At the current rate of
sealevel rise of 2.5 mm per annum, it will take about 10,000 years to get to your worst case of 27m.
I wonder if tonyb (climatereason) has also been looking
at sealevel in his historical researches.
It turns out that within about two thousand miles of the site of iceloss, the effect
on sealevel is negative.
Furthermore it is constrained by
steric sealevel rise (the Trenberth 2009 paper looked at this accounting exercise).
Recent studies have proposed that the bathymetric fabric of the seafloor formed at mid-ocean ridges records rapid (23,000 to 100,000 years) fluctuations in ridge magma supply caused by
sealevel changes that modulate melt production in the underlying mantle.
However, given NZ tectonic and glacial history, I would argue that it is not exactly the best place in the world to be projecting global conclusions
about sealevel rise from.
The grey area at the top corresponds to the seasonal stage at which ice break - up is imminent and determined by
local sealevel and winds.
Bart Verheggen: «I am an atmospheric scientist working in the Netherlands (and living 1 ft
below sealevel), and I am particularly interested in science communication.»
Now, pressure can be given in any unit (since you're using psi, p0 = 14.7 psi
at sealevel), but temperature must be given in an absolute scale, i.e. in Kelvin.
What people commenting here are not aware of is that the slight
steric sealevel rise and OHC increase has to be compatible with the overall warming.
As actual climate unfolds, have you decided at what point (global temperature, rate
of sealevel rise, etc) you would change your mind?
On page 638 of this issue, Tessler et al. (5) show that
sealevel rise, increasing climate extremes, population growth, and human - induced sinking of deltas threaten the sustainability of many major deltas around the world.
Is
sealevel rise of 10mm / year a catastrophe?