Sentences with phrase «possible levels of sea»

Not exact matches

«That necessitates taking a flexible approach, where possible: building for the half foot to 1.3 feet of sea - level rise that are likely by 2050, while plotting out options that will depend on what we learn in the next few decades and how sea level rises beyond that.»

The report provides a range of possible scenarios, from at least 1 foot of global sea - level rise by 2100 to a worst - case rise that's 1.6 feet higher than a scenario in a key 2012 study that the report updates.

«From now on, continues Castelltort, we know that by calculating the ratio between 13C and 12C sampled in similar slope deposits close to continents, we can have an indication of the sea level, which means it's possible to better predict the distribution of sedimentary rocks in our subsurface.»

The possible localised sea level fall in the vicinity of the melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets has an interesting...

Which of the following possible changes would, if it happened, do the most to raise sea levels?

The claim of a 270 - meter run up, which is a measure of the elevation above sea level a wave reaches on shore, is «certainly possible,» says James Goff, a paleotsunami expert at University of New South Wales, Sydney, in Australia.

You report that sea - level rises of up to 5 metres are possible within 300 years (4 July, p 28).

As part of a large survey of possible planet - hosting stars, Lovis and his colleagues used the powerful HARPS (for High Accuracy Radial - Velocity Planet Searcher) spectrograph at La Silla Observatory in Chile, 2,400 meters above sea level, which can detect stellar motions with precisions of less than one meter per second, roughly the walking speed of a human being.

Some scientists suggest several meters of sea level rise (more than 10 feet) is possible.

A model of a polar ice stream, and future sea - level rise due to possible drastic retreat of the West Antarctic ice sheet.

The model gives two potential outcomes: one where the contribution to sea levels tails off to around 6 cm by 2200, and a second where it accelerates to around 50 cm, and a possible maximum of 72 cm.

«Up to 8.5 feet of global sea level rise is possible by 2100» in a worst - case emissions scenario.

Rather, they tested a range of potential values for key parameters of their model and retained those consistent with the paleo - sea level estimates, but they did not explore the full space of possible values within their ranges.

Given that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has a total sea level equivalent of 3.3 m1, with 1.5 m from Pine Island Glacier alone4, marine ice sheet collapse could be a significant challenge for future generations, with major changes in rates of sea level rise being possible within just the next couple of hundred years.

Unfortunately, regular medical tests of B12 levels in the blood can be often inaccurate not only because of wrong norms, which are way too low, but also due to many different possible factors such as high blood levels of folic acid, presence of pseudo forms of B12 (analogues) in the blood (from dietary sources such as spirulina, nori, sea vegetables, etc.) as they can give a falsely high reading of B12 in the blood.

It is not possible to see the whole size of the wave from the beach, because the reef sucks it below sea level.

The work is possible by working in a community level with a number of collaborators including California Department of Education, City of Oxnard, Santa Barbara City Creeks Division, The Nature Conservancy, Channel Islands Marine Resource Institute, the Channel Islands Harbor Foundation, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History Ty Warner Sea Center, and over 20 schools in 7 school districts along the Santa Barbara Channel region.

It really doesn't — with just paleo - climate to guide us and no quantification possible of the implications of CO2 levels approaching (or exceeding) Pliocene levels (with ~ 20 meters of sea level rise), the uncertainties grow much larger, and uncertainty is not our friend.

The dynamics of large of sheets is of course a possible unknown, but no one has yet be able to come up with a * mechanism * for 5 m of sea level rise in 100 years given current ice sheet configurations.

As so much of the GIS is grounded below sea - level, it seems to me that the key to any possible catastrophic mass loss is the Jacobshavn effect: the ungrounding of the marine front as the ice thins and becomes buoyant.

a base value sea - level rise of 0.5 m relative to the 1980 — 1999 average be used, along with an assessment of potential consequences from a range of possible higher sea - level rise values.

If I read the some of the conclusions in the latest report on Abrupt Climate Change from the US Climate Change Science Program http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-4/final-report/default.htm, in particular Chapter 2, it would seem possible to come up with multiple feet of sea level rise due to the understanding of ice dynamics.

An obvious question is how this acceleration can be possible in light of the satellite data showing sea level falling over the last 2 years.

The quest for the «single figure» that shows anthropogeneic warming ignores the fact that (with the possible major exception of sea level) the direct impact of climate change will vary between regions and climatic zones.

Over all, the pace of sea - level rise from the resulting ice loss doesn't go beyond about 1.5 feet per century, Dr. Pollard said in an interview, a far cry from what was thought possible a couple of decades ago.

You can find a map of where it was here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringia#/media/File:BeringiaMap-NPSgov.jpg The IPCC agrees that a rise of one metre in sea level is possible by the end of this century.

But their conclusions regarding an alarming rate of sea level rise are at best possible (and not plausible)....

Koenig's careful description of the science and the uncertainty about what the future holds prompted a public spanking from the Center for American Progress climate blogger Joe Romm, who charged her with «scientific reticence» — alluding to NASA scientist James Hansen's paper criticizing sea - level researchers for being overly cautious in 2007 conclusions about the possible rate of sea rise in this century.

Here are some possible choices — in order of increasing sophistication: * All (or most) scientists agree (the principal Gore argument) * The 20th century is the warmest in 1000 years (the «hockeystick» argument) * Glaciers are melting, sea ice is shrinking, polar bears are in danger, etc * Correlation — both CO2 and temperature are increasing * Sea levels are rising * Models using both natural and human forcing accurately reproduce the detailed behavior of 20th century global temperature * Modeled and observed PATTERNS of temperature trends («fingerprints») of the past 30 years agsea ice is shrinking, polar bears are in danger, etc * Correlation — both CO2 and temperature are increasing * Sea levels are rising * Models using both natural and human forcing accurately reproduce the detailed behavior of 20th century global temperature * Modeled and observed PATTERNS of temperature trends («fingerprints») of the past 30 years agSea levels are rising * Models using both natural and human forcing accurately reproduce the detailed behavior of 20th century global temperature * Modeled and observed PATTERNS of temperature trends («fingerprints») of the past 30 years agree

This will lead to more robust projections of sea level rise than is currently possible.

«They calculated how fast glaciers would have to flow in order to raise sea level by a given number of meters and then considered whether those flow rates were plausible or even physically possible.

Killian claimed I said «nigel says say nothing to the public about possible dangers of rapid sea level rise» when I said the complete opposite in two previous posts

The paper was was written by 17 prominent climate, ice and ocean scientists, led by James E. Hansen, the pioneering climatologist who since 2007 has argued that most of his peers have been too reticent in their projections of the possible pace of sea - level rise in a warming world.

It is also possible for cold climates to increase chemical weathering in some ways, by lowering sea level to expose more land to erosion (though I'd guess this can also increase oxydation of C in sediments) and by supplying more sediments via glacial erosion for chemical weathering (of course, those sediments must make it to warmer conditions to make the process effective — downhill and downstream, or perhaps via pulsed ice ages -LRB-?)-RRB-.

In New Orleans, geophysical vulnerability is characterized by its below - sea level, bowl - shaped location, its accelerating subsidence, rising sea level, storm surges, and possible increased frequency of larger hurricanes from climate change.

What is clear is that uncontrolled emissions will very soon put us in range of temperatures that have been unseen since the Eemian / Stage 5e period (about 120,000 years ago) when temperatures may have been a degree or so warmer than now but where sea level was 4 to 6m higher (see this recent discussion the possible sensitivities of the ice sheets to warming and the large uncertainties involved).

I certainly don't think we'll melt all of Antarctica or even Greenland, but we know from the paleo record very significant melting and sea level rise are possible once the warming epoch gets under way.

BTW: Timothy translated Dr. Hansen's possible «several» meters of potential sea level rise as 5 meters.

Overall, the panel's reports have never focused much on research examining how humans respond (or fail to respond) to certain kinds of risk, particularly «super wicked» problems such global warming, which is imbued with persistent uncertainty on key points (the pace of sea - level rise, the extent of warming from a certain buildup of greenhouse gases), dispersed and delayed risks, and a variegated menu of possible responses.

James Hansen is even more «alarmistic» — the sea level rise of more than a 1 meter is quite well possible, read here:

London, England (CNN)-- A possible rise in sea levels by 0.5 meters by 2050 could put at risk more than $ 28 trillion worth of assets in the world's largest coastal cities, according to a report compiled for the insurance industry.

It is possible, therefore, that the effects of recent accelerations in climate change have not yet started to have a significant contribution to or impact on current sea levels; but based on international scientific opinion, it is more a case of when, rather than if.

Possible rise in sea levels by 0.5 meters by 2050 could put at risk more than $ 28 trillion worth of assets, report says

The risk facing humanity is that climate change could spiral out of control and it will no longer be possible to arrest trends such as ice melting and rising sea level.

It is certainly possible and may be likely for the polar ice sheets to disappear, causing sea level rise (SLR) of 22 + / - 10 metres over coming millennia.

INTERACTIVE MAP: Explore the hundreds of US coastal communities that will face chronic inundation and possible retreat as sea levels rise.

And in the WWF site it says that we havn't got this kind of warming for 10 000 years, so how is it possible that coastal cities from 8000 years ago flooded on the coast lines from rising sea levels.

The legislation, HB 819, actually represented a compromise over a previous draft of the law, which mandated consideration of a possible 8 - inch sea level rise, based solely upon historical patterns rather than climate change models.

DIVA is a global model to estimate impacts of sea level rise on all coastal nations as well as the costs and benefits of possible adaptation measures.

Our analysis combines published relationships between cumulative carbon emissions and warming, together with two possible versions of the relationship between warming and sea level, to estimate global and regional sea - level commitments from different emissions totals.