2 millimeters per year since 1993. According to NOAA [2], the "relative sea leve

• pstuart 8y ago
  Only if that rate remains steady, and it very well may not.
  • leereeves 8y ago
    True. And some scientists believe that rate is accelerating, for example Steve Nerem et al: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180212150739.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180212150739.h... That accelerating projection "has the potential to double the total sea level rise by 2100 as compared to projections that assume a constant rate -- to more than 60 cm instead of about 30". Two feet instead of one. I still don't see where six feet is coming from.
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    • mikestew 8y ago
      I still don't see where six feet is coming from. I read $SOMEWHERE recently that the the worst case scenario predicted six feet. But that's, IIRC, if we do absolutely nothing, the methane in the Arctic is all released, and Greenland melts. The more likely scenario is somewhere from 1-3 feet. So unless memory fails me, the article didn't just pull it out of its arse, but a source would've been nice rather than just throw a number out there with no backing whatsoever.
      • howard941 8y ago
        Here's a (the?) source for 3' that Bloomberg omitted https://www.coast.noaa.gov/states/stories/data-models-sea-level-rise-exposure-for-future-populations.html https://www.coast.noaa.gov/states/stories/data-models-sea-le... Misreading the link - as many newspapers have done, and it's wrong absent further data - results in 6' EDIT: As noted by Accipitriform I made the same mistake I pinned on many newspapers.
        • Accipitriform 8y ago
          Actually that link makes no prediction at all about how much sea levels will rise. It merely looks at the impact if the sea level were to rise by the given amounts.
      • nkoren 8y ago
        If Greenland melts, you get 6 meters (20 feet).[1] 1: https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html
        • wizardforhire 8y ago
          Greenland is melting. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/03/28/greenland-is-melting-faster-than-at-any-time-in-the-last-450-years-at-least/?utm_term=.83fe975442cb https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...
          • credit_guy 8y ago
            Check this out for real time data about the Greenland ice mass budget. (Spoiler: Greenland is not melting) https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/ https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-shee...
            • jerdimus 8y ago
              You are right, it's not losing mass through melting. But it is losing mass when iceberg calving is accounted for. "Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr." Edit: And i thought this article on the scale of a gigaton of water was interesting as well: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/07/01/meet-the-gigaton-the-huge-unit-that-scientists-use-to-track-planetary-change https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• jellicle 8y ago
  The rate of increase is increasing. http://www.southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015-Compact-Unified-Sea-Level-Rise-Projection.pdf http://www.southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org/wp-content/upl...
• fhood 8y ago
  NOAA has data on miami from 1939 to 1981, so it isn't exactly current. I have no idea why the timeline is so bad though.
• enraged_camel 8y ago
  That ignores storm surges, which can be massive.