Earth Is An Oil-Producing Machine — We're Not Running Out (Page 6): That’s not the consensus from what I read. It’s more like 23.6 feet rise.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

TriX wrote:

The consensus is 65-70 meters (210-220 feet) sea level rise if all the Antarctic/Greenland ice melts. The water has been here all along, remember that a fair portion of coast and Piedmont of the US was covered by water at one point. But it won’t take 210 feet. Imagine what would happen to coastal cities with a 10-20’ rise caused by 10% melting.

That’s not the consensus from what I read. It’s more like 23.6 feet rise.

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

Racmanaz wrote:

That’s not the consensus from what I read. It’s more like 23.6 feet rise.

Your response reminds me of the fellow who was listening to an "expert" predicting when solar system would finally burn out and come to an end. When the presentation was over, he stood up and the expert says "what is your question sir" the fellow says "Just how long was it you said it would be before the solar system would be gone" The expert replied " No one can know the exact date, but certainly "billions" of years"
The fellow in the audience wiped his brow and said "Whew, I thought you said "millions" of years."

When you are living in a coastal region, there isn't much difference between a 70 foot rise in sea level and a 23.6 foot rise.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

RodeoMan wrote:

Your response reminds me of the fellow who was lis... (show quote)

You got something wrong with you then. I was simply correcting the numbers. 23 feet is definitely much lower than 220 feet. It’s NOT 70 feet that was claimed, it was 70 meters.

Old Coot

TriX wrote:

The consensus is 65-70 meters (210-220 feet) sea level rise if all the Antarctic/Greenland ice melts. The water has been here all along, remember that a fair portion of coast and Piedmont of the US was covered by water at one point. But it won’t take 210 feet. Imagine what would happen to coastal cities with a 10-20’ rise caused by 10% melting.

That would be an awful lot of Ice. As all major Oceans &Seas are connected, then the rise in Sea level would be spread in all of them. Seeing as the Oceans and Seas represent more than half of the planets surface would it be possible to calculate the rise for the whole planet and would’nt ALL the Ice have to melt.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Racmanaz wrote:

That’s not the consensus from what I read. It’s more like 23.6 feet rise.

“If we keep burning fossil fuels indefinitely, global warming will eventually melt all the ice at the poles and on mountaintops, raising sea level by 216 feet. What the World Would Look Like if All the Ice Melted” - National Geographic

“If all the ice covering Antarctica , Greenland, and in mountain glaciers around the world were to melt, sea level would rise about 70 meters (230 feet). The ocean would cover all the coastal cities. And land area would shrink significantly. But many cities, such as Denver, would survive.” American Museum of Natural history

“approximately 230 feet
There is still some uncertainty about the full volume of glaciers and ice caps on Earth, but if all of them were to melt, global sea level would rise approximately 70 meters (approximately 230 feet), flooding every coastal city on the planet. Learn more: USGS Water Science School: Glaciers and Icecaps.” USGS (US Geological Survey)

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

Racmanaz wrote:

You got something wrong with you then. I was simply correcting the numbers. 23 feet is definitely much lower than 220 feet. It’s NOT 70 feet that was claimed, it was 70 meters.

I'm sure I have plenty wrong with me. Unlike many on this forum, I don't have the attitude that if I walk on the ice today, it will be water tomorrow. Yes, 23 feet is much lower than 200 feet, but if your house is under water in either case, you have serious problems.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

TriX wrote:

“If we keep burning fossil fuels indefinitely, glo... (show quote)

Well you maybe right, I clicked on the link that said, if Greenland ice all melted it would raise 23.6 feet. That was my mistake. I thought they were including both ice caps.

Old Coot

Does the rate of melting of the Ice take into account that during the winter months, some if not most of the melting ice will re-freeze.
Also the fact that temperatures decrease by 9.8 degree Celsius for every 3000 ft of elevation means that temperatures would have to rise really dramatically for the ice on the mountains to melt. Most of glacier Ice melting is at lower elevations.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Old Coot wrote:

Does the rate of melting of the Ice take into account that during the winter months, some if not most of the melting ice will re-freeze.
Also the fact that temperatures decrease by 9.8 degree Celsius for every 3000 ft of elevation means that temperatures would have to rise really dramatically for the ice on the mountains to melt. Most of glacier Ice melting is at lower elevations.

hondo812 Loc: Massachusetts

TriX wrote:

The consensus is 65-70 meters (210-220 feet) sea level rise if all the Antarctic/Greenland ice melts. The water has been here all along, remember that a fair portion of coast and Piedmont of the US was covered by water at one point. But it won’t take 210 feet. Imagine what would happen to coastal cities with a 10-20’ rise caused by 10% melting.

You know, at one point the Earth was warm enough that there was no ice. At another time it was all ice (see snowball earth). Amazingly enough we human beings had nothing to do with either case.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

hondo812 wrote:

You know, at one point the Earth was warm enough that there was no ice. At another time it was all ice (see snowball earth). Amazingly enough we human beings had nothing to do with either case.

But but, humans are expediting the process. 😂

hondo812 Loc: Massachusetts

Racmanaz wrote:

But but, humans are expediting the process. 😂

In which direction?

Perhaps. But I'm sure that we can agree that many will cry for unified sacrifice but few will. Mostly because the don't want to "walk the walk".