|
quote: Originally posted by Dr Ian B:
The Beeb is particularly adept at linking any 'environment' story to global warming They had a story a few weeks ago (about which I lodged a formal complaint) linking coastal erosion in Norfolk to sea level rise and warming. The presentation of the story was nonsense, because the influence of rising sea levels is less than that due to isostatic rebound and is totally dwarfed by tidal ranges; coastal erosion is a geological process, and the East Coast has always been susceptible because of the present of relatively soft rocks (and/or glacial deposits) along the coast.
Hi Dr Ian, what is the game then? I find myself wondering why we have any beaches left around our coastline if sea levels are rising as a result of the greenland ice sheet melting. Then Stevie_M tells me is will take 1000 years once CO2 reaches a certain level: [Quote) Incidentally, ignoring ice sheet dynamics (which might accelerate the rate of melting) Greenland is expected to take a 1000 years to melt once greenhouse gas levels reach the equivalent of 450ppm (expected before 2050). [/QUOTE] |
| |
|
|
Ian B The IPCC projections are for a sea-level rise of between 18 and 59cm (this is the range from the lowest prediction for the "most optimistic" scenario to the highest model prediction for the "least optimistic" scenario of CO2 emissions). This also excludes the effect of ice dynamics. How does this compare with the rate of sinking of Southern England - do you have any sources? I only found one which said 60cm, but it didn't say whether it included post-glacial rebound, sea level rise or both. Incidentally, one of the IPCC "ice pessimists" has a detailed article on the IPCC view at: www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/the-ipcc-sea-level-numbers/ |
| |
|
