So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
RCS’s top of the head calcs do sometimes contain a gross error he’s overlooked. In this case it’s that a chunk of that “covered by water” percentage is sea ice, including much of the Arctic and Antarctica, which is where a lot of the extra water would come from.
How's that an error?
If the ice in those areas gets turned into water rising the sea level then the sea level will rise there every bit as much as it rises anywhere else.
Erm if sea ice is floating on water then melting it will cause no change in sea level whatsoever. A gent by the name of Archimedes worked that one out about 2000 years ago. It is already displacing the sea just by floating on it. (This does not quite apply if it is anchored to nearby land)
A common fallacy which ignores the fact that Archimedes is about mass, not volume. Icebergs melting raise sea level by about 2.6%
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
That's an official USG estimate, from NOAA, so I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.
https://www.floodmap.net/ lets you play with the levels if you think 70m is silly (which it is). The cloggies are basically fucked by even a 1 metre rise; any more than that, Cambridge are serious losers.
Apologies for the redundant "any more than that" in the preceding sentence.
A 2-meter rise puts Stodge Towers at risk.
We have the Thames Flood Barrier though we're on the wrong side and have to rely on the Barking Creek flood barrier - the world's largest guillotine. It's a brave idea to cut off the tidal flow - the problem is all the water backing up down the River Roding would have nowhere to go and we'd be flooded from the land side.
Because he was up for the annual Godwin Grand Prize otherwise. How did he expect the Jewish community to react to a comparison with their genocide?
There was nothing remotely offensive about it to Jews.
If anything by comparing the failure of world leaders to combat Nazism in the 1930s (thus enabling the Holocaust) to the risk of world leaders today failing to do enough to combat climate change he was saying not enough was done to protect Jews then.
As far as I can see he had no need to apologise whatsoever
It was wholly unnecessary and he is right to apologise
He is head of the Anglican Church and his language was ill judged, but then who listens to the clergy these days anyway
I repeat, what was actually offensive about it to Jews?
He is also primus inter pares of the Anglican communion, representing 92 million Anglicans worldwide, as well as head of the Church of England. Plenty listen to him, including me
Your blind love is the least surprising
And for a Christian to suggest people will be cursed and comparing anything with the Nazis was crass
And please note, he has apologised so why defend him
Nor is the jump on the latest bandwagon from you.
He also did not compare anyone to the Nazis, he compared potential inaction over climate change to inaction in the 1930s in failing to tackle the Nazis. Not the same thing at all. Some scientists will also tell you that potentially millions could die from flooding, drought, starvation etc caused by climate change.
If he wished to apologise to shut up the thought police like you that is up to him, in my view he still had nothing to apologise for
I’m with you on this, but it really was a bit foolish to make that analogy given the sensitivities, and he’s had to apologise just to move things on. It’s a pity because I like Justin Welby. Like Pope Francis he’s a genuinely good and compassionate man, but he does have an unfortunate tendency to put his foot in it.
He makes the average sheep look like a professor emeritus of astrophysics. And I had a vague memory he was on sabbatical? Worn out with all that bleating.
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
That looks like the map I mentioned the other night. My house is still there, under the ‘h’ of Bournemouth and with the beach only 100m away instead of 230m, while almost all of London is gone to fish…..yet John Lewis insurance think mine is the greater flood risk.
A shame I won’t live to see it as a beachside villa.
On the general topic of sea level rises caused by melting glaciers: the 70m estimate assumes the collapse of the entire East Antarctic ice sheet, which is very stable and seems unlikely to go except under very extreme circumstances.
If both the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melt completely then I think that gets us to somewhere around 15m, but even that would take several centuries. It's really only people living in very low lying areas or those vulnerable to flooding caused by swollen rivers or stormwater run-off that have much to worry about within the lifetime of anybody posting here.
If sea level guaranteed flooding of everything below sea level then how much of the Netherlands would be gone?
If the sea level rises, I expect we'd swiftly adapt to prevent it from flooding our land.
And yet we already have tidal flooding incidents.
There was a big one fairly recently that affected thousands of people but got buried under the news of the death of Nelson Mandela.
I don't believe any of the more catastrophic predictions are likely in the short term either, but even 0.5m would be a challenge in some parts (particularly Hull, if anyone cares, and London).
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
RCS’s top of the head calcs do sometimes contain a gross error he’s overlooked. In this case it’s that a chunk of that “covered by water” percentage is sea ice, including much of the Arctic and Antarctica, which is where a lot of the extra water would come from.
How's that an error?
If the ice in those areas gets turned into water rising the sea level then the sea level will rise there every bit as much as it rises anywhere else.
Erm if sea ice is floating on water then melting it will cause no change in sea level whatsoever. A gent by the name of Archimedes worked that one out about 2000 years ago. It is already displacing the sea just by floating on it. (This does not quite apply if it is anchored to nearby land)
A common fallacy which ignores the fact that Archimedes is about mass, not volume. Icebergs melting raise sea level by about 2.6%
But doesn't a glass of frozen water go down in volume when it melts?
Yes, but it's all fresh water, and it doesn't have 10% sticking out above the surface
In this case that really does not make any difference. The 10% above the surface would make no difference to the level in the glass if it melts as it is already displacing the water it is floating in.
The question was "a glass of frozen water." Nothing to float in.
In which case when it melts it the level will drop in the glass as ice just below freezing point has more volume than the same mass of water. About 8% more. The density of ice is somewhere around 0.92 g/ml
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
That looks like the map I mentioned the other night. My house is still there, under the ‘h’ of Bournemouth and with the beach only 100m away instead of 230m, while almost all of London is gone to fish…..yet John Lewis insurance think mine is the greater flood risk.
A shame I won’t live to see it as a beachside villa.
Scotland and Norway survive pretty unscathed.
Yes, however much you crank it up the Great Glen doesn't visibly broaden. Most of the Uists goes, which is a shame.
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
Are you counting the polar ice caps?
I was not.
But let's have a little play there too, shall we?
Firstly, we're going to assume that every single bit of ice is going to melt there. (Which would be an astonishing warming of the earth, given that the South Pole still only gets to around 28 degrees below in summer.
But let's start with the North Pole. According to Wikipedia: "Earth's North Pole is covered by floating pack ice (sea ice) over the Arctic Ocean. Portions of the ice that do not melt seasonally can get very thick, up to 3–4 meters thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 meters thick. One-year ice is usually about 1 meter thick. The area covered by sea ice ranges between 9 and 12 million km2." Let's go with 5 meters over the whole lot.
Let's just play with numbers. 10 million km at 5m depth compared to 150 million km of oceans. Now, I'm rounding here, but that means that if the whole North Pole was to melt, that would add about 30cm to world sea levels.
Hmmm... Not getting to a 70 meter increase there.
Let's add the South Pole shall we.
That's 14.6 million square miles. Let's round up to 15 million miles. And let's assume an average depth of 100 meters. That means that Antarctica could add 10 meters to sea levels. But again those seem like pretty chunky top of the head calculations, even ignoring the fact that there's been no diminution of ice levels at the South Pole and that it remains pretty damn cold there.
Let's not assume an average depth of 100 metres, let's go with the well established average depth of two kilometres, maxing out at 5 kilometres. this makes a difference.
The highest point in Antarctica is below 5km - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinson_Massif - and that definitely contains quite a lot of rock. From the picture there's clearly rock at the actual surface.
And remember you can't count the ice below sea level. Because that will actually, as it melts, lower sea levels.
You'll notice it is quite thin on the mountain ranges, but these are actually holding back the vast mass of ice sheet in the interior.
That is a fascinating image, thank you. It suggests that lots of the ice in Antarctica is actually below sea level. So you can't just work out how much ice there is and add it to the sea level.
Yes, that's true, it isn't as simple as just melting it all and adding up the volume. But there is an awful lot above the tide line.
Brenda dropping another hint that London Bridge will soon fall.
The Queen has called on world leaders to look beyond their own lifetimes and “answer the call of future generations” with an ambitious agreement to tackle climate change.
In a speech delivered by video to more than 120 leaders gathered in Glasgow for the Cop26 climate change conference she said that “none of us will live for ever” and urged them to rise above “the politics of the moment”.
With the description of her outfit, the opening sounds like it thinks she boosted someone else's car amd was trying to be ignognito. The Queen has been pictured driving near Windsor Castle, three days after being advised by her doctors to rest and only carry out light duties.
The monarch, 95, was photographed in a headscarf and sunglasses behind the wheel of a green Jaguar estate car.
The right of centre LDP have retained their majority in yesterday's Japanese general election under their new leader and PM Fumio Kishida with 261 seats, down 23. The centre left Constitutional Democratic party was second with 96 up 41
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
Are you counting the polar ice caps?
I was not.
But let's have a little play there too, shall we?
Firstly, we're going to assume that every single bit of ice is going to melt there. (Which would be an astonishing warming of the earth, given that the South Pole still only gets to around 28 degrees below in summer.
But let's start with the North Pole. According to Wikipedia: "Earth's North Pole is covered by floating pack ice (sea ice) over the Arctic Ocean. Portions of the ice that do not melt seasonally can get very thick, up to 3–4 meters thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 meters thick. One-year ice is usually about 1 meter thick. The area covered by sea ice ranges between 9 and 12 million km2." Let's go with 5 meters over the whole lot.
Let's just play with numbers. 10 million km at 5m depth compared to 150 million km of oceans. Now, I'm rounding here, but that means that if the whole North Pole was to melt, that would add about 30cm to world sea levels.
Hmmm... Not getting to a 70 meter increase there.
Let's add the South Pole shall we.
That's 14.6 million square miles. Let's round up to 15 million miles. And let's assume an average depth of 100 meters. That means that Antarctica could add 10 meters to sea levels. But again those seem like pretty chunky top of the head calculations, even ignoring the fact that there's been no diminution of ice levels at the South Pole and that it remains pretty damn cold there.
Let's not assume an average depth of 100 metres, let's go with the well established average depth of two kilometres, maxing out at 5 kilometres. this makes a difference.
The highest point in Antarctica is below 5km - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinson_Massif - and that definitely contains quite a lot of rock. From the picture there's clearly rock at the actual surface.
And remember you can't count the ice below sea level. Because that will actually, as it melts, lower sea levels.
You'll notice it is quite thin on the mountain ranges, but these are actually holding back the vast mass of ice sheet in the interior.
That is a fascinating image, thank you. It suggests that lots of the ice in Antarctica is actually below sea level. So you can't just work out how much ice there is and add it to the sea level.
I think it gets horribly complicated at this point.
The only reason that so much of Antartica is below sea level is because of the weight of ice on top of it which is pushing it down - the isostatic effect I was talking about on the last thread. If you melt all that ice then the land will rebound in isostatic readjustment and if that happens then most of that water is going to end up in the seas.
Thanks for that - v interesting
Is the rock beneath the water really that elastic?
And if so, that represents a massive amount of trapped energy
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
RCS’s top of the head calcs do sometimes contain a gross error he’s overlooked. In this case it’s that a chunk of that “covered by water” percentage is sea ice, including much of the Arctic and Antarctica, which is where a lot of the extra water would come from.
How's that an error?
If the ice in those areas gets turned into water rising the sea level then the sea level will rise there every bit as much as it rises anywhere else.
Erm if sea ice is floating on water then melting it will cause no change in sea level whatsoever. A gent by the name of Archimedes worked that one out about 2000 years ago. It is already displacing the sea just by floating on it. (This does not quite apply if it is anchored to nearby land)
A common fallacy which ignores the fact that Archimedes is about mass, not volume. Icebergs melting raise sea level by about 2.6%
Shouldn't it be expressed in meters or centimeters, because 2.6% is relative to what?
Yeah, I don't get that number.
Archimedes is about displacement, not about melting.
The ratio of densities of ice to water is 0.92, so ice takes up 108.7% of the space that that amount of water would, or water takes up only 92% of the volume of the ice that melts.
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
Are you counting the polar ice caps?
I was not.
But let's have a little play there too, shall we?
Firstly, we're going to assume that every single bit of ice is going to melt there. (Which would be an astonishing warming of the earth, given that the South Pole still only gets to around 28 degrees below in summer.
But let's start with the North Pole. According to Wikipedia: "Earth's North Pole is covered by floating pack ice (sea ice) over the Arctic Ocean. Portions of the ice that do not melt seasonally can get very thick, up to 3–4 meters thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 meters thick. One-year ice is usually about 1 meter thick. The area covered by sea ice ranges between 9 and 12 million km2." Let's go with 5 meters over the whole lot.
Let's just play with numbers. 10 million km at 5m depth compared to 150 million km of oceans. Now, I'm rounding here, but that means that if the whole North Pole was to melt, that would add about 30cm to world sea levels.
Hmmm... Not getting to a 70 meter increase there.
Let's add the South Pole shall we.
That's 14.6 million square miles. Let's round up to 15 million miles. And let's assume an average depth of 100 meters. That means that Antarctica could add 10 meters to sea levels. But again those seem like pretty chunky top of the head calculations, even ignoring the fact that there's been no diminution of ice levels at the South Pole and that it remains pretty damn cold there.
Let's not assume an average depth of 100 metres, let's go with the well established average depth of two kilometres, maxing out at 5 kilometres. this makes a difference.
The highest point in Antarctica is below 5km - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinson_Massif - and that definitely contains quite a lot of rock. From the picture there's clearly rock at the actual surface.
And remember you can't count the ice below sea level. Because that will actually, as it melts, lower sea levels.
You'll notice it is quite thin on the mountain ranges, but these are actually holding back the vast mass of ice sheet in the interior.
That is a fascinating image, thank you. It suggests that lots of the ice in Antarctica is actually below sea level. So you can't just work out how much ice there is and add it to the sea level.
I think it gets horribly complicated at this point.
The only reason that so much of Antartica is below sea level is because of the weight of ice on top of it which is pushing it down - the isostatic effect I was talking about on the last thread. If you melt all that ice then the land will rebound in isostatic readjustment and if that happens then most of that water is going to end up in the seas.
Thanks for that - v interesting
Is the rock beneath the water really that elastic?
And if so, that represents a massive amount of trapped energy
Could it also cause earthquakes as the pressure adjusts?
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
RCS’s top of the head calcs do sometimes contain a gross error he’s overlooked. In this case it’s that a chunk of that “covered by water” percentage is sea ice, including much of the Arctic and Antarctica, which is where a lot of the extra water would come from.
How's that an error?
If the ice in those areas gets turned into water rising the sea level then the sea level will rise there every bit as much as it rises anywhere else.
Erm if sea ice is floating on water then melting it will cause no change in sea level whatsoever. A gent by the name of Archimedes worked that one out about 2000 years ago. It is already displacing the sea just by floating on it. (This does not quite apply if it is anchored to nearby land)
A common fallacy which ignores the fact that Archimedes is about mass, not volume. Icebergs melting raise sea level by about 2.6%
Shouldn't it be expressed in meters or centimeters, because 2.6% is relative to what?
Yeah, I don't get that number.
Archimedes is about displacement, not about melting.
The ratio of densities of ice to water is 0.92, so ice takes up 108.7% of the space that that amount of water would, or water takes up only 92% of the volume of the ice that melts.
I think it is because salt water is 2.5% more dense than a fresh water iceberg.
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
RCS’s top of the head calcs do sometimes contain a gross error he’s overlooked. In this case it’s that a chunk of that “covered by water” percentage is sea ice, including much of the Arctic and Antarctica, which is where a lot of the extra water would come from.
How's that an error?
If the ice in those areas gets turned into water rising the sea level then the sea level will rise there every bit as much as it rises anywhere else.
Erm if sea ice is floating on water then melting it will cause no change in sea level whatsoever. A gent by the name of Archimedes worked that one out about 2000 years ago. It is already displacing the sea just by floating on it. (This does not quite apply if it is anchored to nearby land)
A common fallacy which ignores the fact that Archimedes is about mass, not volume. Icebergs melting raise sea level by about 2.6%
Shouldn't it be expressed in meters or centimeters, because 2.6% is relative to what?
Yeah, I don't get that number.
Archimedes is about displacement, not about melting.
The ratio of densities of ice to water is 0.92, so ice takes up 108.7% of the space that that amount of water would, or water takes up only 92% of the volume of the ice that melts.
Yes, sorry, the claim is that if you melt an iceberg you increase the volume of liquid sea water by 2.6% of the volume of what you melt.
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
RCS’s top of the head calcs do sometimes contain a gross error he’s overlooked. In this case it’s that a chunk of that “covered by water” percentage is sea ice, including much of the Arctic and Antarctica, which is where a lot of the extra water would come from.
How's that an error?
If the ice in those areas gets turned into water rising the sea level then the sea level will rise there every bit as much as it rises anywhere else.
Erm if sea ice is floating on water then melting it will cause no change in sea level whatsoever. A gent by the name of Archimedes worked that one out about 2000 years ago. It is already displacing the sea just by floating on it. (This does not quite apply if it is anchored to nearby land)
A common fallacy which ignores the fact that Archimedes is about mass, not volume. Icebergs melting raise sea level by about 2.6%
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
Are you counting the polar ice caps?
I was not.
But let's have a little play there too, shall we?
Firstly, we're going to assume that every single bit of ice is going to melt there. (Which would be an astonishing warming of the earth, given that the South Pole still only gets to around 28 degrees below in summer.
But let's start with the North Pole. According to Wikipedia: "Earth's North Pole is covered by floating pack ice (sea ice) over the Arctic Ocean. Portions of the ice that do not melt seasonally can get very thick, up to 3–4 meters thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 meters thick. One-year ice is usually about 1 meter thick. The area covered by sea ice ranges between 9 and 12 million km2." Let's go with 5 meters over the whole lot.
Let's just play with numbers. 10 million km at 5m depth compared to 150 million km of oceans. Now, I'm rounding here, but that means that if the whole North Pole was to melt, that would add about 30cm to world sea levels.
Hmmm... Not getting to a 70 meter increase there.
Let's add the South Pole shall we.
That's 14.6 million square miles. Let's round up to 15 million miles. And let's assume an average depth of 100 meters. That means that Antarctica could add 10 meters to sea levels. But again those seem like pretty chunky top of the head calculations, even ignoring the fact that there's been no diminution of ice levels at the South Pole and that it remains pretty damn cold there.
Let's not assume an average depth of 100 metres, let's go with the well established average depth of two kilometres, maxing out at 5 kilometres. this makes a difference.
The highest point in Antarctica is below 5km - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinson_Massif - and that definitely contains quite a lot of rock. From the picture there's clearly rock at the actual surface.
And remember you can't count the ice below sea level. Because that will actually, as it melts, lower sea levels.
You'll notice it is quite thin on the mountain ranges, but these are actually holding back the vast mass of ice sheet in the interior.
That is a fascinating image, thank you. It suggests that lots of the ice in Antarctica is actually below sea level. So you can't just work out how much ice there is and add it to the sea level.
I think it gets horribly complicated at this point.
The only reason that so much of Antartica is below sea level is because of the weight of ice on top of it which is pushing it down - the isostatic effect I was talking about on the last thread. If you melt all that ice then the land will rebound in isostatic readjustment and if that happens then most of that water is going to end up in the seas.
Thanks for that - v interesting
Is the rock beneath the water really that elastic?
And if so, that represents a massive amount of trapped energy
Could it also cause earthquakes as the pressure adjusts?
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
Are you counting the polar ice caps?
I was not.
But let's have a little play there too, shall we?
Firstly, we're going to assume that every single bit of ice is going to melt there. (Which would be an astonishing warming of the earth, given that the South Pole still only gets to around 28 degrees below in summer.
But let's start with the North Pole. According to Wikipedia: "Earth's North Pole is covered by floating pack ice (sea ice) over the Arctic Ocean. Portions of the ice that do not melt seasonally can get very thick, up to 3–4 meters thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 meters thick. One-year ice is usually about 1 meter thick. The area covered by sea ice ranges between 9 and 12 million km2." Let's go with 5 meters over the whole lot.
Let's just play with numbers. 10 million km at 5m depth compared to 150 million km of oceans. Now, I'm rounding here, but that means that if the whole North Pole was to melt, that would add about 30cm to world sea levels.
Hmmm... Not getting to a 70 meter increase there.
Let's add the South Pole shall we.
That's 14.6 million square miles. Let's round up to 15 million miles. And let's assume an average depth of 100 meters. That means that Antarctica could add 10 meters to sea levels. But again those seem like pretty chunky top of the head calculations, even ignoring the fact that there's been no diminution of ice levels at the South Pole and that it remains pretty damn cold there.
Let's not assume an average depth of 100 metres, let's go with the well established average depth of two kilometres, maxing out at 5 kilometres. this makes a difference.
The highest point in Antarctica is below 5km - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinson_Massif - and that definitely contains quite a lot of rock. From the picture there's clearly rock at the actual surface.
And remember you can't count the ice below sea level. Because that will actually, as it melts, lower sea levels.
You'll notice it is quite thin on the mountain ranges, but these are actually holding back the vast mass of ice sheet in the interior.
That is a fascinating image, thank you. It suggests that lots of the ice in Antarctica is actually below sea level. So you can't just work out how much ice there is and add it to the sea level.
I think it gets horribly complicated at this point.
The only reason that so much of Antartica is below sea level is because of the weight of ice on top of it which is pushing it down - the isostatic effect I was talking about on the last thread. If you melt all that ice then the land will rebound in isostatic readjustment and if that happens then most of that water is going to end up in the seas.
Thanks for that - v interesting
Is the rock beneath the water really that elastic?
And if so, that represents a massive amount of trapped energy
The seismic implications of that far beyond Antarctica would presumably not be trivial.
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
RCS’s top of the head calcs do sometimes contain a gross error he’s overlooked. In this case it’s that a chunk of that “covered by water” percentage is sea ice, including much of the Arctic and Antarctica, which is where a lot of the extra water would come from.
How's that an error?
If the ice in those areas gets turned into water rising the sea level then the sea level will rise there every bit as much as it rises anywhere else.
Erm if sea ice is floating on water then melting it will cause no change in sea level whatsoever. A gent by the name of Archimedes worked that one out about 2000 years ago. It is already displacing the sea just by floating on it. (This does not quite apply if it is anchored to nearby land)
A common fallacy which ignores the fact that Archimedes is about mass, not volume. Icebergs melting raise sea level by about 2.6%
Shouldn't it be expressed in meters or centimeters, because 2.6% is relative to what?
Yeah, I don't get that number.
Archimedes is about displacement, not about melting.
The ratio of densities of ice to water is 0.92, so ice takes up 108.7% of the space that that amount of water would, or water takes up only 92% of the volume of the ice that melts.
I think it is because salt water is 2.5% more dense than a fresh water iceberg.
Interesting physics question. If you mix a solution of volume A with a quantity of a solvent volume B, is the resultant volume A+B or something else (presumably it would be less than or equal to, but not greater than)?
I do not know the answer to that.
Edit: My guess is that it would be A+B, because the soluant is dissolved fully within the volume of the solvent, so the volume of the solvent in the solution is A, and the total volume of the solvent will be A+B, and hence that will be the volume.
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
Are you counting the polar ice caps?
I was not.
But let's have a little play there too, shall we?
Firstly, we're going to assume that every single bit of ice is going to melt there. (Which would be an astonishing warming of the earth, given that the South Pole still only gets to around 28 degrees below in summer.
But let's start with the North Pole. According to Wikipedia: "Earth's North Pole is covered by floating pack ice (sea ice) over the Arctic Ocean. Portions of the ice that do not melt seasonally can get very thick, up to 3–4 meters thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 meters thick. One-year ice is usually about 1 meter thick. The area covered by sea ice ranges between 9 and 12 million km2." Let's go with 5 meters over the whole lot.
Let's just play with numbers. 10 million km at 5m depth compared to 150 million km of oceans. Now, I'm rounding here, but that means that if the whole North Pole was to melt, that would add about 30cm to world sea levels.
Hmmm... Not getting to a 70 meter increase there.
Let's add the South Pole shall we.
That's 14.6 million square miles. Let's round up to 15 million miles. And let's assume an average depth of 100 meters. That means that Antarctica could add 10 meters to sea levels. But again those seem like pretty chunky top of the head calculations, even ignoring the fact that there's been no diminution of ice levels at the South Pole and that it remains pretty damn cold there.
Let's not assume an average depth of 100 metres, let's go with the well established average depth of two kilometres, maxing out at 5 kilometres. this makes a difference.
The highest point in Antarctica is below 5km - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinson_Massif - and that definitely contains quite a lot of rock. From the picture there's clearly rock at the actual surface.
And remember you can't count the ice below sea level. Because that will actually, as it melts, lower sea levels.
You'll notice it is quite thin on the mountain ranges, but these are actually holding back the vast mass of ice sheet in the interior.
That is a fascinating image, thank you. It suggests that lots of the ice in Antarctica is actually below sea level. So you can't just work out how much ice there is and add it to the sea level.
I think it gets horribly complicated at this point.
The only reason that so much of Antartica is below sea level is because of the weight of ice on top of it which is pushing it down - the isostatic effect I was talking about on the last thread. If you melt all that ice then the land will rebound in isostatic readjustment and if that happens then most of that water is going to end up in the seas.
Thanks for that - v interesting
Is the rock beneath the water really that elastic?
And if so, that represents a massive amount of trapped energy
Scotland is presently isostatically rebounding from the last ice age at about 0.5mm p.a. However sea levels are rising at 2mm p.a. so a net sinking effect. And I think the South is really screwed because the isostatic effect is seesaw.
Rock is inelastic, it's presumably what the rock sits on that matters.
https://www.floodmap.net/ lets you play with the levels if you think 70m is silly (which it is). The cloggies are basically fucked by even a 1 metre rise; any more than that, Cambridge are serious losers.
Apologies for the redundant "any more than that" in the preceding sentence.
A 2-meter rise puts Stodge Towers at risk.
We have the Thames Flood Barrier though we're on the wrong side and have to rely on the Barking Creek flood barrier - the world's largest guillotine. It's a brave idea to cut off the tidal flow - the problem is all the water backing up down the River Roding would have nowhere to go and we'd be flooded from the land side.
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
That looks like the map I mentioned the other night. My house is still there, under the ‘h’ of Bournemouth and with the beach only 100m away instead of 230m, while almost all of London is gone to fish…..yet John Lewis insurance think mine is the greater flood risk.
A shame I won’t live to see it as a beachside villa.
Scotland and Norway survive pretty unscathed.
Yes, however much you crank it up the Great Glen doesn't visibly broaden. Most of the Uists goes, which is a shame.
Ireland becomes very fragmented - the Unioinists will probably claim a couple of islands for themselves.
On the general topic of sea level rises caused by melting glaciers: the 70m estimate assumes the collapse of the entire East Antarctic ice sheet, which is very stable and seems unlikely to go except under very extreme circumstances.
If both the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melt completely then I think that gets us to somewhere around 15m, but even that would take several centuries. It's really only people living in very low lying areas or those vulnerable to flooding caused by swollen rivers or stormwater run-off that have much to worry about within the lifetime of anybody posting here.
If sea level guaranteed flooding of everything below sea level then how much of the Netherlands would be gone?
If the sea level rises, I expect we'd swiftly adapt to prevent it from flooding our land.
If you fired a shotgun straight at me, I expect I'd swiftly adapt to prevent it from harming me.
That's a stupid analogy.
These changes aren't going to happen without warning and at the speed of gunfire.
No, but dikes aren't built in a day, either. And your "We are fine because look at the Netherlands" argument doesn't really work, because the Netherlands are wiped out by a 1 metre rise according to all the maps.
I'm very relaxed about India's target. Realistically, if countries like the UK can make good progress by 2030 then the necessary technologies would have made sufficient development that India will adopt them a lot faster than 2070 because it will make all sorts of economic sense to do so.
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
RCS’s top of the head calcs do sometimes contain a gross error he’s overlooked. In this case it’s that a chunk of that “covered by water” percentage is sea ice, including much of the Arctic and Antarctica, which is where a lot of the extra water would come from.
How's that an error?
If the ice in those areas gets turned into water rising the sea level then the sea level will rise there every bit as much as it rises anywhere else.
Erm if sea ice is floating on water then melting it will cause no change in sea level whatsoever. A gent by the name of Archimedes worked that one out about 2000 years ago. It is already displacing the sea just by floating on it. (This does not quite apply if it is anchored to nearby land)
A common fallacy which ignores the fact that Archimedes is about mass, not volume. Icebergs melting raise sea level by about 2.6%
Shouldn't it be expressed in meters or centimeters, because 2.6% is relative to what?
Yeah, I don't get that number.
Archimedes is about displacement, not about melting.
The ratio of densities of ice to water is 0.92, so ice takes up 108.7% of the space that that amount of water would, or water takes up only 92% of the volume of the ice that melts.
I think it is because salt water is 2.5% more dense than a fresh water iceberg.
Interesting physics question. If you mix a solution of volume A with a quantity of a solvent volume B, is the resultant volume A+B or something else (presumably it would be less than or equal to, but not greater than)?
I do not know the answer to that.
Edit: My guess is that it would be A+B, because the soluant is dissolved fully within the volume of the solvent, so the volume of the solvent in the solution is A, and the total volume of the solvent will be A+B, and hence that will be the volume.
Bizarrely, if you dissolve salt in water, the volume of the water actually decreases...
I worded the above badly, BTW, I should have said "melted fresh water iceberg".
Sea water is 1.025kg/l, fresh water 1kg/l
The fresh water iceberg displaces its weight in sea water when floating (ie (1/1.025)l per kg) and (if it was to stay just as fresh water) its volume in sea water once melted (1l per kg), so that's an increase from 0.975 to 1.
However, in reality it will mix out with the sea water and I'm not sure that it matters in the grand scheme of things...
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
Are you counting the polar ice caps?
I was not.
But let's have a little play there too, shall we?
Firstly, we're going to assume that every single bit of ice is going to melt there. (Which would be an astonishing warming of the earth, given that the South Pole still only gets to around 28 degrees below in summer.
But let's start with the North Pole. According to Wikipedia: "Earth's North Pole is covered by floating pack ice (sea ice) over the Arctic Ocean. Portions of the ice that do not melt seasonally can get very thick, up to 3–4 meters thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 meters thick. One-year ice is usually about 1 meter thick. The area covered by sea ice ranges between 9 and 12 million km2." Let's go with 5 meters over the whole lot.
Let's just play with numbers. 10 million km at 5m depth compared to 150 million km of oceans. Now, I'm rounding here, but that means that if the whole North Pole was to melt, that would add about 30cm to world sea levels.
Hmmm... Not getting to a 70 meter increase there.
Let's add the South Pole shall we.
That's 14.6 million square miles. Let's round up to 15 million miles. And let's assume an average depth of 100 meters. That means that Antarctica could add 10 meters to sea levels. But again those seem like pretty chunky top of the head calculations, even ignoring the fact that there's been no diminution of ice levels at the South Pole and that it remains pretty damn cold there.
Let's not assume an average depth of 100 metres, let's go with the well established average depth of two kilometres, maxing out at 5 kilometres. this makes a difference.
The highest point in Antarctica is below 5km - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinson_Massif - and that definitely contains quite a lot of rock. From the picture there's clearly rock at the actual surface.
And remember you can't count the ice below sea level. Because that will actually, as it melts, lower sea levels.
You'll notice it is quite thin on the mountain ranges, but these are actually holding back the vast mass of ice sheet in the interior.
That is a fascinating image, thank you. It suggests that lots of the ice in Antarctica is actually below sea level. So you can't just work out how much ice there is and add it to the sea level.
I think it gets horribly complicated at this point.
The only reason that so much of Antartica is below sea level is because of the weight of ice on top of it which is pushing it down - the isostatic effect I was talking about on the last thread. If you melt all that ice then the land will rebound in isostatic readjustment and if that happens then most of that water is going to end up in the seas.
Thanks for that - v interesting
Is the rock beneath the water really that elastic?
And if so, that represents a massive amount of trapped energy
Please see my earlier post re the gravitational effect of the ice in Antarctica and Greenland. If the ice melts here the sea level here will actually drop due to the loss of gravitational effect of the mass of ice and consequently increases even more as you get further away. The difference is actually substantial.
On the general topic of sea level rises caused by melting glaciers: the 70m estimate assumes the collapse of the entire East Antarctic ice sheet, which is very stable and seems unlikely to go except under very extreme circumstances.
If both the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melt completely then I think that gets us to somewhere around 15m, but even that would take several centuries. It's really only people living in very low lying areas or those vulnerable to flooding caused by swollen rivers or stormwater run-off that have much to worry about within the lifetime of anybody posting here.
If sea level guaranteed flooding of everything below sea level then how much of the Netherlands would be gone?
If the sea level rises, I expect we'd swiftly adapt to prevent it from flooding our land.
If you fired a shotgun straight at me, I expect I'd swiftly adapt to prevent it from harming me.
That's a stupid analogy.
These changes aren't going to happen without warning and at the speed of gunfire.
No, but dikes aren't built in a day, either. And your "We are fine because look at the Netherlands" argument doesn't really work, because the Netherlands are wiped out by a 1 metre rise according to all the maps.
Of course they're not built in a day, but they are buildable. If it becomes existential to build them or see cities flooded, they'll get built.
And that's not my argument, my argument is that the maps are garbage. Yes the maps show a 1m rise wipes out the Netherlands but a 0cm rise should wipe out much of the Netherlands too.
The right of centre LDP have retained their majority in yesterday's Japanese general election under their new leader and PM Fumio Kishida with 261 seats, down 23. The centre left Constitutional Democratic party was second with 96 up 41
Kishida seems very leftwing. Left of Ed Miliband in some of his proposals, he's really spooked the markets.
He is though like Boris the only one of 2 elected conservative leaders of a G7 nation now (or will be once Merkel goes).
Boris equally criticised here by some fiscal conservatives for being too statist
Yes, he sounds pleasant from a centrist viewpoint, I'd think (though what would I know about that?) - dovish abroad but not blind to threats to Taiwan, concerned about the impact of neoliberalism and wants some redistribution, not keen to change the constitutional constraints on military expansion.
An arranged marriage - must be unusual among leaders nowadays.
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
That's an official USG estimate, from NOAA, so I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.
I'm surprised that rcs would rubbish the number without actually looking at any data. I remember arguing with an internet troll many years ago about whether there was enough ice on Greenland to raise sea levels by 7m (there is) and found out that the average depth of the ice sheet there is well over a kilometre.
The estimate of 100m on average is ludicrously bad.
Because he was up for the annual Godwin Grand Prize otherwise. How did he expect the Jewish community to react to a comparison with their genocide?
There was nothing remotely offensive about it to Jews.
If anything by comparing the failure of world leaders to combat Nazism in the 1930s (thus enabling the Holocaust) to the risk of world leaders today failing to do enough to combat climate change he was saying not enough was done to protect Jews then.
As far as I can see he had no need to apologise whatsoever
It was wholly unnecessary and he is right to apologise
He is head of the Anglican Church and his language was ill judged, but then who listens to the clergy these days anyway
I repeat, what was actually offensive about it to Jews?
He is also primus inter pares of the Anglican communion, representing 92 million Anglicans worldwide, as well as head of the Church of England. Plenty listen to him, including me
Your blind love is the least surprising
And for a Christian to suggest people will be cursed and comparing anything with the Nazis was crass
And please note, he has apologised so why defend him
Nor is the jump on the latest bandwagon from you.
He also did not compare anyone to the Nazis, he compared potential inaction over climate change to inaction in the 1930s in failing to tackle the Nazis. Not the same thing at all. Some scientists will also tell you that potentially millions could die from flooding, drought, starvation etc caused by climate change.
If he wished to apologise to shut up the thought police like you that is up to him, in my view he still had nothing to apologise for
Here is the BBC: The Archbishop of Canterbury has "unequivocally" apologised for comparing politicians who fail to act on climate change to those who "ignored what was happening in Nazi Germany". ... Speaking to BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg, Mr Welby said history would judge current world leaders "probably on this fortnight alone".
"They could have been brilliant in everything else they've done, and they will be cursed if they don't get this right," he said.
"They could have been rubbish at everything else they've done but if they get this right, the children of today will rise up and bless them in 50 years."
Mr Welby said that if they failed to act future generations would speak of them in "far stronger terms than we speak today of... the politicians who ignored what was happening in Nazi Germany because this will kill people all around the world for generations".
But far too subtle, so he was right to kill it before it really started.
Because he was up for the annual Godwin Grand Prize otherwise. How did he expect the Jewish community to react to a comparison with their genocide?
There was nothing remotely offensive about it to Jews.
If anything by comparing the failure of world leaders to combat Nazism in the 1930s (thus enabling the Holocaust) to the risk of world leaders today failing to do enough to combat climate change he was saying not enough was done to protect Jews then.
As far as I can see he had no need to apologise whatsoever
It was wholly unnecessary and he is right to apologise
He is head of the Anglican Church and his language was ill judged, but then who listens to the clergy these days anyway
I repeat, what was actually offensive about it to Jews?
He is also primus inter pares of the Anglican communion, representing 92 million Anglicans worldwide, as well as head of the Church of England. Plenty listen to him, including me
Your blind love is the least surprising
And for a Christian to suggest people will be cursed and comparing anything with the Nazis was crass
And please note, he has apologised so why defend him
Nor is the jump on the latest bandwagon from you.
He also did not compare anyone to the Nazis, he compared potential inaction over climate change to inaction in the 1930s in failing to tackle the Nazis. Not the same thing at all.
If he wished to apologies to shut up the thought police like you that is up to him, in my view he still had nothing to apologise for
You really are making a fool of yourself now suggesting his apology is disingenuous
I actually give him credit for recognising his misspeak and apologising
I doubt you know the meaning of an apology when you are wrong
Hyufd is right on that. The comparison was between how poorly 1930s Appeasers are viewed now, and how people not taking action on climate now will be viewed in the future. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59117537
If there's some great war or famine in the future caused by climate change, I doubt people will look at Glasgow 2021 the way they look at Munich 1938.
On the general topic of sea level rises caused by melting glaciers: the 70m estimate assumes the collapse of the entire East Antarctic ice sheet, which is very stable and seems unlikely to go except under very extreme circumstances.
If both the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melt completely then I think that gets us to somewhere around 15m, but even that would take several centuries. It's really only people living in very low lying areas or those vulnerable to flooding caused by swollen rivers or stormwater run-off that have much to worry about within the lifetime of anybody posting here.
If sea level guaranteed flooding of everything below sea level then how much of the Netherlands would be gone?
If the sea level rises, I expect we'd swiftly adapt to prevent it from flooding our land.
If you fired a shotgun straight at me, I expect I'd swiftly adapt to prevent it from harming me.
That's a stupid analogy.
These changes aren't going to happen without warning and at the speed of gunfire.
No, but dikes aren't built in a day, either. And your "We are fine because look at the Netherlands" argument doesn't really work, because the Netherlands are wiped out by a 1 metre rise according to all the maps.
Of course they're not built in a day, but they are buildable. If it becomes existential to build them or see cities flooded, they'll get built.
And that's not my argument, my argument is that the maps are garbage. Yes the maps show a 1m rise wipes out the Netherlands but a 0cm rise should wipe out much of the Netherlands too.
"Reducing CO2 emissions and reinforcing dikes is only half the story. The other stark reality is that even these measures combined may prove insufficient in the long term to preserve the low-lying parts of our country."
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
That's an official USG estimate, from NOAA, so I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.
I'm surprised that rcs would rubbish the number without actually looking at any data. I remember arguing with an internet troll many years ago about whether there was enough ice on Greenland to raise sea levels by 7m (there is) and found out that the average depth of the ice sheet there is well over a kilometre.
The estimate of 100m on average is ludicrously bad.
7m matches with rcs's estimate though.
The rest of the ice seems to be in the centimetres, its the Greenland ice that's troubling (though its also extremely unlikely to all go anyway).
But even if that all melted which is extremly unlikely, then that's only at rcs's 7m estimate - where is the other 63m supposed to come from?
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
That's an official USG estimate, from NOAA, so I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.
I'll dismiss it out of hand. They are illustrating the amount of water locked in land ice. There is no chance whatsoever of the Antarctic ice sheet melting in a time frame of tens of thousands of years. It would need a complete reconfiguration of the earth's climate and tectonic re-arrangement of the continents. Chances of major part of Greenland ice sheet melting even if we push CO2 much higher is also pretty slim! If you take pessimistic but feasible estimates there would be challenges but let's keep away from apocalyptic visions - there are enough emanating from Glasgow.
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
That's an official USG estimate, from NOAA, so I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.
I'm surprised that rcs would rubbish the number without actually looking at any data. I remember arguing with an internet troll many years ago about whether there was enough ice on Greenland to raise sea levels by 7m (there is) and found out that the average depth of the ice sheet there is well over a kilometre.
The estimate of 100m on average is ludicrously bad.
7m matches with rcs's estimate though.
The rest of the ice seems to be in the centimetres, its the Greenland ice that's troubling (though its also extremely unlikely to all go anyway).
But even if that all melted which is extremly unlikely, then that's only at rcs's 7m estimate - where is the other 63m supposed to come from?
Surely if Greenland's ice all melted so would most of Antarctica's? That said IIRC even with rapid global warming it would take many centuries for Greenland's ice to melt, due to the significant latent heat of melting of H2O.
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
That's an official USG estimate, from NOAA, so I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.
I'll dismiss it out of hand. They are illustrating the amount of water locked in land ice. There is no chance whatsoever of the Antarctic ice sheet melting in a time frame of tens of thousands of years. It would need a complete reconfiguration of the earth's climate and tectonic re-arrangement of the continents. Chances of major part of Greenland ice sheet melting even if we push CO2 much higher is also pretty slim! If you take pessimistic but feasible estimates there would be challenges but let's keep away from apocalyptic visions - there are enough emanating from Glasgow.
They are posing the question purely as a hypothetical, and giving the right answer. Agreed, it's a very remote hypothetical, and it would be more useful to give more attention to the effects of a realistic 2 metre rise.
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
Are you counting the polar ice caps?
I was not.
But let's have a little play there too, shall we?
Firstly, we're going to assume that every single bit of ice is going to melt there. (Which would be an astonishing warming of the earth, given that the South Pole still only gets to around 28 degrees below in summer.
But let's start with the North Pole. According to Wikipedia: "Earth's North Pole is covered by floating pack ice (sea ice) over the Arctic Ocean. Portions of the ice that do not melt seasonally can get very thick, up to 3–4 meters thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 meters thick. One-year ice is usually about 1 meter thick. The area covered by sea ice ranges between 9 and 12 million km2." Let's go with 5 meters over the whole lot.
Let's just play with numbers. 10 million km at 5m depth compared to 150 million km of oceans. Now, I'm rounding here, but that means that if the whole North Pole was to melt, that would add about 30cm to world sea levels.
Hmmm... Not getting to a 70 meter increase there.
Let's add the South Pole shall we.
That's 14.6 million square miles. Let's round up to 15 million miles. And let's assume an average depth of 100 meters. That means that Antarctica could add 10 meters to sea levels. But again those seem like pretty chunky top of the head calculations, even ignoring the fact that there's been no diminution of ice levels at the South Pole and that it remains pretty damn cold there.
Let's not assume an average depth of 100 metres, let's go with the well established average depth of two kilometres, maxing out at 5 kilometres. this makes a difference.
The highest point in Antarctica is below 5km - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinson_Massif - and that definitely contains quite a lot of rock. From the picture there's clearly rock at the actual surface.
And remember you can't count the ice below sea level. Because that will actually, as it melts, lower sea levels.
You'll notice it is quite thin on the mountain ranges, but these are actually holding back the vast mass of ice sheet in the interior.
That is a fascinating image, thank you. It suggests that lots of the ice in Antarctica is actually below sea level. So you can't just work out how much ice there is and add it to the sea level.
I think it gets horribly complicated at this point.
The only reason that so much of Antartica is below sea level is because of the weight of ice on top of it which is pushing it down - the isostatic effect I was talking about on the last thread. If you melt all that ice then the land will rebound in isostatic readjustment and if that happens then most of that water is going to end up in the seas.
Thanks for that - v interesting
Is the rock beneath the water really that elastic?
And if so, that represents a massive amount of trapped energy
Scotland is presently isostatically rebounding from the last ice age at about 0.5mm p.a. However sea levels are rising at 2mm p.a. so a net sinking effect. And I think the South is really screwed because the isostatic effect is seesaw.
Rock is inelastic, it's presumably what the rock sits on that matters.
The west coast of the Isle of Jura is a fabulous place to see this. The beaches now 20m above the sea are quite spectacular. There's even caves and arches now stranded well above the waves.
Sam Cam's family own a big hoose on the beach at Glenbatrick (accessible by boat or walking across the island), but there's very little else there.
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
Are you counting the polar ice caps?
I was not.
But let's have a little play there too, shall we?
Firstly, we're going to assume that every single bit of ice is going to melt there. (Which would be an astonishing warming of the earth, given that the South Pole still only gets to around 28 degrees below in summer.
But let's start with the North Pole. According to Wikipedia: "Earth's North Pole is covered by floating pack ice (sea ice) over the Arctic Ocean. Portions of the ice that do not melt seasonally can get very thick, up to 3–4 meters thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 meters thick. One-year ice is usually about 1 meter thick. The area covered by sea ice ranges between 9 and 12 million km2." Let's go with 5 meters over the whole lot.
Let's just play with numbers. 10 million km at 5m depth compared to 150 million km of oceans. Now, I'm rounding here, but that means that if the whole North Pole was to melt, that would add about 30cm to world sea levels.
Hmmm... Not getting to a 70 meter increase there.
Let's add the South Pole shall we.
That's 14.6 million square miles. Let's round up to 15 million miles. And let's assume an average depth of 100 meters. That means that Antarctica could add 10 meters to sea levels. But again those seem like pretty chunky top of the head calculations, even ignoring the fact that there's been no diminution of ice levels at the South Pole and that it remains pretty damn cold there.
Let's not assume an average depth of 100 metres, let's go with the well established average depth of two kilometres, maxing out at 5 kilometres. this makes a difference.
The highest point in Antarctica is below 5km - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinson_Massif - and that definitely contains quite a lot of rock. From the picture there's clearly rock at the actual surface.
And remember you can't count the ice below sea level. Because that will actually, as it melts, lower sea levels.
You'll notice it is quite thin on the mountain ranges, but these are actually holding back the vast mass of ice sheet in the interior.
That is a fascinating image, thank you. It suggests that lots of the ice in Antarctica is actually below sea level. So you can't just work out how much ice there is and add it to the sea level.
I think it gets horribly complicated at this point.
The only reason that so much of Antartica is below sea level is because of the weight of ice on top of it which is pushing it down - the isostatic effect I was talking about on the last thread. If you melt all that ice then the land will rebound in isostatic readjustment and if that happens then most of that water is going to end up in the seas.
Thanks for that - v interesting
Is the rock beneath the water really that elastic?
And if so, that represents a massive amount of trapped energy
Yep it really is that elastic. We are seeing exactly the same thing in Northern Europe still 12,000 years after the glaciers finally retreated. Scotland is rising and South Eastern England is sinking by around 20cm a century. It doesn't need ice either. The Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana is sinking at about 60cm a century due to the sediment mass outflows from the Mississippi (around 550 million tons of sediment a year).
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
That's an official USG estimate, from NOAA, so I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.
I'm surprised that rcs would rubbish the number without actually looking at any data. I remember arguing with an internet troll many years ago about whether there was enough ice on Greenland to raise sea levels by 7m (there is) and found out that the average depth of the ice sheet there is well over a kilometre.
The estimate of 100m on average is ludicrously bad.
7m matches with rcs's estimate though.
The rest of the ice seems to be in the centimetres, its the Greenland ice that's troubling (though its also extremely unlikely to all go anyway).
But even if that all melted which is extremly unlikely, then that's only at rcs's 7m estimate - where is the other 63m supposed to come from?
Antarctica. 70m is from all land ice melting.
It's absurd that we are here in 2021 disputing how much ice there is on land as though a few randoms will know more about it than people who study the stuff.
Because he was up for the annual Godwin Grand Prize otherwise. How did he expect the Jewish community to react to a comparison with their genocide?
There was nothing remotely offensive about it to Jews.
If anything by comparing the failure of world leaders to combat Nazism in the 1930s (thus enabling the Holocaust) to the risk of world leaders today failing to do enough to combat climate change he was saying not enough was done to protect Jews then.
As far as I can see he had no need to apologise whatsoever
It was wholly unnecessary and he is right to apologise
He is head of the Anglican Church and his language was ill judged, but then who listens to the clergy these days anyway
I repeat, what was actually offensive about it to Jews?
He is also primus inter pares of the Anglican communion, representing 92 million Anglicans worldwide, as well as head of the Church of England. Plenty listen to him, including me
Your blind love is the least surprising
And for a Christian to suggest people will be cursed and comparing anything with the Nazis was crass
And please note, he has apologised so why defend him
Nor is the jump on the latest bandwagon from you.
He also did not compare anyone to the Nazis, he compared potential inaction over climate change to inaction in the 1930s in failing to tackle the Nazis. Not the same thing at all. Some scientists will also tell you that potentially millions could die from flooding, drought, starvation etc caused by climate change.
If he wished to apologise to shut up the thought police like you that is up to him, in my view he still had nothing to apologise for
Here is the BBC: The Archbishop of Canterbury has "unequivocally" apologised for comparing politicians who fail to act on climate change to those who "ignored what was happening in Nazi Germany". ... Speaking to BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg, Mr Welby said history would judge current world leaders "probably on this fortnight alone".
"They could have been brilliant in everything else they've done, and they will be cursed if they don't get this right," he said.
"They could have been rubbish at everything else they've done but if they get this right, the children of today will rise up and bless them in 50 years."
Mr Welby said that if they failed to act future generations would speak of them in "far stronger terms than we speak today of... the politicians who ignored what was happening in Nazi Germany because this will kill people all around the world for generations".
But far too subtle, so he was right to kill it before it really started.
Its all about out hyperbolizing what the previous person has hypperbolized about climate change.
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
That's an official USG estimate, from NOAA, so I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.
I'll dismiss it out of hand. They are illustrating the amount of water locked in land ice. There is no chance whatsoever of the Antarctic ice sheet melting in a time frame of tens of thousands of years. It would need a complete reconfiguration of the earth's climate and tectonic re-arrangement of the continents. Chances of major part of Greenland ice sheet melting even if we push CO2 much higher is also pretty slim! If you take pessimistic but feasible estimates there would be challenges but let's keep away from apocalyptic visions - there are enough emanating from Glasgow.
They are posing the question purely as a hypothetical, and giving the right answer. Agreed, it's a very remote hypothetical, and it would be more useful to give more attention to the effects of a realistic 2 metre rise.
Much more remote than a wipe out via an asteroid. The rate of sea level rise isn't really increasing very much from the rate we have experienced emerging from the little ice age. It needs to get a move on if the more worrying predictions are to have any credibility.
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
That's an official USG estimate, from NOAA, so I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.
I'll dismiss it out of hand. They are illustrating the amount of water locked in land ice. There is no chance whatsoever of the Antarctic ice sheet melting in a time frame of tens of thousands of years. It would need a complete reconfiguration of the earth's climate and tectonic re-arrangement of the continents. Chances of major part of Greenland ice sheet melting even if we push CO2 much higher is also pretty slim! If you take pessimistic but feasible estimates there would be challenges but let's keep away from apocalyptic visions - there are enough emanating from Glasgow.
They are posing the question purely as a hypothetical, and giving the right answer. Agreed, it's a very remote hypothetical, and it would be more useful to give more attention to the effects of a realistic 2 metre rise.
Much more remote than a wipe out via an asteroid. The rate of sea level rise isn't really increasing very much from the rate we have experienced emerging from the little ice age. It needs to get a move on if the more worrying predictions are to have any credibility.
A Carrington Event has a higher probability than a large asteroid and would be pretty challenging...
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
That's an official USG estimate, from NOAA, so I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.
I'm surprised that rcs would rubbish the number without actually looking at any data. I remember arguing with an internet troll many years ago about whether there was enough ice on Greenland to raise sea levels by 7m (there is) and found out that the average depth of the ice sheet there is well over a kilometre.
The estimate of 100m on average is ludicrously bad.
7m matches with rcs's estimate though.
The rest of the ice seems to be in the centimetres, its the Greenland ice that's troubling (though its also extremely unlikely to all go anyway).
But even if that all melted which is extremly unlikely, then that's only at rcs's 7m estimate - where is the other 63m supposed to come from?
Antarctica. 70m is from all land ice melting.
It's absurd that we are here in 2021 disputing how much ice there is on land as though a few randoms will know more about it than people who study the stuff.
Tragic and pathetic.
This is pb.com! Nothing to stop people being experts at everything from trains to trade deals to vaccines to cricket to the economy to geology and then back to trans.
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
That's an official USG estimate, from NOAA, so I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.
I'm surprised that rcs would rubbish the number without actually looking at any data. I remember arguing with an internet troll many years ago about whether there was enough ice on Greenland to raise sea levels by 7m (there is) and found out that the average depth of the ice sheet there is well over a kilometre.
The estimate of 100m on average is ludicrously bad.
7m matches with rcs's estimate though.
The rest of the ice seems to be in the centimetres, its the Greenland ice that's troubling (though its also extremely unlikely to all go anyway).
But even if that all melted which is extremly unlikely, then that's only at rcs's 7m estimate - where is the other 63m supposed to come from?
"About 2.1% of all of Earth's water is frozen in glaciers... 97.2% is in the oceans and inland seas."
The average depth of the oceans is 4km. 2.1% of 4km is 84m, ignoring the effects of the increased surface area as the oceans rise. 70m seems a reasonable estimate to me if ALL the glaciers melted.
Of course they are not all going to melt for many, many centuries, even with a massive increase in global temperature but if they ever did...
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
That's an official USG estimate, from NOAA, so I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.
I'm surprised that rcs would rubbish the number without actually looking at any data. I remember arguing with an internet troll many years ago about whether there was enough ice on Greenland to raise sea levels by 7m (there is) and found out that the average depth of the ice sheet there is well over a kilometre.
The estimate of 100m on average is ludicrously bad.
7m matches with rcs's estimate though.
The rest of the ice seems to be in the centimetres, its the Greenland ice that's troubling (though its also extremely unlikely to all go anyway).
But even if that all melted which is extremly unlikely, then that's only at rcs's 7m estimate - where is the other 63m supposed to come from?
Antarctica. 70m is from all land ice melting.
It's absurd that we are here in 2021 disputing how much ice there is on land as though a few randoms will know more about it than people who study the stuff.
Tragic and pathetic.
If any subject about which there is someone in the world who knows more than we do is off limits, how much is there left to talk about?
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
Are you counting the polar ice caps?
I was not.
But let's have a little play there too, shall we?
Firstly, we're going to assume that every single bit of ice is going to melt there. (Which would be an astonishing warming of the earth, given that the South Pole still only gets to around 28 degrees below in summer.
But let's start with the North Pole. According to Wikipedia: "Earth's North Pole is covered by floating pack ice (sea ice) over the Arctic Ocean. Portions of the ice that do not melt seasonally can get very thick, up to 3–4 meters thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 meters thick. One-year ice is usually about 1 meter thick. The area covered by sea ice ranges between 9 and 12 million km2." Let's go with 5 meters over the whole lot.
Let's just play with numbers. 10 million km at 5m depth compared to 150 million km of oceans. Now, I'm rounding here, but that means that if the whole North Pole was to melt, that would add about 30cm to world sea levels.
Hmmm... Not getting to a 70 meter increase there.
Let's add the South Pole shall we.
That's 14.6 million square miles. Let's round up to 15 million miles. And let's assume an average depth of 100 meters. That means that Antarctica could add 10 meters to sea levels. But again those seem like pretty chunky top of the head calculations, even ignoring the fact that there's been no diminution of ice levels at the South Pole and that it remains pretty damn cold there.
Let's not assume an average depth of 100 metres, let's go with the well established average depth of two kilometres, maxing out at 5 kilometres. this makes a difference.
The highest point in Antarctica is below 5km - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinson_Massif - and that definitely contains quite a lot of rock. From the picture there's clearly rock at the actual surface.
And remember you can't count the ice below sea level. Because that will actually, as it melts, lower sea levels.
You'll notice it is quite thin on the mountain ranges, but these are actually holding back the vast mass of ice sheet in the interior.
That is a fascinating image, thank you. It suggests that lots of the ice in Antarctica is actually below sea level. So you can't just work out how much ice there is and add it to the sea level.
I think it gets horribly complicated at this point.
The only reason that so much of Antartica is below sea level is because of the weight of ice on top of it which is pushing it down - the isostatic effect I was talking about on the last thread. If you melt all that ice then the land will rebound in isostatic readjustment and if that happens then most of that water is going to end up in the seas.
Thanks for that - v interesting
Is the rock beneath the water really that elastic?
And if so, that represents a massive amount of trapped energy
Scotland is presently isostatically rebounding from the last ice age at about 0.5mm p.a. However sea levels are rising at 2mm p.a. so a net sinking effect. And I think the South is really screwed because the isostatic effect is seesaw.
Rock is inelastic, it's presumably what the rock sits on that matters.
Rock is not inelastic. It displays a very wide range of Young's Modulus and Poissons ratio values and some rocks such as Halite will flow like water under pressure. It all depends on the type of rock you are looking at.
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
That's an official USG estimate, from NOAA, so I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.
I'm surprised that rcs would rubbish the number without actually looking at any data. I remember arguing with an internet troll many years ago about whether there was enough ice on Greenland to raise sea levels by 7m (there is) and found out that the average depth of the ice sheet there is well over a kilometre.
The estimate of 100m on average is ludicrously bad.
7m matches with rcs's estimate though.
The rest of the ice seems to be in the centimetres, its the Greenland ice that's troubling (though its also extremely unlikely to all go anyway).
But even if that all melted which is extremly unlikely, then that's only at rcs's 7m estimate - where is the other 63m supposed to come from?
"About 2.1% of all of Earth's water is frozen in glaciers... 97.2% is in the oceans and inland seas."
The average depth of the oceans is 4km. 2.1% of 4km is 84m, ignoring the effects of the increased surface area as the oceans rise. 70m seems a reasonable estimate to me if ALL the glaciers melted.
Of course they are not all going to melt for many, many centuries, even with a massive increase in global temperature but if they ever did...
If they ever did, over centuries, we'd probably develop ways to expel water from the planet. Imagine future-SpaceX successors sending water out into space to get it off the planet to prevent the planet from flooding.
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
I mean it's not great but Xi staying away basically makes the whole thing redundant anyway?
From the Beeb
"As we mentioned earlier, China's President Xi Jinping hasn't been attending today's conference - in contrast to many of his counterparts.
But the Chinese leader has released a letter to UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
In it he's reaffirmed China's aim for emissions to peak in the country before 2030, and for carbon neutrality to be achieved by 2060."
He has outbid India by 10 years, and done it without getting on a jet plane. Hard to see much to complain about.
And as has been pointed out, it doesn't get much drearier than a Scottish city in November.
China has four times the CO2 output per capita of India, and haven’t bid anything, since his letter is a mere restatement. His non attendance is more a declaration that China doesn’t give a damn what the rest of the world thinks.
But they DO give a damn. They are not stupid. They can see the world is being fucked over. Pollution is a major issue in China, and global warming is one of the drivers of low human fertility ("fuck it the world is fucked"), which is a massive issue in Beijing
They might disagree on the way to the end, but they understand the path has to be found
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
That's an official USG estimate, from NOAA, so I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.
I'm surprised that rcs would rubbish the number without actually looking at any data. I remember arguing with an internet troll many years ago about whether there was enough ice on Greenland to raise sea levels by 7m (there is) and found out that the average depth of the ice sheet there is well over a kilometre.
The estimate of 100m on average is ludicrously bad.
7m matches with rcs's estimate though.
The rest of the ice seems to be in the centimetres, its the Greenland ice that's troubling (though its also extremely unlikely to all go anyway).
But even if that all melted which is extremly unlikely, then that's only at rcs's 7m estimate - where is the other 63m supposed to come from?
"About 2.1% of all of Earth's water is frozen in glaciers... 97.2% is in the oceans and inland seas."
The average depth of the oceans is 4km. 2.1% of 4km is 84m, ignoring the effects of the increased surface area as the oceans rise. 70m seems a reasonable estimate to me if ALL the glaciers melted.
Of course they are not all going to melt for many, many centuries, even with a massive increase in global temperature but if they ever did...
If they ever did, over centuries, we'd probably develop ways to expel water from the planet. Imagine future-SpaceX successors sending water out into space to get it off the planet to prevent the planet from flooding.
Looking at Mars, I think expelling water from planet Earth would be a very bad idea.
Whenever I see a satellite photo of the Earth, I am struck by what a thin and fragile layer of atmosphere we have, and the same is true for water.
PS I appreciate your post was tongue-in-cheek but seriously, re-freezing the glaciers would surely be easier than ejecting 30 million cubic km of water into space?
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
That's an official USG estimate, from NOAA, so I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.
I'm surprised that rcs would rubbish the number without actually looking at any data. I remember arguing with an internet troll many years ago about whether there was enough ice on Greenland to raise sea levels by 7m (there is) and found out that the average depth of the ice sheet there is well over a kilometre.
The estimate of 100m on average is ludicrously bad.
7m matches with rcs's estimate though.
The rest of the ice seems to be in the centimetres, its the Greenland ice that's troubling (though its also extremely unlikely to all go anyway).
But even if that all melted which is extremly unlikely, then that's only at rcs's 7m estimate - where is the other 63m supposed to come from?
Surely if Greenland's ice all melted so would most of Antarctica's? That said IIRC even with rapid global warming it would take many centuries for Greenland's ice to melt, due to the significant latent heat of melting of H2O.
Not so. In recent years there has been some warming in the Arctic resulting in reduced sea ice cover and a tiny melt of Greenland ice (as a proportion). Antarctica has got colder apart from local warming in West Antarctica peninsular. There are strong circumpolar currents isolating Antarctica from warm water currents.
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
That's an official USG estimate, from NOAA, so I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.
I'm surprised that rcs would rubbish the number without actually looking at any data. I remember arguing with an internet troll many years ago about whether there was enough ice on Greenland to raise sea levels by 7m (there is) and found out that the average depth of the ice sheet there is well over a kilometre.
The estimate of 100m on average is ludicrously bad.
7m matches with rcs's estimate though.
The rest of the ice seems to be in the centimetres, its the Greenland ice that's troubling (though its also extremely unlikely to all go anyway).
But even if that all melted which is extremly unlikely, then that's only at rcs's 7m estimate - where is the other 63m supposed to come from?
"About 2.1% of all of Earth's water is frozen in glaciers... 97.2% is in the oceans and inland seas."
The average depth of the oceans is 4km. 2.1% of 4km is 84m, ignoring the effects of the increased surface area as the oceans rise. 70m seems a reasonable estimate to me if ALL the glaciers melted.
Of course they are not all going to melt for many, many centuries, even with a massive increase in global temperature but if they ever did...
If they ever did, over centuries, we'd probably develop ways to expel water from the planet. Imagine future-SpaceX successors sending water out into space to get it off the planet to prevent the planet from flooding.
Looking at Mars, I think expelling water from planet Earth would be a very bad idea.
Whenever I see a satellite photo of the Earth, I am struck by what a thin and fragile layer of atmosphere we have, and the same is true for water.
Of course if this is changing over centuries we could be sending it to Mars. Let the new countries [they won't be colonies for long] on Mars use the water while preventing Earth from flooding.
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
That's an official USG estimate, from NOAA, so I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.
I'm surprised that rcs would rubbish the number without actually looking at any data. I remember arguing with an internet troll many years ago about whether there was enough ice on Greenland to raise sea levels by 7m (there is) and found out that the average depth of the ice sheet there is well over a kilometre.
The estimate of 100m on average is ludicrously bad.
7m matches with rcs's estimate though.
The rest of the ice seems to be in the centimetres, its the Greenland ice that's troubling (though its also extremely unlikely to all go anyway).
But even if that all melted which is extremly unlikely, then that's only at rcs's 7m estimate - where is the other 63m supposed to come from?
Surely if Greenland's ice all melted so would most of Antarctica's? That said IIRC even with rapid global warming it would take many centuries for Greenland's ice to melt, due to the significant latent heat of melting of H2O.
Not so. In recent years there has been some warming in the Arctic resulting in reduced sea ice cover and a tiny melt of Greenland ice (as a proportion). Antarctica has got colder apart from local warming in West Antarctica peninsular. There are strong circumpolar currents isolating Antarctica from warm water currents.
At the moment. Whilst I agree with your premise, I think the classic investor's warning applies here just as well as with shares. Past performance is no indicator of future results. Just as with the North Atlantic currents it is not difficult to envisage a situation where the circumpolar currents change. As with so much in this subject there is still way too much we don't understand about how it all works.
I mean it's not great but Xi staying away basically makes the whole thing redundant anyway?
From the Beeb
"As we mentioned earlier, China's President Xi Jinping hasn't been attending today's conference - in contrast to many of his counterparts.
But the Chinese leader has released a letter to UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
In it he's reaffirmed China's aim for emissions to peak in the country before 2030, and for carbon neutrality to be achieved by 2060."
He has outbid India by 10 years, and done it without getting on a jet plane. Hard to see much to complain about.
And as has been pointed out, it doesn't get much drearier than a Scottish city in November.
China has four times the CO2 output per capita of India, and haven’t bid anything, since his letter is a mere restatement. His non attendance is more a declaration that China doesn’t give a damn what the rest of the world thinks.
But they DO give a damn. They are not stupid. They can see the world is being fucked over. Pollution is a major issue in China, and global warming is one of the drivers of low human fertility ("fuck it the world is fucked"), which is a massive issue in Beijing
They might disagree on the way to the end, but they understand the path has to be found
I also seem to recall that China itself is physically particularly susceptible to the effects of global warming.
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
That's an official USG estimate, from NOAA, so I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.
I'm surprised that rcs would rubbish the number without actually looking at any data. I remember arguing with an internet troll many years ago about whether there was enough ice on Greenland to raise sea levels by 7m (there is) and found out that the average depth of the ice sheet there is well over a kilometre.
The estimate of 100m on average is ludicrously bad.
7m matches with rcs's estimate though.
The rest of the ice seems to be in the centimetres, its the Greenland ice that's troubling (though its also extremely unlikely to all go anyway).
But even if that all melted which is extremly unlikely, then that's only at rcs's 7m estimate - where is the other 63m supposed to come from?
"About 2.1% of all of Earth's water is frozen in glaciers... 97.2% is in the oceans and inland seas."
The average depth of the oceans is 4km. 2.1% of 4km is 84m, ignoring the effects of the increased surface area as the oceans rise. 70m seems a reasonable estimate to me if ALL the glaciers melted.
Of course they are not all going to melt for many, many centuries, even with a massive increase in global temperature but if they ever did...
If they ever did, over centuries, we'd probably develop ways to expel water from the planet. Imagine future-SpaceX successors sending water out into space to get it off the planet to prevent the planet from flooding.
Looking at Mars, I think expelling water from planet Earth would be a very bad idea.
Whenever I see a satellite photo of the Earth, I am struck by what a thin and fragile layer of atmosphere we have, and the same is true for water.
Of course if this is changing over centuries we could be sending it to Mars. Let the new countries [they won't be colonies for long] on Mars use the water while preventing Earth from flooding.
Lose water from Earth and it ain't ever coming back.
I mean it's not great but Xi staying away basically makes the whole thing redundant anyway?
From the Beeb
"As we mentioned earlier, China's President Xi Jinping hasn't been attending today's conference - in contrast to many of his counterparts.
But the Chinese leader has released a letter to UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
In it he's reaffirmed China's aim for emissions to peak in the country before 2030, and for carbon neutrality to be achieved by 2060."
He has outbid India by 10 years, and done it without getting on a jet plane. Hard to see much to complain about.
And as has been pointed out, it doesn't get much drearier than a Scottish city in November.
China has four times the CO2 output per capita of India, and haven’t bid anything, since his letter is a mere restatement. His non attendance is more a declaration that China doesn’t give a damn what the rest of the world thinks.
But they DO give a damn. They are not stupid. They can see the world is being fucked over. Pollution is a major issue in China, and global warming is one of the drivers of low human fertility ("fuck it the world is fucked"), which is a massive issue in Beijing
They might disagree on the way to the end, but they understand the path has to be found
I also seem to recall that China itself is physically particularly susceptible to the effects of global warming.
Of the major economies, India is about the worst affected and least able to buy their way out from the effects.
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
Are you counting the polar ice caps?
I was not.
But let's have a little play there too, shall we?
Firstly, we're going to assume that every single bit of ice is going to melt there. (Which would be an astonishing warming of the earth, given that the South Pole still only gets to around 28 degrees below in summer.
But let's start with the North Pole. According to Wikipedia: "Earth's North Pole is covered by floating pack ice (sea ice) over the Arctic Ocean. Portions of the ice that do not melt seasonally can get very thick, up to 3–4 meters thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 meters thick. One-year ice is usually about 1 meter thick. The area covered by sea ice ranges between 9 and 12 million km2." Let's go with 5 meters over the whole lot.
Let's just play with numbers. 10 million km at 5m depth compared to 150 million km of oceans. Now, I'm rounding here, but that means that if the whole North Pole was to melt, that would add about 30cm to world sea levels.
Hmmm... Not getting to a 70 meter increase there.
Let's add the South Pole shall we.
That's 14.6 million square miles. Let's round up to 15 million miles. And let's assume an average depth of 100 meters. That means that Antarctica could add 10 meters to sea levels. But again those seem like pretty chunky top of the head calculations, even ignoring the fact that there's been no diminution of ice levels at the South Pole and that it remains pretty damn cold there.
Let's not assume an average depth of 100 metres, let's go with the well established average depth of two kilometres, maxing out at 5 kilometres. this makes a difference.
The highest point in Antarctica is below 5km - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinson_Massif - and that definitely contains quite a lot of rock. From the picture there's clearly rock at the actual surface.
And remember you can't count the ice below sea level. Because that will actually, as it melts, lower sea levels.
You'll notice it is quite thin on the mountain ranges, but these are actually holding back the vast mass of ice sheet in the interior.
That is a fascinating image, thank you. It suggests that lots of the ice in Antarctica is actually below sea level. So you can't just work out how much ice there is and add it to the sea level.
I think it gets horribly complicated at this point.
The only reason that so much of Antartica is below sea level is because of the weight of ice on top of it which is pushing it down - the isostatic effect I was talking about on the last thread. If you melt all that ice then the land will rebound in isostatic readjustment and if that happens then most of that water is going to end up in the seas.
Thanks for that - v interesting
Is the rock beneath the water really that elastic?
And if so, that represents a massive amount of trapped energy
The seismic implications of that far beyond Antarctica would presumably not be trivial.
Earthquakes and lots of excess water… Tsunami time…
Brenda dropping another hint that London Bridge will soon fall.
The Queen has called on world leaders to look beyond their own lifetimes and “answer the call of future generations” with an ambitious agreement to tackle climate change.
In a speech delivered by video to more than 120 leaders gathered in Glasgow for the Cop26 climate change conference she said that “none of us will live for ever” and urged them to rise above “the politics of the moment”.
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.
"Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.
Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
Are you counting the polar ice caps?
I was not.
But let's have a little play there too, shall we?
Firstly, we're going to assume that every single bit of ice is going to melt there. (Which would be an astonishing warming of the earth, given that the South Pole still only gets to around 28 degrees below in summer.
But let's start with the North Pole. According to Wikipedia: "Earth's North Pole is covered by floating pack ice (sea ice) over the Arctic Ocean. Portions of the ice that do not melt seasonally can get very thick, up to 3–4 meters thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 meters thick. One-year ice is usually about 1 meter thick. The area covered by sea ice ranges between 9 and 12 million km2." Let's go with 5 meters over the whole lot.
Let's just play with numbers. 10 million km at 5m depth compared to 150 million km of oceans. Now, I'm rounding here, but that means that if the whole North Pole was to melt, that would add about 30cm to world sea levels.
Hmmm... Not getting to a 70 meter increase there.
Let's add the South Pole shall we.
That's 14.6 million square miles. Let's round up to 15 million miles. And let's assume an average depth of 100 meters. That means that Antarctica could add 10 meters to sea levels. But again those seem like pretty chunky top of the head calculations, even ignoring the fact that there's been no diminution of ice levels at the South Pole and that it remains pretty damn cold there.
Let's not assume an average depth of 100 metres, let's go with the well established average depth of two kilometres, maxing out at 5 kilometres. this makes a difference.
The highest point in Antarctica is below 5km - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinson_Massif - and that definitely contains quite a lot of rock. From the picture there's clearly rock at the actual surface.
And remember you can't count the ice below sea level. Because that will actually, as it melts, lower sea levels.
You'll notice it is quite thin on the mountain ranges, but these are actually holding back the vast mass of ice sheet in the interior.
That is a fascinating image, thank you. It suggests that lots of the ice in Antarctica is actually below sea level. So you can't just work out how much ice there is and add it to the sea level.
I think it gets horribly complicated at this point.
The only reason that so much of Antartica is below sea level is because of the weight of ice on top of it which is pushing it down - the isostatic effect I was talking about on the last thread. If you melt all that ice then the land will rebound in isostatic readjustment and if that happens then most of that water is going to end up in the seas.
Thanks for that - v interesting
Is the rock beneath the water really that elastic?
And if so, that represents a massive amount of trapped energy
Yep it really is that elastic. We are seeing exactly the same thing in Northern Europe still 12,000 years after the glaciers finally retreated. Scotland is rising and South Eastern England is sinking by around 20cm a century. It doesn't need ice either. The Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana is sinking at about 60cm a century due to the sediment mass outflows from the Mississippi (around 550 million tons of sediment a year).
Against that, in London ground level is 6 or 7 metres higher than in Roman times. Does the 20cms take that into account or are we effectively getting lower but thicker?
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
I mean it's not great but Xi staying away basically makes the whole thing redundant anyway?
From the Beeb
"As we mentioned earlier, China's President Xi Jinping hasn't been attending today's conference - in contrast to many of his counterparts.
But the Chinese leader has released a letter to UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
In it he's reaffirmed China's aim for emissions to peak in the country before 2030, and for carbon neutrality to be achieved by 2060."
He has outbid India by 10 years, and done it without getting on a jet plane. Hard to see much to complain about.
And as has been pointed out, it doesn't get much drearier than a Scottish city in November.
China has four times the CO2 output per capita of India, and haven’t bid anything, since his letter is a mere restatement. His non attendance is more a declaration that China doesn’t give a damn what the rest of the world thinks.
But they DO give a damn. They are not stupid. They can see the world is being fucked over. Pollution is a major issue in China, and global warming is one of the drivers of low human fertility ("fuck it the world is fucked"), which is a massive issue in Beijing
They might disagree on the way to the end, but they understand the path has to be found
I also seem to recall that China itself is physically particularly susceptible to the effects of global warming.
It was quite notable, in his remarkable speech referencing Wokeness, that Putin accepts global warming as a fact
"Firstly, climate change and environmental degradation are so obvious that even the most careless people can no longer dismiss them. One can continue to engage in scientific debates about the mechanisms behind the ongoing processes, but it is impossible to deny that these processes are getting worse, and something needs to be done.
"Natural disasters such as droughts, floods, hurricanes, and tsunamis have almost become the new normal, and we are getting used to them. Suffice it to recall the devastating, tragic floods in Europe last summer, the fires in Siberia – there are a lot of examples. Not only in Siberia – our neighbours in Turkey have also had wildfires, and the United States, and other places on the American continent. It sometimes seems that any geopolitical, scientific and technical, or ideological rivalry becomes pointless in this context, if the winners will have not enough air to breathe or nothing to drink."
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
Tbf, I suspect Sean knows it's a load of old bollocks but it's probably a nice little earner. More fool the idiots who run the Speccie for commissioning it.
Brenda dropping another hint that London Bridge will soon fall.
The Queen has called on world leaders to look beyond their own lifetimes and “answer the call of future generations” with an ambitious agreement to tackle climate change.
In a speech delivered by video to more than 120 leaders gathered in Glasgow for the Cop26 climate change conference she said that “none of us will live for ever” and urged them to rise above “the politics of the moment”.
Brenda dropping another hint that London Bridge will soon fall.
The Queen has called on world leaders to look beyond their own lifetimes and “answer the call of future generations” with an ambitious agreement to tackle climate change.
In a speech delivered by video to more than 120 leaders gathered in Glasgow for the Cop26 climate change conference she said that “none of us will live for ever” and urged them to rise above “the politics of the moment”.
With the description of her outfit, the opening sounds like it thinks she boosted someone else's car amd was trying to be ignognito. The Queen has been pictured driving near Windsor Castle, three days after being advised by her doctors to rest and only carry out light duties.
The monarch, 95, was photographed in a headscarf and sunglasses behind the wheel of a green Jaguar estate car.
"green Jaguar estate"
Must have been an EV. Very appropriate.
Nope. Old X-type estate. Whilst the X-type saloon is horrid, the X-type estate is almost handsome. Opinions vary about how much this Ford-era car shares with the Mondeo. I would quite like the AWD 3.0 v6 X-type estate, in the right colour…
So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!
I don't believe that.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
Are you counting the polar ice caps?
I was not.
But let's have a little play there too, shall we?
Firstly, we're going to assume that every single bit of ice is going to melt there. (Which would be an astonishing warming of the earth, given that the South Pole still only gets to around 28 degrees below in summer.
But let's start with the North Pole. According to Wikipedia: "Earth's North Pole is covered by floating pack ice (sea ice) over the Arctic Ocean. Portions of the ice that do not melt seasonally can get very thick, up to 3–4 meters thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 meters thick. One-year ice is usually about 1 meter thick. The area covered by sea ice ranges between 9 and 12 million km2." Let's go with 5 meters over the whole lot.
Let's just play with numbers. 10 million km at 5m depth compared to 150 million km of oceans. Now, I'm rounding here, but that means that if the whole North Pole was to melt, that would add about 30cm to world sea levels.
Hmmm... Not getting to a 70 meter increase there.
Let's add the South Pole shall we.
That's 14.6 million square miles. Let's round up to 15 million miles. And let's assume an average depth of 100 meters. That means that Antarctica could add 10 meters to sea levels. But again those seem like pretty chunky top of the head calculations, even ignoring the fact that there's been no diminution of ice levels at the South Pole and that it remains pretty damn cold there.
Let's not assume an average depth of 100 metres, let's go with the well established average depth of two kilometres, maxing out at 5 kilometres. this makes a difference.
The highest point in Antarctica is below 5km - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinson_Massif - and that definitely contains quite a lot of rock. From the picture there's clearly rock at the actual surface.
And remember you can't count the ice below sea level. Because that will actually, as it melts, lower sea levels.
You'll notice it is quite thin on the mountain ranges, but these are actually holding back the vast mass of ice sheet in the interior.
That is a fascinating image, thank you. It suggests that lots of the ice in Antarctica is actually below sea level. So you can't just work out how much ice there is and add it to the sea level.
I think it gets horribly complicated at this point.
The only reason that so much of Antartica is below sea level is because of the weight of ice on top of it which is pushing it down - the isostatic effect I was talking about on the last thread. If you melt all that ice then the land will rebound in isostatic readjustment and if that happens then most of that water is going to end up in the seas.
Thanks for that - v interesting
Is the rock beneath the water really that elastic?
And if so, that represents a massive amount of trapped energy
Yep it really is that elastic. We are seeing exactly the same thing in Northern Europe still 12,000 years after the glaciers finally retreated. Scotland is rising and South Eastern England is sinking by around 20cm a century. It doesn't need ice either. The Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana is sinking at about 60cm a century due to the sediment mass outflows from the Mississippi (around 550 million tons of sediment a year).
Against that, in London ground level is 6 or 7 metres higher than in Roman times. Does the 20cms take that into account or are we effectively getting lower but thicker?
Lower but thicker. The underlying rock is sinking whilst we are continuously building up layers of occupation on top. Nature also builds layers and then erodes them again. London is basically built on 2000 years of waste.
(There is a very old joke in archaeology that archaeology is rubbish. In fact it is as it is basically most of the time the study of the stuff we threw away).
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.
"Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.
Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.
If I am ever fortunate enough to meet the great ex-PBer himself, I shall relay your earnest and worthy critiques. But I doubt I will be so lucky
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.
"Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.
Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.
We’ve been discussing at work. Last year I had some feedback on a cancer unit I teach asking if I could not use the terms men and women in reference to prostate and breast cancer FFS. Our homepage has an article about use of pronouns. A colleague specifically mentioned a black scientists ethnicity but did not mention others Jewishness in a recorded lecture.
It’s real, and it needs challenging. I dont want to upset anyone, but most of this crap is totally over the top.
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
Tbf, I suspect Sean knows it's a load of old bollocks but it's probably a nice little earner. More fool the idiots who run the Speccie for commissioning it.
Well they get the traffic, and the readership get their dose. So everyone's happy, even if the world is marginally dumber as a result.
I spotted that it was in the top 5 "most read" Spectator articles worldwide for about 24 hours, so I imagine they solace themselves with that, which might balance out the intense and inevitable guilt which surely comes from printing such otiose gibberish
Brenda dropping another hint that London Bridge will soon fall.
The Queen has called on world leaders to look beyond their own lifetimes and “answer the call of future generations” with an ambitious agreement to tackle climate change.
In a speech delivered by video to more than 120 leaders gathered in Glasgow for the Cop26 climate change conference she said that “none of us will live for ever” and urged them to rise above “the politics of the moment”.
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.
"Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.
Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.
If I am ever fortunate enough to meet the great ex-PBer himself, I shall relay your earnest and worthy critiques. But I doubt I will be so lucky
Indeed. I did though once meet a taxi driver once who had that SeanT in the back of his cab.
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.
"Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.
Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.
Same here. This is the only place I see it. Not sure if most people I know would actually know what it means. Seems a type of paranoia for some.
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.
"Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.
Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.
If I am ever fortunate enough to meet the great ex-PBer himself, I shall relay your earnest and worthy critiques. But I doubt I will be so lucky
You must miss each other all the time in airports, as you do seem to travel to the same parts.
Perhaps he is avoiding you after an embarrassing hand knapped dildo up the arse incident. He fell on it in the shower, so my sources say...
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.
"Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.
Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.
We’ve been discussing at work. Last year I had some feedback on a cancer unit I teach asking if I could not use the terms men and women in reference to prostate and breast cancer FFS. Our homepage has an article about use of pronouns. A colleague specifically mentioned a black scientists ethnicity but did not mention others Jewishness in a recorded lecture.
It’s real, and it needs challenging. I dont want to upset anyone, but most of this crap is totally over the top.
To be fair, there are men who get breast cancer I think?
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.
"Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.
Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.
We’ve been discussing at work. Last year I had some feedback on a cancer unit I teach asking if I could not use the terms men and women in reference to prostate and breast cancer FFS. Our homepage has an article about use of pronouns. A colleague specifically mentioned a black scientists ethnicity but did not mention others Jewishness in a recorded lecture.
It’s real, and it needs challenging. I dont want to upset anyone, but most of this crap is totally over the top.
To be fair, there are men who get breast cancer I think?
Yes, but this was in the context of hormone driven cancers. Women do not have prostates.
Brenda dropping another hint that London Bridge will soon fall.
The Queen has called on world leaders to look beyond their own lifetimes and “answer the call of future generations” with an ambitious agreement to tackle climate change.
In a speech delivered by video to more than 120 leaders gathered in Glasgow for the Cop26 climate change conference she said that “none of us will live for ever” and urged them to rise above “the politics of the moment”.
I understand that she has had to give up riding as too painful and has shrunk a bit.
I wonder if she has some osteoporosis of the spine, more uncomfortable than fatal.
Its can be very painful. My mother has it.
Yes, and a good reason to rest, though a well padded Jaguar should be OK.
Given the choice between a week's rest in Windsor or hacking up to Glasgow to hear a pack of lies and false promises plus Kermit jokes, I reckon her Maj has made the right decision.
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.
"Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.
Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.
If I am ever fortunate enough to meet the great ex-PBer himself, I shall relay your earnest and worthy critiques. But I doubt I will be so lucky
Sean will quite rightly ignore my critiques - he after all is the one getting paid for his words; mine have no market value whatsoever.
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.
"Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.
Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.
We’ve been discussing at work. Last year I had some feedback on a cancer unit I teach asking if I could not use the terms men and women in reference to prostate and breast cancer FFS. Our homepage has an article about use of pronouns. A colleague specifically mentioned a black scientists ethnicity but did not mention others Jewishness in a recorded lecture.
It’s real, and it needs challenging. I dont want to upset anyone, but most of this crap is totally over the top.
To be fair, there are men who get breast cancer I think?
Yes, but this was in the context of hormone driven cancers. Women do not have prostates.
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.
"Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.
Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.
We’ve been discussing at work. Last year I had some feedback on a cancer unit I teach asking if I could not use the terms men and women in reference to prostate and breast cancer FFS. Our homepage has an article about use of pronouns. A colleague specifically mentioned a black scientists ethnicity but did not mention others Jewishness in a recorded lecture.
It’s real, and it needs challenging. I dont want to upset anyone, but most of this crap is totally over the top.
Leeds uni students have demanded all senior staff publish their pronouns apparently.
God knows what that means but it sounds woke to me.
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.
"Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.
Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.
We’ve been discussing at work. Last year I had some feedback on a cancer unit I teach asking if I could not use the terms men and women in reference to prostate and breast cancer FFS. Our homepage has an article about use of pronouns. A colleague specifically mentioned a black scientists ethnicity but did not mention others Jewishness in a recorded lecture.
It’s real, and it needs challenging. I dont want to upset anyone, but most of this crap is totally over the top.
Leeds uni students have demanded all senior staff publish their pronouns apparently.
God knows what that means but it sounds woke to me.
This never made sense to me. Surely you only need to display pronouns if they’re different to what people might assume?
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
My god, I see what you mean. He's still wrapped up in his tiny little woke-obsessed world I see. No wonder he's got no time to post on PB.
"Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.
Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.
If I am ever fortunate enough to meet the great ex-PBer himself, I shall relay your earnest and worthy critiques. But I doubt I will be so lucky
Sean will quite rightly ignore my critiques - he after all is the one getting paid for his words; mine have no market value whatsoever.
Turn this comment into a NFT and some mug will buy it
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
Comments
Shouldn't it be expressed in meters or centimeters, because 2.6% is relative to what?
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-would-sea-level-change-if-all-glaciers-melted?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products
Scotland and Norway survive pretty unscathed.
All highly theoretical, of course.
Must have been an EV. Very appropriate.
Boris equally criticised here by some fiscal conservatives for being too statist
Is the rock beneath the water really that elastic?
And if so, that represents a massive amount of trapped energy
Archimedes is about displacement, not about melting.
The ratio of densities of ice to water is 0.92, so ice takes up 108.7% of the space that that amount of water would, or water takes up only 92% of the volume of the ice that melts.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100428142258.htm
It was the bits underwater that were the issue.
I do not know the answer to that.
Edit: My guess is that it would be A+B, because the soluant is dissolved fully within the volume of the solvent, so the volume of the solvent in the solution is A, and the total volume of the solvent will be A+B, and hence that will be the volume.
Rock is inelastic, it's presumably what the rock sits on that matters.
I worded the above badly, BTW, I should have said "melted fresh water iceberg".
Sea water is 1.025kg/l, fresh water 1kg/l
The fresh water iceberg displaces its weight in sea water when floating (ie (1/1.025)l per kg) and (if it was to stay just as fresh water) its volume in sea water once melted (1l per kg), so that's an increase from 0.975 to 1.
However, in reality it will mix out with the sea water and I'm not sure that it matters in the grand scheme of things...
And that's not my argument, my argument is that the maps are garbage. Yes the maps show a 1m rise wipes out the Netherlands but a 0cm rise should wipe out much of the Netherlands too.
An arranged marriage - must be unusual among leaders nowadays.
The estimate of 100m on average is ludicrously bad.
Here is the BBC:
The Archbishop of Canterbury has "unequivocally" apologised for comparing politicians who fail to act on climate change to those who "ignored what was happening in Nazi Germany".
...
Speaking to BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg, Mr Welby said history would judge current world leaders "probably on this fortnight alone".
"They could have been brilliant in everything else they've done, and they will be cursed if they don't get this right," he said.
"They could have been rubbish at everything else they've done but if they get this right, the children of today will rise up and bless them in 50 years."
Mr Welby said that if they failed to act future generations would speak of them in "far stronger terms than we speak today of... the politicians who ignored what was happening in Nazi Germany because this will kill people all around the world for generations".
But far too subtle, so he was right to kill it before it really started.
https://www.vn.nl/rising-sea-levels-netherlands/
"Reducing CO2 emissions and reinforcing dikes is only half the story. The other stark reality is that even these measures combined may prove insufficient in the long term to preserve the low-lying parts of our country."
The rest of the ice seems to be in the centimetres, its the Greenland ice that's troubling (though its also extremely unlikely to all go anyway).
But even if that all melted which is extremly unlikely, then that's only at rcs's 7m estimate - where is the other 63m supposed to come from?
Sam Cam's family own a big hoose on the beach at Glenbatrick (accessible by boat or walking across the island), but there's very little else there.
It's absurd that we are here in 2021 disputing how much ice there is on land as though a few randoms will know more about it than people who study the stuff.
Tragic and pathetic.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/01/uk-braces-for-french-trade-reprisals-from-midnight-in-fishing-row?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-much-earths-water-stored-glaciers?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products
The average depth of the oceans is 4km. 2.1% of 4km is 84m, ignoring the effects of the increased surface area as the oceans rise. 70m seems a reasonable estimate to me if ALL the glaciers melted.
Of course they are not all going to melt for many, many centuries, even with a massive increase in global temperature but if they ever did...
It'd be designed by future- @Morris_Dancer
They might disagree on the way to the end, but they understand the path has to be found
I still live in hope of a messianic return of SeanT one day!
Whenever I see a satellite photo of the Earth, I am struck by what a thin and fragile layer of atmosphere we have, and the same is true for water.
PS I appreciate your post was tongue-in-cheek but seriously, re-freezing the glaciers would surely be easier than ejecting 30 million cubic km of water into space?
You could have just spent the time writing a book...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnhill,_Jura
(On my list of places to stay, that one)
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-if-wokeness-really-is-the-new-christianity-
https://www.floodmap.net
I wonder if she has some osteoporosis of the spine, more uncomfortable than fatal.
"Have you had a conversation about The Wokeness recently?" Er, no... the only people who raise it are PB right-wingers. I literally have never heard anyone mention the word 'woke' in my ordinary life. Never.
Still it keeps the Spectatorate happy plotting their counter-revolutions and National Trust coups, I guess.
*Other genitalia are available.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHpt4gB0-Mw
His words:
"Firstly, climate change and environmental degradation are so obvious that even the most careless people can no longer dismiss them. One can continue to engage in scientific debates about the mechanisms behind the ongoing processes, but it is impossible to deny that these processes are getting worse, and something needs to be done.
"Natural disasters such as droughts, floods, hurricanes, and tsunamis have almost become the new normal, and we are getting used to them. Suffice it to recall the devastating, tragic floods in Europe last summer, the fires in Siberia – there are a lot of examples. Not only in Siberia – our neighbours in Turkey have also had wildfires, and the United States, and other places on the American continent. It sometimes seems that any geopolitical, scientific and technical, or ideological rivalry becomes pointless in this context, if the winners will have not enough air to breathe or nothing to drink."
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66975
(Sorry)
(There is a very old joke in archaeology that archaeology is rubbish. In fact it is as it is basically most of the time the study of the stuff we threw away).
It’s real, and it needs challenging. I dont want to upset anyone, but most of this crap is totally over the top.
Brilliantly timed intervention.
Perhaps he is avoiding you after an embarrassing hand knapped dildo up the arse incident. He fell on it in the shower, so my sources say...
God knows what that means but it sounds woke to me.