"No at 3mm a year 6.7 inches in a century, you probably wont be able to see a difference."
Denier assumes the current rate will be the future rate.
If you put a chunk of ice which is at 0 degrees F in a room at 10 degrees F, and then turn on a room heater set for 90 degrees F, at the very beginning there will be no melt. Using the Denier's logic, this would imply that there would be no ice melt even long after the room reached 90 degrees.
It is just you and your fellow warm-mongers. Those with a background in science aren't worried about every scaremonger out there.
Some of the more recent projections of future sea-level rises are greater than the earlier forecasts and that’s because sea-levels are rising faster than was originally thought, largely because the Polar ice is melting faster than it used to.
If these modern projections are correct then the American seaboards will sink faster. But… please bear in mind that this is a projection centuries ahead, it’s not going to happen any time soon.
Sea levels are rising slowly, currently by 3.2mm per year. The worst case scenario (based on the Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite data) are for a 14mm a year rise by the end of this century. If we’re sensible we can take steps to reduce this.
Should push come to shove then it will be cheaper and easier to implement measures to interfere with the climate and cool it down than it would to start relocating cities such as New York or Miami.
It seems to be a denier trait to show off their lack of understanding of science, as if ignorance is some sort of badge of honor.
Based on some of the answers you have so far, note the start date of kanos little graph 1993 hardly the century long rise of 3mm he claims, there's a simple reason for this the actual long term record for sea level change is more like 1.7mm per year going back to the 1880's the 3.1mm figure we have now is an increase in that rate that is only a few decades old and as temperature rise we can expect more increases in this rate. Whether deniers do this out of ignorance or a deliberate attempt to deceive is hard to say, that they seem to do it so often would suggest the later.
Real data with the above point included
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_his...
Then we have 'Einstein on crack' sadly I think the real Einstein had a better grasp of Archimedes principles than this guy does, no scientists has ever said melting sea ice will cause sea level rise, they have said that melting glaciers (on land) will, so the sad example deniers continue to try and use of the glass of water and an ice cube still doesn't work as an example of this. Unless you fill the glass to the top with water and then add the ice cube later, that deniers can't even grasp these subjects at these very basic levels, tells you a lot of their basic understanding of science.
This lame science example dates back to our old fiend Jello who used to use the same flawed example when I first started here over 5 years ago.
What is usually referred to when talking of melt ice caps is the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, both are land based glacial masses, until recently in what is usually called ice mass balance they lost ice but gained back similar mass from snow fall. This is no longer the case and both are losing mass.
That they are losing mass is not really at issue - http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#l...
except in the fantasy world deniers inhabit.
At the moment the loss is very small but the mass of these glaciers is so great that a loss of just 1.5% from both is enough to raise global sea level 1m, a 1m sea level rise would spell the end for places like the Maldives and many low laying islands and massive flooding in low laying coastal regions around the world like Florida and the Gulf region in the U.S. and countries like the Netherlands and Bangladesh.
Deniers will tell you that such glaciers would take thousands of years to melt and this is actually true, (for once) of course what seems to escape deniers (even the ones calling themselves Einstein) is that if it takes 5000 years for an ice mass as large as Antarctica to melt, then the time it would take for just 1.5% of that mass to melt is significantly less in the order of 100 years is perfectly possible.
1m in sea level rise would also mean, as well as the direct flooding, more frequent storm and king tide flooding.
Sea level rise has already almost doubled from the 1.7mm to the current to 3.16mm per year as we continue to warm that will only increase further.
All the ice in the northpole can melt and won't effect the rise ,just like a cube of ice in your glass isn't affected,it is the same size after it melts,south pole is on land but very small amount melts each year,don't worry,we won't die from a rising sea level,all scientist know that's a Lie.
No at 3mm a year 6.7 inches in a century, you probably wont be able to see a difference.
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.488652283...
Hah the alarmist's say, what if it accelerates, Hah say I, what if it slows down.
Your just trying to frighten people.
Look at the Arctic ice melt http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecove...
doesn't look too scary to me, or the Antarctic ice extent
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/image...
Talk to the right wing morons.... apparently global warming isn't happening.
Right wing morons make real sure NOTHING can be done about this because they want their Billionaires polluting right down to the last day.
I totally agree! But no one seems to care.
YES!!!!! there is so much info. and proof to support that but nobody wants to do whats needed to stop it
