SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: combjelly who wrote (929902)4/11/2016 8:27:20 AM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 1575914
 
Sure, where the slope of the land is more shallow than where it is more steep that is true.

That's only a small part of my point. Erosion and subsistence can be severe local issues even when the slope is shallow.

No matter how you slice it, it costs to move a city.

But moving new development away from the shore, over very long periods of time, costs a small fraction of any other type of move.

Who said anything about Al Gore?

I did. As an example of some of the more extreme and unjustified scaremongering, and to point out that even if he's right (and he isn't), there still isn't an existential threat. If Tejek was right when he claimed it would be like Venus, then there would be an existential threat, but if your just going to imagine disastrous results then any process could be an existential threat.

As for acceleration, that seems to be the case but not as fast as you present it.

Again -
"in global sea level reconstruction. We calculate an acceleration of 0.02 ± 0.01 mm·yr- 2 in global sea level (1807–2009). In comparison the steric component of sea level shows an acceleration of 0.006 mm·yr- 2 and mass loss of glaciers accelerates at 0.003 mm·yr- 2 over 200 year long time series."
sciencedirect.com
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext