melting icebergs don't rise sea level. Water is denser than ice, even if the iceberg melts, water just fills previously occupied space
Melting in W. Antarctica 'unavoidable,' potentially disastrous sea level rise
11–20 of 26 posts
Re: Melting in W. Antarctica 'unavoidable,' potentially disastrous sea level rise
#12melting icebergs don't rise sea level. Water is denser than ice, even if the iceberg melts, water just fills previously occupied space
Unless the ice rest on land, like in Antarctica, which the article points out.
Re: Melting in W. Antarctica 'unavoidable,' potentially disastrous sea level rise
#13That's pretty terrible for all the people living in coastal areas, which is a large part of the human population.
It's also pretty terrible for all the people not living in coastal areas, because people living in coastal areas will not want to live under water.
It's pretty much lose-lose.
Re: Melting in W. Antarctica 'unavoidable,' potentially disastrous sea level rise
#14Re: Melting in W. Antarctica 'unavoidable,' potentially disastrous sea level rise
#15That's pretty terrible for all the people living in coastal areas, which is a large part of the human population. It's also pretty terrible for all the people not living in coastal areas, because people living in coastal areas will not want to live under water. It's pretty much lose-lose.
It's very wealthy people in the first world and very poor people in the third world.
Poor people will stand up and walk inland.
The rich will do anything they can to convince everyone else to pay for their property losses
Re: Melting in W. Antarctica 'unavoidable,' potentially disastrous sea level rise
#16Some scientists sounded a note of caution about the study. Tiago Segabinazzi Dotto, senior research scientist at the National Oceanography Centre in the UK, said it should be “treated carefully” as it is based on a single model.
My friend played Russian roulette and died. But that's only a single data point, so maybe I'll give it a go? Or maybe we should just play Pandemic instead. Hmmm... So many options, and literally no way to choose between them!
Re: Melting in W. Antarctica 'unavoidable,' potentially disastrous sea level rise
#17That's pretty terrible for all the people living in coastal areas, which is a large part of the human population. It's also pretty terrible for all the people not living in coastal areas, because people living in coastal areas will not want to live under water. It's pretty much lose-lose.
It's very wealthy people in the first world and very poor people in the third world. Poor people will stand up and walk inland. The rich will do anything they can to convince everyone else to pay for their property losses
Sounds like a reasonable assumption.
Re: Melting in W. Antarctica 'unavoidable,' potentially disastrous sea level rise
#18melting icebergs don't rise sea level. Water is denser than ice, even if the iceberg melts, water just fills previously occupied space
Unless the ice rest on land, like in Antarctica, which the article points out.
Nah, I didn’t read the article so you can’t possibly be right. The ice will just fill previously occupied space.
Unfortunately said space will be peoples communities.
Re: Melting in W. Antarctica 'unavoidable,' potentially disastrous sea level rise
#19Re: Melting in W. Antarctica 'unavoidable,' potentially disastrous sea level rise
#20How much sea level rise?
"Up to 5.3 metres / 17 feet." From the article: "West Antarctica is already the continent’s largest contributor to global sea level rise and has enough ice to raise sea levels by an average of 5.3 meters, or more than 17 feet. It’s home to the Thwaites Glacier, also known as the “Doomsday glacier,” because its collapse could raise sea levels by several feet, forcing coastal communities and low-lying island nations to…
And it's worth noting, something like 450,000,000 people live within 5m of sea level. This would be absolutely catastrophic for the entire world. A significant contributing factor to European political strife over the past decade has been the arrival of refugees from other regions; and Europe is currently home to about 22 million refugees[0]. It's hard to imagine how wealthier regions will cope with the influx of 450,000,000 refugees (admittedly, many will be staying within their home regions -- but many will likely not).