In case it isn't clear: the collapse of an ice shelf does not raise sea levels. A ice shelf is floating ice. If it all breaks off and becomes icebergs, then it'

In case it isn't clear: the collapse of an ice shelf does not raise sea levels. A ice shelf is floating ice. If it all breaks off and becomes icebergs, then it's still floating. No sea-level change. The worry is because ice shelves block the flow into the ocean of glaciers, which are not floating ice. If some large glaciers flow into the ocean a lot faster, then we can expect an impact on sea levels. However -- and here is the key point that the article leaves out -- we would not expect a significant change in the rate of sea-level rise within the 5-year timeframe they are talking about for the final collapse of the Larsen B ice-shelf remnant. I don't know what timeframe we're talking about. Maybe New York would be in serious trouble by the end of the century; or maybe not. San Francisco, being hilly, has rather less to worry about, I think. ---- Here is a nice SVG map of Antarctica from Wikipedia: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Antarctica.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Antarcti... The gray areas are ice shelves (floating ice). The white areas are ice that is on land. The Larsen Ice Shelf is on the left, along the Antarctic peninsula. The division into A, B, C portions is not indicated on this map.