Slashdot Mirror
NASA Scientists Paint Stark Picture of Accelerating Sea Level Rise
A NASA panel yesterday announced widely reported finding that global sea levels have risen about three inches since 1992, and that these levels are expected to keep rising as much as several more feet over the next century -- on the upper end of model-based predictions that have been made so far. From the Sydney Morning Herald piece linked above: NASA says Greenland has lost an average of 303 gigatons [of ice] yearly for the past decade. Since it takes 360 gigatons to raise sea level by a millimetre, that would suggest Greenland has done this about eight times over just in the last 10 years or so.
"People need to be prepared for sea level rise," said Joshua Willis, an oceanographer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge. "It's not going to stop."
La la la can't hear you. It's all a leftie plot to rob hard working Republicans of their God given right to get 10 miles to the gallon.
If you live 1,000 ft above current sea level, you may need to be concerned in just 90000 years or so! The threat is real. (but yes, also other bad things can happen.)
//TODO: signature
If this is actually a credible report, then the U.S. government needs to stop funding the rebuilding/construction of areas that are CURRENTLY under sea level like New Orleans and the dikes and berms around it. No more federal funds of any kind for regions currently under water!
Until basic common sense measures like these happen, then we can rightly conclude this is just another "climate change hysteria" study. If the government doesn't believe in their own studies, then it is wrong to use them to force actions on others.
Yeah, in about 100 years I *might* have to move my chair and beer cooler another foot up the beach.
*takes out a cup filled with ice* See! The ice melting doesn't raise the water. So obviously global warming is fake. May God smite those heathen nerds!
[Insult disparaging other ACs]
There are helluva lot of people who live very close to sea level.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Look, to all those who would make light of 1mm an year increase in sea level, you must THINK
I don't have the math, but 1mm average increase across the entire sea level WILL result in lower/higher tides, and higher tides WILL impact YOU.
Even if you don't live anywhere near the ocean, the impact will affect you in many ways, and will generally result in an increased cost of living as more people are displaced, more infrastructure has to be modified/rebuilt/moved, governments increase taxes and/or abandon land to the sea.
You cannot expect the currently landlocked ice of greenland and antartica to have no effect when it melts and enters the water cycle.
Storms will get worse, not only because there's more available water to push around, but also because there's more energy to do that pushing.
Wake up, this is serious.
If this is actually a credible report, then the U.S. government needs to stop funding the rebuilding/construction of areas that are CURRENTLY under sea level like New Orleans and the dikes and berms around it. No more federal funds of any kind for regions currently under water!
By that logic we should just write off large swathes of the Netherlands. Dykes and berms work just fine, and we have the engineering means to keep portions of land we consider valuable dry even if the waters rise 10 or 20 feet. New Orleans would fit in this category in my opinion. It is a unique part of American heritage and a cultural gem (one of not-so-many the US possesses), well worth the investment of Federal dollars to keep around.
Not to mention that it is by far less expensive to retain land by shoring up or building new dykes, than it is to reclaim land already submerged. Not as cheap as ditching it of course, but in places where it is worthwhile (New York City, Hoboken, New Orleans, Holland, and various other places) it is much smarter to keep existing places dry than leave them to be inundated and then realize our mistake later and either lose them forever, or pay even more to reclaim them.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Scientists dumb down data so science magazines can understand. Mainstream media further simplifies for the general population to understand. Even the summary states that this guestimation is based on a different guestimation of how many gigatons of ice have melted. If 360 gigatons of ice on land melt, it is estimated that it will raise the sea level by 1 mm. However, if the ice is already in the sea, it won't raise the sea level. The dumbed down story doesn't say how much of the missing ice was already in the ocean vs on the land, so we can't use numbers to say that sea level has risen 8mm over that decade.
Since we are talking about NASA, why don't they measure the actual sea level instead of playing this numbers game?
That is just Greenland and does not cover Antarctica.
Why the bigotry against the unknown messenger? Identity only distracts from the message.
Anyway, I only came her to tell people they have plenty of time to move inland and/or move out of the first two floors. Stopping the polluting would be nice, but the whole idea of thinking about others downstream is probably to socialist/communist for some peoples' tastes
Posting AC, just because I don't like your phony pseudonym, it's hypocritical! So there! Pfffft!
Jerk!
Sure, but the people on the inland side of the road will be able to look forward to owning beachfront property! Myself, I'm investing in Hudson Bay waterfront property - with global warming, it will be the new French Riviera!
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I live on a hill, so I guess I'm safe. Can't wait till I have waterfront property though.
Be seeing you...
So long Bangladesh.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
What? Since when do we have a Mexican province?
Consider...
Why should you be expecting anyone else to think when you clearly can't even be bothered to?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
In fairness, you should mention that the sea level rises about 3mm a year, and has done so since at least 1650, which I think is when they first started measuring it. It hasn't been a major problem for the last 350 years, so I don't expect it will be a problem for the next 350. After all, we are much more advanced now.
Greenland alone is adding 0.8mm / year
If this is actually a credible report, then the U.S. government needs to stop funding the rebuilding/construction of areas that are CURRENTLY under sea level like New Orleans and the dikes and berms around it.
That turns out to be harder than you would think.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
sucks to be there...
Karma: Bad
I'm not radicalized in either direction on climate change, but there are very political people at NASA. Maybe we shouldn't listen.
It has been the talking point of the denier community for years that you can't trust the NASA results because they are "very political" and we shouldn't listen, but there isn't any evidence for that.
It has been the talking point of the denier community for years that you can't trust the NOAA results because they are "very political" and we shouldn't listen, but there isn't any evidence for that.
It has been the talking point of the denier community for years that you can't trust the British Meteorological Agency results because they are "very political" and we shouldn't listen, but there isn't any evidence for that.
It has been the talking point of the denier community for years that you can't trust the Japanese Meteorological Agency results because they are "very political" and we shouldn't listen, but there isn't any evidence for that.
It has been the talking point of the denier community for years that you can't trust the Max Planck Institute für Meteorologie results because they are "very political" and we shouldn't listen, but there isn't any evidence for that.
It has been... well, the deniers will tell you that every single agency and every single scientist who has ever studied climate is "very political and we shouldn't listen to theml" and we shouldn't listen, ... except for the ones that they carefully accept for their political views.
Scientists dumb down data so science magazines can understand. Mainstream media further simplifies for the general population to understand. Even the summary states that this guestimation is based on a different guestimation of how many gigatons of ice have melted. If 360 gigatons of ice on land melt, it is estimated that it will raise the sea level by 1 mm. However, if the ice is already in the sea, it won't raise the sea level. The dumbed down story doesn't say how much of the missing ice was already in the ocean vs on the land, so we can't use numbers to say that sea level has risen 8mm over that decade.
The 303 gigaton number was for Greenland ice. Greenland ice is on land.
Since we are talking about NASA, why don't they measure the actual sea level instead of playing this numbers game?
They do. Read the linked articles. These are satellite measurements of sea level.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/n...
http://www.nasa.gov/risingseas...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I can tell from the comments most of you don't live near the ocean. Down here in South Florida it's already making an impact. There are storm drains that flow water during high tide up and down the coast and boat docks underwater. Miami is worse. Hallendale Beach has five of their seven fresh water pumps closed because of salt water intrusion.
The real problem that no one is talking about is what happens when Miami gets nailed by a Cat 4 or 5 hurricane? We're going to have boats washing up on I-95. Do we spend the money to rebuild Miami just to have it flood 40 years later? Or when it gets nailed by another hurricane?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
None of the ice lost from Greenland is sea ice.
You really are a nut
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
One would hope they can walk faster than that.
> Sure, but the people on the inland side of the road will be able to look forward to owning beachfront property!
True, but probably in several hundred years.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
If I have that much pressure in one place on the surface of a ball of liquid iron and rock with a thin crust (Earth) and I remove the force so rapidly the entire area rises upward and as it does the effects propagate to the rest of the globe changing the stresses on all of the fault lines. i.e. Isn't the real problem that this will increase earthquakes and volcanic activity before the water level is a real problem? The extra eruptions may actually be a good thing as the ash clouds will have a albedo increasing, therefore cooling, effect. To bad if you live near one, or in California.
Sure. Or sooner if you are economically tied to businesses or people near the coast; or businesses or people not near the coast; or businesses or people not near the coast but dependant on others that are. That's the downside of living in a modern economy. I didn't hold any toxic mortgage backed financial instruments, but I sure felt the pain when the capital markets went tits up in 08.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
U.S. Naval map backs him. Your 20 year fake online name's delusional and nothing backs you. Grow up little boy.
And so it begins. I'm not APK, no, I'm just an anonymous friend who shows up to assist APK in his assault against the whole world.
Nope, no APK here, nope! Everyone is dreaming, APK is right! Watch as all his anonymous friends line up to support him! Look, they're accusing people of 'hiding behind fake names'. Do you think they get the joke?
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Hahahaha, hahahhaha! Thanks, I needed that. :)
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Hi APK, how are you enjoying your 1-person-block-party with all your anonymous friends? Sorry, anonymous hypocritical friends. Man, you have quite the social life!
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
... surf's up! :-)
licet differant, aequabitur
that would suggest Greenland has done this about eight times over
Isn't there land based ice melting into the oceans from other places, like say, Antarctica?
You need to get a life and to get on topic here. Try being yourself even though you're a fake online name loser.
OK I have to ask: as a stalking arsehole, how long did it take before you could tolerate your own hypocrisy?
Perhaps you've become immune by starting small and growing accustomed to it, like the Man in Black did with Iocain powder?
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
what's been accounted for in the studies?
I'm just asking why anyone would care about 9 more centimeters after the 12,500 we already had.
Ha! You don't know me. Everyone however knows you and most wish you'd just quietly leave and never come back. Must feel good to be famous!
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Here comes the people who couldn't give a fuck about what happens after they're dead, so long as they're not 'inconvenienced' by anything right now. The Human Race gets what it deserves, I guess.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
I think your brain is failing you again old fool - if you look carefully, you'll see it's actually yourself who is posting anonymously.
Now, as to your hypocrisy, I don't need to state anything, your idiot words are there for all to read and your blind stupidity at then denying your hypocrisy provides entertainment for all.
I do so love playing with low-IQ trolls like you because your type always twitches amusingly when poked with a stick.
Best of all, you're outraged that someone distracted you from your own stick-poking behaviour. Hypocrisy upon hypocrisy, you are just such rich comedy gold!
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
I was going to ask you the same thing about your posting of delusional, crackpot bullshit to Slashdot like that Edgar Cayce rubbish. You expect the Slashdot community to swallow it? You obviously haven't been paying much attention APK, you sad, sad cunt.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
There's the cherry-picking I was talking about. See how there's no corresponding list of times you were DOWN-modded? Yeah, that's the APK way!
You really are stupider than you appear if you think that MM and I are the same person.
Oh, and as it happens I would happily defend my Slashdot FOES against you, Alexander "Anus-Cancer Of Slashdot" Kowalski, if you're busy engaging in antisocial behaviour.
Anti-social behaviour: try to see the thread here, I know it's hard for you. You don't get thrashed by me when you behave yourself. You just can't help yourself though, so here we are.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
What's it like hiding behind online fake names for 20 yrs. as you're a loser in life? It's symptomatic of your kind, losers, you know.
Says the AC.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
The rise will stop. There is a finite amount of water on the planet that can end up in the oceans.
True but the sea could rise quite a bit before we get to that if you have a look at the sea level over the past 500 million years. Interestingly it seems that we live in a time of surprisingly low sea levels. A 200 metre sea rise would affect quite a few people.
Yes, because the majority of emissions are from cars, and cars aren't such a minor contributor as to actually be diverting interest and resources away from the major polluters, or even legitimate minor ones
About 13% of global carbon emission is from transportation:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...
--although transportation accounts for twice that in the US, 28% of the US emissions:
http://climate.dot.gov/about/t...
about a third of which is cars.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The sea level rise is expect to accelerate and go up over three feet in the next 100 years. Still, that's not going to drown anybody. Sea level rise is annoying, but it gets far too much attention.
Droughts and ocean acidification are scarier. I don't know where it will dry out or what problems the acidification will cause, but doing an experiment on our environment is not a sane way to find out.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
Oooow, poor widdle baby got her little nappies in a twist, poor baby.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Well, if you *insist* on being pedantic, what they mean is "It's not going to stop before it causes a degree havoc most people would find inconceivable."
I think they kind of expect people to understand they're not claiming that the water levels will rise, drowning the Moon, inundating the Sun, and eventually filling up the entire universe.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Oh, that's easy. If neither facts, statistics, common-sense nor reason can get through to you then why would I expect you to accept an answer I give you now? That would be delusional.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Maximum sea level rise for all ice and precipitation on earth being in liquid form on the ground at once is about 70m.
Because New Orleans and Miami are already mighty close to being drowned at high tide, and doing the logical and cheap thing (moving them to Detroit, which has perfectly fine water resources, is 500-600 feet above sea level, has plenty of space to build new housing, and no hurricane issues) is a political non-starter.
Moreover these estimates aren't really shrinking, so it's entirely possible that in 2115 mSparks43 III will read that comment and say "Geez, grandad sure was wrong about what would happen to Lady Liberty."
If you want to talk about paleo-climate, realise that the industrial revolution looks like an asteroid strike in the fossil record.
I will never understand why some people accept that "sea levels rose 125m in the last 10,000 years", but call BS when the same people tell them "AGW is a serious problem"? It seems to be related to the common religious behaviour where people pick and choose the bits they like, then labels the rest as BS?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
<sarcasm>It won't be a problem in North Carolina because they banned sea level rise planning. Texas and Florida should be fine too because you can't talk about climate change there or plan for it, so therefore it's not happening there. Clearly this so-called sea-level rise only happens in places where those pesky liberals who believe this so-called science live. Why, God will just protect these states just like he parted the Red Sea for Moses.</sarcasm>
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
You must live near a very shitty beach. Are you sure it's not a cliff?
Simple math exposes the blatantly fraudulent claims being made here. Also where does TFS make the switch between imperial and metric measurement and where does it distinguish between the two for those who don't know what the fuck an inch is? (it's 25.4mm)
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
And it still wont be at the level it was 1000 years ago.
or be anything like the DAILY change in tidal waters (14 meters in some places).
So, Mr Canute,
Why exactly should we care?
I call headlines of
"3 inch sea level rises a serious problem"
BS
When London, for example, sees sea levels rise 6 Meters
A DAY!
Kinda akin to a "Mr Evil" plan to stop the moon circling the earth.
Just the joke is very old and boring now.
Can't America send in some drone strikes against those pesky Greenlanders who are dumping their ice in the water? Bombing them will teach them a lesson!
So because a few politicians are obsessed over a bit of land, we should all sit up and take notice to them...
Nah, much more important things to pay attention to.
Like the fools that take this garbage seriously.
New Orleans is already hopeless, the land is subsiding much faster than the ocean is rising. Even if the sea level remains unchanged, New Orleans will be as dry as Atlantis in a century.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Conservatives should purchase beach-front property if they are so confident in hoaxing. Some is already selling at a discount due to climate change risk.
Can we get a citation on that? I don't have a lot of cash, but I'd love to buy some beachfront property if it is cheap. And I'd be willing to adapt to the ocean rising 0.13 inches per year. That should give me enough time to move my lawn chair.
Meanwhile, don't forget that Al Gore spent $8.87 million on his beachfront getaway. But what does he know?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
One foot of sea level rise is not a loss of one foot of beach, unless the beach has a 45-degree angle. A few feet of sea level rise is going to displace many millions of people.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
"If you live 1,000 ft above current sea level, you may need to be concerned in just 90000 years or so! "
Actually no, because if all the land-based ice (the kind that affects sea level) in the world were to melt, the sea would rise 70m (about 230').
Not all of the effects of global warming even of that magnitude would be catastrophic, or even negative. For example, Florida would disappear entirely.
Please don't engage him. He's not even amusing. I'll take a good tranny furry slashfic troll over host file shilling.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Because the billion plus people it brings more storm surge damages or routine flooding to will cost the world (that's you, taxpayer) trillions of dollars in damage mitigation. Sea level rises thousands of years ago cost you nothing.
This space intentionally left blank
Al Gore bought a 3rd house that is only a few feet above the current water line.
"bit of land" = the displacement of hundreds of millions of people across the globe.
AKA your kids get to grow up in permanent refugee crisis world.
And you know what ? I am a fool to care about this, because I'll be dead before shit gets really real. Hope you leave your kids some money!
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
There's only one thing to do: buy real estate in Greenland.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Sea levels rose 125m in the last 10,000 years or so
fell 10m in the last 1,000 or so
We care about 3 inches because??????
Seriously, isn't everyone tired of this BS by now?
Where do you get the idea that sea level fell by 10m in the last 1,000 years or so? As far as I can see by eyeballing graphs sea level rose maybe 0.15m (~6 inches) during that time.
Oh, it will be noticed.
A one foot rise in sea level is going to create a lot more shallow water basins and tidal flat areas. All that increase in surface area is going to increase evaporation rates. That will result in an increase in atmospheric water vapor, which is one of the more potent greenhouse gases, which introduces a new positive feedback to global warming.
But in turn the increased atmospheric water vapor will, under some conditions, create an increase in clouds, which will lower the insolation of the land and ocean below them and tend to counter global warming. Since evaporation and cloud formation will be regional, there will be a stronger thermal differential between regions, which will make severe weather incidents more frequent and more intense.
People are going to be displaced by storm damage more than by the simple rise in sea level. If every year 3 to 5 port cities on the East Coast of the USA were hit by an incident on the level of Hurricane Katrina, what would that permanent stream of refugees look like? How could even the wealthiest nation keep up the infrastructure repairs needed to keep those cities functional?
No one knows how to model this, so there can be no scientific talk about it yet. All we can know is that somewhere along the way as the seas rise to 21 feet above their current level, these kinds of effects are going to occur. I think the flooding that will happen with a one foot rise will be enough to change the Earth's weather engine. I may be off by a few feet... or by a few inches. We'll have to wait and see.
Will
There is still steric sea level rise, the rise from heating water and salinity changes. But that probably still leaves you under 300 feet.
Gore's house in Montecito is half a mile from the ocean and around 500 feet above sea level which you would have figured out if you'd looked at the photos in your link. It's in no danger due to sea level rise now or in the future as the maximum possible rise is less than 300 feet.
The problem is that the great ice sheets are behind the curve on melting and even if it stopped getting warmer tomorrow they would continue to melt for several centuries until they caught up to the new equilibrium point. I'd be surprise if there was less than 20 feet of sea level rise by 300 years from now and what we do now has an effect on how much total SLR there will be in the future.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo...
No, the maximum possible sea level rise is probably in the 300 foot range from current levels.
I hate to burst your bubble but at 722 feet Tulsa will never see the sea get near it. The maximum possible sea level rise is probably less than 300 feet.
Yes, and at the rate of 3 inches per generation, their kids might have to walk inland a foot or so.
Heaven forbid...
Oh, it will be noticed.
Perhaps it will be... maybe all that you say is correct...
The real issue is that some people take that and then say, "now you have to give other people lots of your money to do something about it".
Except, all that money won't do anything about it, either way. Regardless of your take on AGW, it is going to happen or it isn't.
We aren't going to, as humanity, stop burning coal, oil, or natural gas. We just aren't.
So if they cause AGW, then we're going to get it.
No, if you live 1,000 ft above current sea level you may need to be concerned when some of those 150 million people who live within 1 metre of current sea level move in next door to you.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
If you want to talk about paleo-climate, realise that the industrial revolution looks like an asteroid strike in the fossil record.
Yes.
Mostly due to the difference in resolution between the proxies used for paleo-climate and today's instrumental measurements of course.
it's in my head
don't buy property here.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Greenland alone is adding 0.8mm / year
Clearly the United Nations needs to impose severe sanctions against Greenland for negligently discarding their ice shelves and endangering world peace and prosperity. Such arrogance!
Error: NSE - No Signature Error
I think his point is that a lot of the alarmism seriously damages the ability for AGW proponents to reach people. Cities are quite fluid creatures, and as long as the seal level rise doesn't make specific sections of land uninhabitable overnight but rather in a 10-20 year period, we can plan for it and react timely. Of course, this doesn't account for problems like the severe weather you mentioned and a Katrina-level event, but we have completely different systems in place to deal with the more severe changes associated with them ("National Emergeny", aid injections, etc).
There's a lot of people who aren't deniers that anything is happening, but just don't see a reasonable solution available that would prevent the problems we anticipate happening. Our global society is simply too fragmented to apply and enforce a stop or reduction in CO2 PPM. So, we focus on damage prevention rather than problem prevention - what technical solutions can we come up with over the next 30 years that might make this problem, not a problem at all. Or, what problems are something we can adapt to on a normal time scale with our current setups. This latter category is one that I and many others think the "sea level rise" problem falls into, and feel that people terrified of New York City magically being underwater in 100 years drastically underestimates human ingenuity.
Where are you getting this 1000 year 10m higher sea level thing from anyway? Given that we have evidence of Roman and post-Roman settlements a few metres above current sea levels, I suspect this is complete bullshit.
Not that it is important now, we've build our cities to cope with high tides that we were getting in the very recent past. We have an accelerating sea level rise: 8cm in 20 years is in the past, the next 8 cm will occur in 15 years, the 8cm beyond that in 10 years.
Regardless, a 1 metre level in sea directly affects high tide levels too, so it's massive volumes of water overspilling sea defenses and backfilling very large areas of low level land beyond. Some cities build around tidal rivers will be fine - barriers will be built. Cities on the coast will find $$$ flooding events increasing from once a century to once a decade. And then once or twice a year at seasonal high tides.
And sea walls won't save any city built on porous materials. Miami, for example...
A NASA panel yesterday announced [...] the upper end of model-based predictions [...].
I for one am sick and tired of these pesky NASA models dictating how we spend trillions of tax-payer dollars looking up at the sky staring at clouds and such. I lived near the NASA Ames research center in CA and, trust, me: those fat bloated NASA bastard scientists and filthy computer geeks are not a pretty sight, prancing about in their cheap wigs and stiletto heels! It's positively repulsive!!
I say we stop funding all this ridiculous scare mongering and put these climatologist asshats to work doing something useful for society, like digging a huge moat around the continental United States to thwart the onslaught of this mongrel sea level incursion on our sovereign borders. That would also solve the problem of the growing wave of illegal immigrants flooding our southern shores with rapists and drug smugglers. Two birds, one stone.
And another thing: we should all start boycotting America's Next Top Model. It's a public outrage against geometry and theology!
Now back to my video games.
--
No witness, no crime.
Ignatius J. Reilly
Error: NSE - No Signature Error
Bingo. Mod up.
the problem with sea level rise that deniers miss (willfully ignore) isn't the (roughly) steady state level of the water (a threat, but a much more long term threat for all but the low lying island peoples).
The much more immediate short term problem is surge, both normal and storm. Particularly storm.
Some places have more surge than others and will experience rising sea levels more quickly.
But everyplace is susceptible to storm surge, and rising seas make storm surge many many times more damaging and dangerous.
Already we've seen this with both Katrina and Sandy in our own country. It's been estimated that Sandy caused nearly 40% more damage that it would have without sea level rise being a factor, contributing to a much larger storm surge. Think about it: you have a massive storm front, hundreds of miles across. Just adding an inch of height to the volume of surge equates to many millions of gallons of extra volume, not to mention extra momentum, able to penetrate far futher inland. And we've seen the seas rise nearly 8 inches in the past 120 years or so. Storm surge risk evaluations, done every ten years, have been increasing. As well as the number of events and severity, and the actual damage caused.
These images describe quite well, what we are already seeing happen:
http://climatecommission.angry...
http://ian.umces.edu/imagelibr...
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/de...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Perhaps check the thread, you are not the first person to ask this:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo...
Hmm, from a few pixels on the last graph.
Yet other data sources simply don't support this.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_nB6y... http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea... http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... http://www.forbes.com/sites/er...
Ah I see you've finally gone from Stage 3 (It's not a Problem) to Stage 4 (We can't do anything about it). Progress. Sort of.
Reality: Yes we bloody well can.
The uptake of green energy generation, particularly solar, is actually MORE rapid in developing nations than in western ones. In large part because its easier and cheaper in these poorer nations to slap a panel on a roof than build an entire energy distribution grid based off centralized generation.
And the thing is, we already -ARE- having an effect. We already -ARE- reducing emissions. Speaking in terms of Europe, the US, China in particular. And we will continue to do so as long as people don't block common sense emission regulations. Rules which you've posted in opposition to before, even though we're already 30% of the way there, and the goal emission level is based off a baseline year that had higher than normal emissions anyway, which only further reduces the actual reduction. Sorry bud, you continue to be dead wrong on this.
More on the various forms of "we can't stop it".
Of particular interest to you would apparently be the economic one, the idea that we can't stop using fossil fuel, marked with a *.
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
* http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Storm surge.
educate thyself: http://climatecommission.angry...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
That's one data source.
NASA
On on this particular issue they are mostly discredited (for a whole host of reasons, don't know why, don't really care. Not really interested in this "click bait for the sheeple").
quick google of "Ancient Egypt sea levels fell" gives
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07...
Which discredits one of those images.
There should be more considering it was falling sea levels which destroyed that once powerful empire.
The way it happens is that sea level rises slowly, so slowly it's barely noticeable. Then, literally overnight, a storm causes specific sections of land to go underwater. It's very expensive, even if we plan for it. But we never do seem to plan for it adequately, do we?
CO2 emissions will go down as fossil fuels become harder to obtain and the cost of alternative energy decreases. It's inevitable to reduce CO2 emissions, because fossil fuels will simply be exhausted. All we can do is speed up that process by imposing a carbon tax. We came together to reduce CFC emissions and sulfur emissions to alleviate the ozone hold and acid rain, so why not CO2 emisisons?
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
And anyway, without wanting to get too hung up on the exact details, and while I'm inclined to take publications from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration over the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on matters of the ocean.
Pointing out that the two biggest institutions tasked with investigating these issues can't even agree on recent sea levels within ten meters.
Really doesn't help anyone give a flying f' about 3 inches.
I like how you glossed right over the worldwide refugee crisis. I guess you think the 2nd amendment and gated communities will suffice for your progeny.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
You mean the worldwide refugee crisis caused by america dropping bombs on people.
Not sure what that has to do with sea level rise and falls.
Other than you'll have a tiny little bit less land to house them all when the EU start shipping the people displaced by US weapons to the US.
Now that would be something worth talking about.
The size of American penis's.
Not so much.
Since you bring up Katrina level event, I would like to have a list of cities built 5 feet below sea level so we can start talking about evacuating them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So, those few cities should be moved, but the vast majority of cities are not below sea level, so there is zero chance of a Katrina level event happening in the wide majority of the US. I have been to New Orleans, I have seen the levies, I have seen the 5 foot or so of water elevation there. I am still dumbfounded that people moved back into New Orleans, it WILL be flooded again, and there is nothing that the Army Core of Engineers can do to stop that. But trying to say that there will be 3-5 port cities that get flooded like that a year, that is not true and you know it. There would have to be 10-20 feet of sea level rise for that to be even possible, and as the increase is on the order of half an inch a year (a foot in 23 years), I don't think that we should have significant concern. It is something that needs to be planned for, but not a OMGOMGOMGOMG you are trying to make it sound like.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
You mean this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yes, I do agree that suggests sea level changes have nothing todo with hydrocarbons or AGW.
I don't think New Orleans is the shining example of Americans caring about the people and Environment you think it is.
Have you seen the psychiatrist yet APK? You may need a med check.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
NOLA is 7 feet below sea level:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Perhaps as a solution, NOLA should have been abandoned and a new city built a little up hill.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Where are you getting this acceleration from? As sea levels rise, the rise should slow down as there is more land underwater which increases the surface area of the oceans meaning more ice will have to melt for the same level of rise. Are you saying that ice melting is accelerating at a higher rate? I have seen no scientific evidence for this, please link your source.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/...
I don't know, it is hard to tell how far from the ocean it is from any picture but that one, and that one gives the impression of being pretty close to the ocean as you can see it in the background.
In case the link doesn't work, it is the last picture in the gallery.
which you would have figured out if you'd looked at the photos in your link.
So, please link to the better picture showing that the house is so far up and away from the ocean. Or did you just not even look at the pictures?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
More on the various forms of "we can't stop it".
Of particular interest to you would apparently be the economic one, the idea that we can't stop using fossil fuel, marked with a *.
Ok, I read it... all it says is, "the cost of doing nothing is more than the cost of doing something."
And that might be true, but it doesn't matter. Why? Because the people who have to pay for the cost of doing nothing are NOT the same people who have to pay for the cost of doing something.
My point is that the world, the human population, will continue to burn coal, oil, and natural gas at rates the AGW people say is unsustainable, regardless of any other factors, until such time as those resources actually become expensive.
It is a simple understanding of human behavior and the nature of the world as it exists today. Sure, the US and Europe might reduce their overall consumption. Even China may well do the same. But you won't get every nation on Earth to do it, not to the degree required.
From the numbers I've looked at, from NASA, taken at face value, you'd need to cut world-wide CO2 output by almost 50%, and you'd need to do it, more or less, TOMORROW, for it to stop the temp rise below 2 degrees C. That just isn't going to happen.
10 years from now, the world will put out the same, or more CO2 than it puts out this year.
So rather than try and pointlessly fight the change, perhaps we'd be much better off just planning for it. Of course, we won't do that either, because it requires 20 year, 50 year, and 100 year plans, and we largely, as a people, suck at those. Look at New Orleans, we rebuilt that and kept even the areas 7 feet below sea level open. How stupid is that? There is nearly a 100% chance that some of that will flood again in the next 100 years. Why build when you know it will happen again?
Because humans are very short term planners, because we have other forces at work besides just long range planning (in that case, racial concerns over appearing to "shut down black neighborhoods").
Ah I see you've finally gone from Stage 3 (It's not a Problem) to Stage 4 (We can't do anything about it). Progress. Sort of.
Reality: Yes we bloody well can.
We can't do enough to matter...
Or let me put this another way... Ok, yes we COULD, if humanity worked together on stuff...
But considering human nature, we AREN'T going to do anything about it.
There, is that better? Instead of, "we can't", I'm pointing out that, "we won't".
The uptake of green energy generation, particularly solar, is actually MORE rapid in developing nations than in western ones. In large part because its easier and cheaper in these poorer nations to slap a panel on a roof than build an entire energy distribution grid based off centralized generation.
Ahh, good to know, so CO2 levels world wide are dropping now? Total CO2 output of planet Earth is dropping each year?
Because that is what it would take. I don't much care (nor does the Earth) what any one nation does, or what a local group of people does. The question is, what is all of humanity doing?
http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/...
Looks to me like they are climbing.
BTW, notice that gas is now getting cheaper? That actually causes more of it to be used, it will cushion the bottom of the fall of oil, as people go back to burning it as the price drops. True CO2 reductions won't happen until the base cost of coal, oil, and natural gas becomes more expensive. Until then, we're going to burn it all.
10 meters is almost 33 feet. 1000 years is within the historical record. If there had been sea level change anywhere close to that amount it would be slap you in the face obvious. Show me some historical evidence for that much sea level drop. Are there Roman ports that are now 33 feet above sea level? Do historical records from China or Japan show anything like that? 10 meters of sea level drop over the last 1000 years is impossible to support.
Here's a story on a detailed study of sea levels over the last 2000 years done on the North Carolina coast that doesn't show anything like 10 meters of change.
the problem with sea level rise that deniers miss (willfully ignore) isn't the (roughly) steady state level of the water (a threat, but a much more long term threat for all but the low lying island peoples).
The much more immediate short term problem is surge, both normal and storm. Particularly storm.
Some places have more surge than others and will experience rising sea levels more quickly.
So move everyone inland 20 miles... or 50...
This isn't rocket science...
Let me turn this around... ask yourself why New Orleans was reopened and rebuilt and why not one mile of the city was closed off to homes?
The lowest city on that list has less than 300 people living in it and it is hundreds of miles inland from the ocean... :)
We keep building right next to the ocean and then are shocked when some of those homes and people are destroyed/killed.
Film at 11...
what the are using America as a reference for.
that place barely has 200 years of history.
We weren't building cities 10K years ago. Our living and working situations are designed around a sea level that was fairly stable until now. Ten thousand years ago, a rise in sea level would cause tribes of humans to move inland, which may have been a grave hardship for them, but not one I really care about. Currently rising sea levels have an effect on cities that have stood for centuries, and which have historic value.
To put this more generally, there is no "right" CO2 content, or "right" temperature, or "right" sea level. There are the values we built civilization around, and the values that will disrupt said civilization in a thoroughly unpleasant way. Change is expensive. When it's change that makes us all wealthier, we tend to ignore that.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It would be cheaper just to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Would it? Ask yourself... how would you reduce the worldwide CO2 emissions to, say, the 1990 number?
What would it take to get them down there and hold them there, while world population continues to rise?
I don't understand why so many people are against doing it.
I'm not against it, I fully support reasonable changes, such as moving to LED bulbs, requiring car companies to slowly make their cars and trucks use less gas over time, etc.
I just don't believe those changes will make enough of a difference.
The changes that WOULD make enough of a difference aren't going to happen due to human nature. This is not the only concern and issue in the world and the EU, US, etc. aren't all of humanity. Look at the price of oil. It continues to drop. As the US and EU reduce their overall demand for it, as we pump more of it, the price drops.
As the price drops, it becomes easier and cheaper for developing nations to use. We're a planet of 200 or so sovereign nations that don't all agree on stuff. Until the cheap oil, natural gas, and coal are gone, we as a species will keep using them.
Slowing the rate of growth isn't the solution. You'd have to cut the total output by nearly half to stop the temp rise. There is zero chance this is going to happen.
I don't say that because it would be a bad thing, I say it because it is reality.
and since you mentioned Japan.
I assume you are aware of this lovely bit of disinformation.
https://youtu.be/RvHD-oLT-qE
like it's remotely possible humans didn't live there.
I am not sure that I fully understand the post I'm responding to (maybe I need more caffeine).
My intended point is that slashdotters should be looking beyond the simplistic models of complex systems that are all that our current level of science can produce. Slashdot can and should be starting to shape our collective imagination to better orient ourselves wrt the highly probable future challenges that can be inferred from the simple models, even though this is all conjecture since the science cannot be done until the changes have manifested. Accepting the conclusion that we will see significant sea level rise, but dismissing it because everybody we know lives far enough away from any beach is inappropriate for a slashdotter. That's more of a FaceBook level of cognition. That's what FB is for: to provide comfortable reassurance that the things you don't like to think about don't much matter.
But thinking about whether a new nuclear power plant should be designed to withstand a couple of superstorm events every year instead of once during its service life now seems appropriate. Also the use of coal to generate electricity is dependent on the viability of railways, and if these become increasingly threatened by flooding and washouts, then what? Now that the science of sea level rise / global warming is firmly enough established, what are the on-the-ground challenges that we might expect, and how should we be influencing design decisions on infrastructure being built today that we expect to have a service life of 25+ years?
We no longer have historical data from which we can develop projections. The rules by which we design major infrastructure have just changed.
Will
That's what I thought, when I first went there the year before Katrina hit, and looked at the levees. These people are crazy, I thought. They live in a boat made of dirt.
This calls for a meme!
Error: NSE - No Signature Error
Yes, The only city in any danger on that list is NOLA at 7 feet below sea level, while being right on the ocean. The rest of them are miles inland behind mountains.
Though many areas are sinking faster than the oceans are rising, NOLA seems to be the worst of those. I saw a picture at some point that pointed out that most of the land in Maryland, including DC is sinking, I am sure there are other areas experiencing this as well.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I live in Utah. I think I'll be OK. Elevation 4,327 feet.
A 4000 foot wave would stop before reaching my house.
I feel safe unless there is a cataclysm so great that mountains are reformed.
Of course, the Yellow Stone volcano could take out the entire Western United States.
I do like the Florida oranges so I would miss them.
If we are lucky, the Death Valley will fill up with Ocean water and we can have a shorter drive when vacationing to the beach.
but what about water emissions generated when burning fossil fuels? Which volume of water is injected per year into the atmosphere (initially as water vapour) when burning gazoline, diesel, gas similar? And what is the impact on sea level, meteorological events...?
LOL, that's a drop in the bucket compared to what climate change will throwc up.
Best of luck to you, you'll need it.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
You miss the point. They're exaggerating. No need. Simply say 200 meter sea level rise. Don't say unlimited. Sticking with facts is better than exaggerating. Exaggeration comes back to haunt you because you end up losing credibility. People think, "ah, Roger exaggerated about A so he's probably exaggerating about B now too..."
Those who refuse to use their imaginations would be better served by FaceBook than Slashdot, since on FB they can find a compatible group of thinkalikes to comfortably reinforce their point of view. Slashdot, at its best, challenges established world views. Which is never comfortable.
Don't be silly, Slashdot is just like Facebook, a collection of people focused on a specific world view...
This site has been pushing the pro-AGW for some time, the bias is clear to anyone paying attention...
There is no reason to believe faster change is a problem.
Cretaceous Hothouse also had significantly different topology on the face of the Earth and my 300 feet guess assumes the ocean doesn't get nearly as hot as it was back then. About half of the SLR in the past century was simply due to the water heating up and expanding.
> It's inevitable to reduce CO2 emissions, because fossil fuels will simply be exhausted.
We will not be able to breathe before we run out of fossil fuels. At 5000 ppm CO2 (0.5%), people start having trouble breathing.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/rep...
(Data from Grace satellite measurements, by NOAA)
My reaction upon seeing some of the pictures of some of the 'levees' was WTF. They were pathetic little things for the job that was required of them.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Here I am
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
I didn't mean to imply it was, certainly not about the people. If we cared about the people the whole Katrina mess would not have been allowed to get so bad. The levee would have been fixed, the Marines flown in with a bevy of small watercraft to rescue people so the National guard could truck them to hastily set-up refugee centers on Day 2, etc.
What we care about is their property right to have a house on precisely the exact plot of land they have the deed to. We will not violate that property right by turning the entire damn neighborhood into a national park, no matter what.
Always remember, before Thomas Jefferson got to it the battle cry was "Liberty and Property."
Yeah, everybody is worrying about everything.
Planet X, meteors, stock market crashes
and the latest, incredulous thing we should be scared of.
sea levels rising by 3" plus or minus 10 meters.
how is everybody not bored of this BS by now.
Ever hear of subsidence:
https://www.climate.gov/news-f...
Land subsidence [sinking] in the New York City area has been roughly 3-4 inches per century, which is primarily due to the Earth's crust.
i.e. Absolutely NOTHING to do with ice melting. and however told you it is, was lieing to you, and you should get your money back.
Exactly.
Which is yet another reason "widely reported FUD" about melting ice causing 3" of sea level rise is BS.
No one in the US cares about such disasters already caused by subsidence.
So
There is no way anyone cares about disasters that may happen if something that may or may not be happening, happens somewhere 99% of the population has never been to.
But won't stop rich folk putting a carbon tax on the poor folk, so they can drop more bombs on villages and schools in places the average American has never even heard of.
Come on now.
Rich people pay the carbon tax, too. Probably more then poor people (it takes a lot to heat a McMansion and fuel the SUV/sensible car/fun car combo) in absolute terms, if not relative terms.
The Carbon tax is intended to do a lot more then prevent floods. It also deals with droughts and forest fires. And guess who hunts a lot, and will be in trouble if there's a drought?
Agree - instantaneous and 250yrs are indistinguishable, geologically speaking. :)
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Well, Cayce was right about Piltdown Man, wasn't he?
No... wait... it was exposed as a hoax for which both Cayce and his trance-medium "other" fell for--hook, line, and sinker.
Alex, you must be leading a very sad and empty life, if you've nothing to do other than troll Slashdot and read your mom's old supermarket-checkout paperbacks written by someone who was discredited 50 years ago. (Amongst other things, they asked him to give readings for dead people, with most entertaining results.)
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Now you are being quite rediculous.
Only poor people (those with income less than about $2mill a year) pay any tax.
Unless you count the negative interest rate on their swiss bank accounts and the cost of bribing the politicos to give them exceptions.
And I'm pretty sure they don't count.
It's not the click-bait headlines that are "getting boring", it's your particular brand of loudmouth hubris.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I don't think laughing at people who take this nonsense seriously will ever get boring.
We'll never need to decide if Hoboken is worth saving. It will be saved as a side effect of saving Manhattan. Once we block inflows on the Arthur Kill, the Narrows and East River then all of Hudson County is safe.
Of course NYC may need to evacuate Staten Island and South Brooklyn somewhere, so Hoboken may change. Sorry. PS For the short stint when I lived in Hoboken it was a living shrine to Frank Sinatra, with a surprising number of residents who never left the "square mile" for any reason. I've been told this has already changed.
nope. not flamebait
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Yeah, you're right. It's just so funny to see him twitch and I hate seeing him bang on other users but I agree it's probably best to let the sad prick be.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Even Mitt Romney had to pay 14%. Granted that gave him more in after-tax income then both of combined will earn over our life-times, but it also meant that his tax bill (of $2 Million) was more then I will earn over my lifetime. I suspect Obama will be in the $5-10 Million range once he no longer has to worry about a) political appearances, and b) Federal conflict-of-interest rules. He'll also be paying a tax rate of more like 35% because (unlike Mitt) his income isn't in stock he is selling off from years in finance (which is taxed at the long-term capital gains tax rate), it'll be actual income, and his income tax bracket will be the 39.6% bracket.
In terms of a Carbon Tax, that would be nigh-impossible to dodge. Each gallon of gasoline burned emits so many pounds of carbon, that means the gas tax is now higher and includes a carbon tax. Romney and Obama could dodge it by buying a Tesla, but getting their fleets of vehicles to emit less was kind of the point. Each kilowat-hour of electricity from Power Plant A emits so much carbon, the utility pays it and passes the cost on to you. The only way for them to bypass it would be for him to retrofit his home for energy efficiency, and/or power generation (solar is popular now, but Geothermal also works) which a) employs relatively poor (at least compared to either Mitt or Barack) class construction workers, and b) is precisely what the Carbon tax is supposed to do.
I think this is one of the biggest problems with the debate over climate change. Most of the people (especially the ones who can effect real action toward reversing or limiting the issue) won't be around when things really go into the shitter. They don't care in part because why worry about something they won't ever live through?
People who have children they care about but still deny it, well that's a different story. But those who have a vested interest in keeping things as they are may not care so much what happens when they and most of their investors are long gone. This is our children and our grandchildrens problems, more than it's our own. That's sorta how delayed systems work, as with most forms of pollution humans subject the planet to. People have trouble getting worried when it's not something that happens right away, or something they won't be alive to witness.
HOPEFULLY in the future when more currently old people are gone, things will change and society will have less reasons to shrug it off. It may be too late by then.
You'd think people on slashdot were more intelligent than average, so why do so many of you believe in global warming? You'll be telling me god exists next.
The only people who disbelieve climate change is a problem are corporate stooges, religious nutjobs, and people who can't grasp the notion that they could possibly be doing anything wrong.
and that is just plain biased and ignorant
Eg: I live in Tampa FL. About 1 mile from downtown and 13 ft above average sea level right now. If the sea rose two feet in the next few years it would wipe out the most valuable real estate in Tampa Bay, pretty much devastating the economy of the area. Davis and Harbor Islands were manufactured with rubble back a hundred years ago, just one hurricane with a 5 foot storm surge would wash everything out on the islands, including the hospital (Tampa General Hospital). Yeah, this is real, we jeust had a summer of good rains, not hurricanes or tropical storms, just rains, and six of the small towns in the bay area were evacuated at least once. The bayfront properties were all flooded. South Tampa was cut off a few times. And it is getting worse because it is still raining.
Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
"just move 4 billion people"
no its not rocket science.
it is however a logistical nightmare talking about the displacement of over half the world's population.
this is you're not a serious contributor to these discussions.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
And you are?
The comments being offered about this or that solution are equally useless...
So check a mirror, you might find your comments apply to you as well...
At least I'm being realistic about things, most of the people offering up "solutions" are just dreaming fantasy.
A 200 metre rise is impossible.....If you'd actually read the text under the image you linked to, you'd have realized that.
I don't know which image you were looking at but the text under the image I linked to says: "Comparison of two sea level reconstructions during the last 500 Ma. The scale of change during the last glacial/interglacial transition is indicated with a black bar. Note that over most of geologic history, long-term average sea level has been significantly higher than today."
I don't see anything there to suggest that any major plate tectonics are required. Furthermore in the text of the article in says: "During the glacial-interglacial cycles over the past few million years, the mean sea level has varied by somewhat more than a hundred metres. This is primarily due to the growth and decay of ice sheets (mostly in the northern hemisphere) with water evaporated from the sea."
Which seems to explicitly contradict you and say that the change is precisely due to changes in temperature. Melting ice is not the only way to increase sea level: thermal expansion is also a major factor and what evidence I could find suggests that it accounts for about 50% of sea level change at the moment. So if you get 80m from melting the ice and another 80m from thermal expansion you can easily get close to 160m. After that there is no reason to limit thermal expansion since this could continue even after all the icecaps melt so 200m does not seem impossible.
I agree that this is a surprising number and I expected to find that the maximum possible rise would be far less than this but the evidence suggest otherwise.
Check your link again. It says we are living in a time with relatively high sea levels, the opposite of what you claim.
Read the text again carefully! From the caption under the figure I linked: "Note that over most of geologic history, long-term average sea level has been significantly higher than today.".
In case that was not clear if over much of geological history sea level has been higher than today this means that we are living in a time of relatively LOW sea level. If you don't believe that then just look at the data in the plot!