Slashdot Mirror
Sea Level Rise Can't Be Stopped
riverat1 writes "Sea level rise won't stop for several hundred years even if we reverse global warming, according to a study published in the journal Nature Climate Change. As warmer water is mixed down into the oceans, it causes thermal expansion of the water. Under the best emissions scenario, the expected rise is 14.2 cm by 2100; under the worst, 32.2 cm from thermal expansion alone. Any water pumped from aquifers or glacial/ice sheet melt is added to that."
Any water pumped from aquifers or glacial/ice sheet melt is added to that.
How big is the effect of thermal expansion in comparison to melting of ice? How much would be the additional rise in the worst case scenario?
This may be a stupid question, but isn't there a way to collect massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, compress the carbon into some sort of solid composite, and store it somewhere where it's land-locked (similar to how trees store carbon in wood)?
What if Jesus sent you scientists warning you what you were doing was bad?
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
They won't have any problem, same as the armadillos that USED to live in TX went through AR and are halfway through OK now. As a certain line from a movie went "life finds a way" and while we here in North Central AR may be roasting under 104F temps the armadillos just packed up and moved north. At the current rate I expect Canucks to be dodging armadillos in about a decade.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Meanwhile NC recently banned their civil engineers from considering the impact of any rise in sea levels due to AGW, they insist that infrastructure planning must only use the historical sea level records for forcasting future sea levels.
As for TFA, the phenomena of thermal inertia has been understood for decades (it's why the hottest weather occurs a month or two AFTER the summer solctice, and is also the origin of the "pluto is warming" canard). More and better data have added weight to that knowledge and more finely tuned our accounting of what mechanisim is responsible for what portion of the changes (such as the recent stories about the draining of aquifiers contributing to the rise). All this is because the IPCC avoids using data that is less that 2yrs old in it's reports, they're currently approaching the cut off date for new data to be added to the 2014 reports so you can expect to see these kind of stories over the next month or so. The next two years will be spent arguing over the expected 100k or so individual review critisisims of the draft reports.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.