I find this article particularly interesting as a point to do some really poor, back of the napkin math to go back and look over what has happened. It seems fair to say that since ~1980 we have...
I find this article particularly interesting as a point to do some really poor, back of the napkin math to go back and look over what has happened. It seems fair to say that since ~1980 we have experienced roughly 4" of global sea level rise source is me reading the graph on Wikipedia, which coincides with 35% loss of the volume of these ice shelves. So we have roughly 7.5" of sea level rise left to go by that calculation. I find this interesting because it conflicts with the very well researched and supported statement in the article that the ice sheet has the potential to raise sea levels by 2.1m (over 6.8 feet). I don't say any of this to spread doubt on these numbers, I am doing back of the napkin math as a layman, and the statement in the article is very well supported and substantiated, where mine is not. On the contrary, I am very curious to know why the real world numbers are not lining up, because climate change denialists will very much glob onto areas of doubt like this one.
I often find myself doing a little thought experiment when I see articles about climate change and sea level rise. I try to mentally figure out what the odds are that my own house will be threatened by the ocean within my lifetime, or my child's lifetime. It's frightening that I have to think about something like that, and I would very much prefer not to.
I am not an environmental scientist but I believe there is a distinction between ice shelves and ice sheets. The former is a specifically coastal mass of ice, such as a glacier meeting the sea,...
I am not an environmental scientist but I believe there is a distinction between ice shelves and ice sheets. The former is a specifically coastal mass of ice, such as a glacier meeting the sea, and the former could encompass inland areas. If we've seen a 35% loss of ice shelves, that doesn't necessarily equate to a 35% loss of the overall sheets, which are more inland and therefore less immediately subject to melting.
That makes total sense, and it touches on the fact that floating ice displaces ocean water, and the fact that ice sees an increase in volume over water of, I believe, at least 10%. I have never...
That makes total sense, and it touches on the fact that floating ice displaces ocean water, and the fact that ice sees an increase in volume over water of, I believe, at least 10%. I have never seen an easily digestible resource that delves into the math in a way I could understand, and that is probably because it is not an easily digestible subject
I find this article particularly interesting as a point to do some really poor, back of the napkin math to go back and look over what has happened. It seems fair to say that since ~1980 we have experienced roughly 4" of global sea level rise source is me reading the graph on Wikipedia, which coincides with 35% loss of the volume of these ice shelves. So we have roughly 7.5" of sea level rise left to go by that calculation. I find this interesting because it conflicts with the very well researched and supported statement in the article that the ice sheet has the potential to raise sea levels by 2.1m (over 6.8 feet). I don't say any of this to spread doubt on these numbers, I am doing back of the napkin math as a layman, and the statement in the article is very well supported and substantiated, where mine is not. On the contrary, I am very curious to know why the real world numbers are not lining up, because climate change denialists will very much glob onto areas of doubt like this one.
I often find myself doing a little thought experiment when I see articles about climate change and sea level rise. I try to mentally figure out what the odds are that my own house will be threatened by the ocean within my lifetime, or my child's lifetime. It's frightening that I have to think about something like that, and I would very much prefer not to.
I am not an environmental scientist but I believe there is a distinction between ice shelves and ice sheets. The former is a specifically coastal mass of ice, such as a glacier meeting the sea, and the former could encompass inland areas. If we've seen a 35% loss of ice shelves, that doesn't necessarily equate to a 35% loss of the overall sheets, which are more inland and therefore less immediately subject to melting.
That makes total sense, and it touches on the fact that floating ice displaces ocean water, and the fact that ice sees an increase in volume over water of, I believe, at least 10%. I have never seen an easily digestible resource that delves into the math in a way I could understand, and that is probably because it is not an easily digestible subject