5 ms·

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...
        credit_guy 8y ago
        200 Gt = 0.007% of the ice mass of Greenland. Or 0.5mm sea level increase (from your link).
  - Timmah 8y ago
    I read $SOMEWHERE that most sea level rise is/will be due to thermal expansion of water, not melting ice.

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...
        credit_guy 8y ago
        200 Gt = 0.007% of the ice mass of Greenland. Or 0.5mm sea level increase (from your link).
- Timmah 8y ago
  I read $SOMEWHERE that most sea level rise is/will be due to thermal expansion of water, not melting ice.