Sentences with phrase «extreme sea level rise scenario»

While that 55 inches may sound exaggerated, it's less than half of what scientists project could happen in an extreme sea level rise scenario.

Not exact matches

Research group Climate Central has created a plug - in for Google Earth that illustrates how catastrophic an «extreme» sea - level rise scenario would be if the flooding happened now, based on projections in a 2017 report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA).

Frightening thought — if and only if the AGW centric prediction of future climate is either not completely correct, or out right wrong, consider extreme scenarios which would result in a drastically (and painfully) different outcome than the prophecied sea level rise / climatic tropical expansion / northerly movement of species model.

He was forced to correct that statement after it was pointed out that LAX is at least 108 feet above sea level, and therefore safe from rising seas even under the most extreme scenario.

Imagine if Waxman - Markey had passed within the envelope of both major ocean circulations going negative...... Grand recession / solar minima / end extreme eccentricity minima interglacial or not, we could be sitting around now, swilling non-carbonated champagne, patting each other on the back, celebrating the FACT that we had quelled the heathen devil promulgated sea level rising to the AR4 worst case scenario of 0.59 meters, only to watch it go +6 M etc,.

The «business as usual» scenario outlined in the «Risky Business» research also includes extreme sea - level rise, which will flood the water supply and delivery infrastructure.

And yet, the actual forecasts in the IPCC (even if you believe them) are far from apocalyptic — 8.5 inches sea level rise, some increased droughts and hurricanes (unless you take the most extreme scenario).

The social cost of carbon is the discounted monetary value of future climate change damages due to additional CO2 emissions (for example, the costs of adverse agricultural effects, protecting against rising sea levels, health impacts, species loss, risks of extreme warming scenarios, and so on).

I concluded that the projections of extreme sea level rise are not consistent with plausible physical mechanisms, not supported by the available data, and further, that the AR4 projected range (about 30 - 50 cm by 2100) agreed perfectly with my projections over a wide range of warming scenarios.

(trouble is 35 is for carbon dioxide concentration, and 65 is for forcing, so if that's the calculation it was indeed a typo in a spreadsheet) Actually CO2 as a percentage of all radiative forcing would be: 43/65 * 100 = 66 % You messed up the link (I think) so that it actually leads back to this page rather than the FAQ section http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/whats-wrong-with-warm-weather.html Never mind, as you know, I don't think the costs imposed by that change are large, not as long as sea level rise is only 50 cm over a hundred years (and the midpoint for the scenarios I consider most policy relevant, ie those excluding lots of coal burning after 2050, is somewhat lower still) and the change in «weather extremes» largely amounts to nothing more than what would be expected from moving south a few hundred kilometres.