3 ms·
To be clear, the 2m increase is the analyzed 95th percentile (very high end) of the estimates of this meta-study, when you take both glacial melt and glacial ex
by Jigg 7y ago
To be clear, the 2m increase is the analyzed 95th percentile (very high end) of the estimates of this meta-study, when you take both glacial melt and glacial expansion. The median values for low and high estimates are 69cm and 110cm.
Not that this isn't still terrifying, worth of action, worthy of international collaboration, and so on. Just let's be accurate about our titles.
- walkingolof 7y agoI'm lucky, I live in an area with high amount of post-glacial rebound (yea, thats a thing). The land here is on average rising with 1 cm per year out of the ocean. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound
- mc32 7y agoDoesn’t Earth’s being a spinning oblong sphere mean some places will experience only minimal change while others will see significant change? So all this is “average” rise.
- parhamn 7y agoIt's a much more complicated process (e.g. the weight of the ice changes the shape of the mantle). The Verge did a good high level overview of some of the different factors in play here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA5zh3yG_-0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA5zh3yG_-0