Subscription Center
May 14, 2009 04:32 PM | 40
A new estimate puts maximum global sea level rise from the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet at 10.5 feet (3.2 meters)—not the 16 feet (five meters) or more predicted in the past.
The latest research indicates that this massive ice sheet is unlikely to disappear completely, limiting the damage as it melts. Glaciologist Jonathan Bamber of the University of Bristol in England and his colleagues modeled the collapse of the ice sheet based on the relative likelihood of a given section vanishing completely.
Their work suggests only those parts of the ice sheet that are grounded below sea level or sloping downwards would collapse. Those parts of the sheet grounded above sea level or on bedrock that slopes upwards would remain in place.
If that theory holds, the maximum sea level rise in the next century would be nearly three feet (81 centimeters), the researchers write in Science.
The results say nothing about disappearing ice sheets elsewhere. Bolivia's Chacaltaya Glacier has already melted away. And Greenland, which holds enough ice to raise sea levels by 23 feet (seven meters), is shrinking. Change can happen quickly. Fossil coral and other records show historic sea level rises of more than six feet (two meters) in as little as 50 years.
Given that West Antarctica, where this ice sheet is located, is warming faster than the rest of the icy continent and gravitational effects from less ice there would change the Earth's rotation and boost sea levels from Boston to Jacksonville by as much as 23 feet (seven meters), residents might want to prepare for a more watery future.
Image Credit: Courtesy of J. Bamber, University of Bristol
Tags:
melting ice,
climate change,
antarctica,
sea level,
global warming,
sea level rise,
poles,
science
More News Blog:
Next: Life began in a flash; Science takes four billion years to catch up
Previous: First Hubble repair spacewalk wrapping up
See what we're tweeting about
Deadline: Jul 30 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Seeker desires a method for producing pseudoephedrine products in such a way that it will be extremely difficult for clandestine che
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
40 Comments
Add CommentOh, no problem then.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis comes as a huge relief for the 150 million of us living between 10-15 feet above sea level.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToo bad about the 250 million living between 0 and 10 feet. Suckers!
The movie "Water World" with Kevin Costner was well ahead of its time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a weird piece of information. I'm not sure whether to applaud the authors for having the guts to publish a politically incorrect piece of research, or whether to castigate them for caving in at the last second to conventional dogma and then repeating the AGW mantra of collapsing ice sheets and massive sea level rises.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe facts of the matter are:
1. Sea levels aren't rising.
2. Ice sheets are thickening.
What makes True Believers so pathetic is that by casting their Cause as a "War Against Climate Change" the next pitiful and shameless chapter in their saga will be to instantly transform the Cause into one of saving the world from "The Coming Ice Age!" (just send $$$ please, credit cards are fine too)
I also find it interesting and sad that when confronted with data that show that an apocalypse or rapture is not imminent, True Believers feel somehow let down and contemptuous of the research. Wouldn't it be more logical to breathe a sigh of relief that maybe things are going to be OK after all?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The facts of the matter are:"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Sea levels aren't rising.
No they are not. Care to cite the peer reviewed research that says
otherwise?We know that sea is rising at a rate of around 3.0 mm a year.
Here is the pdf file that has all the citations and analysis confirming the fact that your a liar.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch05.pdf
"2. Ice sheets are thickening."
Since we know that your lying about #1 why would any one believe #2?
"What makes True Believers so pathetic is that by casting their Cause as a "War Against Climate Change" the next pitiful and shameless chapter in their saga will be to instantly transform the Cause into one of saving the world from "The Coming Ice Age!" (just send $$$ please, credit cards are fine too)"
This message brought to you by Exxon-Mobile.
Trent 1492: Ad hominen attacks are the refuge of scoundrels not scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIce sheets thickening:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5301082/Climate-change-The-elements-conspire-against-the-warmists.html
Sea levels not rising, and skullduggery by True Believers to show otherwise
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/despite-popular-opinion-and-calls-to-action-the-maldives-is-not-being-overrun-by-sea-level-rise/
Your constant and incessant appeals to the authority of peer review are unscientific and smack of the "Doctrine of Papal Infallibility". Science cares about predictability, testability and falsifiability. Appeals to authority are meaningless.
So far in all real world counts, AGW has failed miserably: it's predictions have proved manifestly wrong as the predicted hot spot in the atmosphere failed to materialize; it is untestable as AGW zealots consider both warming and cooling to be indicative of AGW; and experimental data have falsified it by showing a lack of heat content increase in the ocean. I'm not going to bother to cite any references for these items as anyone can Google the keywords and find them in about 5 seconds.
And calling me a liar is pathetic, but consistent with being a True Believer, so carry on.
"Ice sheets thickening:"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNotice how you cite a blog and a British tabloid newspaper; while I gave you a peer reviewed paper summarizing all the data on sea level rise? Who do you think is credible?
From the NSIDC:
"Sea ice extent averaged over the month of March 2009 was 15.16 million square kilometers (5.85 million square miles). This was 730,000 square kilometers (282,000 square miles) above the record low of 2006, but 590,000 square kilometers (228,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average."
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/040609.html
So once again notice I cite a scientific organization and you a blog article? Once again who is more believable. Me or your Exxon-Mobile sponsored propaganda?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/040609.html
"Sea levels not rising, and skullduggery by True Believers to show otherwise."
Once again a blog article with insinuations but not any facts? Why is it you ignore that pdf with all the peer reviewed research? Do you think no else will notice your failure to address the science?
"Your constant and incessant appeals to the authority of peer review are unscientific and smack of the "Doctrine of Papal Infallibility"
So let me see: It is perfectly ok, to cite a blog article and a newspaper article that supports your position but it is an outrage, in your opinion, to actually cite the science itself? Tell me, how is it unscientific to cite peer reviewed articles. Yet it is perfectly OK to cite a blog article? Tell me, how does that work?
"So far in all real world counts, AGW has failed miserably:"
The evidence has been cited to you scores of time it is just that like a two year old you think that if you close your eyes it will go away, that is pretty pitiful.
So once again Shoshin , how do you explain the stratosphere COOLING while the troposphere is WARMING? What rational empirically based explanation do you have to explain this OBSERVED phenomena?
Trent1492:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it amusing that you keep referring to some stratosphere/troposphere issue, as if it is the secret of the universe. Plainly, you do not understand the concept of falsifiablility.
Under the AGW hypothesis, the heat content of the entire planet must be climbing. That means that all of the planet, not just pieces, and especially things like the ocean, which cover 71% of the planet. Your pet quote is merely one of many observations that may or may not show warming, but speak nothing as to causality. Your pet quote (assuming it is correct) could easily be an effect of a warming planet, but still tell us nothing as to why it warmed.
You seem to think that it is up to us Deniers to prove True Believers wrong. Your thinking process is akin to Creationists, who when confronted with the fossils of another missing link puff their chests and proclaim, "Well so what, you haven't found this OTHER missing link". That type of view is not scientific, and clearly you just don't understand that falsifiability is a death sentence to a hypothesis, not a commutation.
Falsifiability dictates that for a hypothesis to be accepted, it must not be proven false. A million pieces of information consistent with the hypothesis can be presented, but all that is required is that the hypothesis be proven false once. Responsible scientists spend their time looking for ways to disprove their hypotheses, racking their brains to find ways that they can be wrong. That is what makes science so difficult.
And the lack of heat content increase on the planet (not to be confused with temperature) falsifies the AGW hypothesis as it shows that CO2 is nothing other than a minor player in any aspects of climate change.
What you continue to offer is junk science, observations that can have a myriad of causes. You quote and requote scientists and papers and cite authority. That charade has worn thin; appeals to authority are meaningless. I'd be more interested in what independent original thought you've ever had than your rote recitation of others work.
As anyone who frequents these sites knows, scientific papers can and often do disagree. So what. That's the nature of science. Only in religion is there absolutism. All the disagreements really prove is that there is no consensus, the science is not in.
Keep trying though. And keep the insults coming. I find them amusing; although not as amusing as your fellow True Believer hotblack's view that I'm such a threat to his/her belief system that I should commit suicide.
For some information on sea levels from NASA:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/Sea_level_rises.html
Note that the sea level is rising. Scientists are now examining the causes.
"Scientists expect to have some answers soon. NASA's new Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment (GRACE) mission will be able to calculate the ocean's mass, helping pinpoint whether rising sea level is a result of more water in the ocean or expansion due to warming waters. A new generation of tide gauges and monitoring devices provide details on sea level changes in specific locations."
For information about ice melt:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.igsoc.org/news/pressreleases/200603a.html
Just in case there is some problem with scientific falsifiability:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Falsifiability
"A simple procedure can be used to determine whether or not a hypothesis or conjecture is scientific and falsifiable. What would be an example of something that, if observed, would contradict the hypothesis? If this question cannot be answered, then the conjecture is not scientific. In addition, a good test of a theory is that it is able to make predictions about some future event. For example, Einstein's ideas about relativity predicted specific things that would be observed during an eclipse. When the eclipse came, the predictions were confirmed, something which strongly supported his theory."
Any AGW denier should be able to answer this question:
What is an example of an observation that would disprove the theory of AGW?
"I find it amusing that you keep referring to some stratosphere/troposphere issue, as if it is the secret of the universe. P
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have this feeling your sense of humor runs in the vein of "Look! He got punched in the nose! Ha Ha" sort of funny.
Plainly, you do not understand the concept of falsifiablility. "
Let me see: A prediction is made that if CO2 is the reason for global temperature rise then the troposphere will warm ( because that is where the CO2 is) while the stratosphere will cool because less IR waves will be reaching it because the CO2 is blocking it. This easily falsifiable. Do you understand what the word means?
"Under the AGW hypothesis, the heat content of the entire planet must be climbing."
No. Only on a global AVERAGE. Some places may actually cool because we are changing the radiative equilibrium of the planet. Do you really expect natural systems to operate one way linearity?
"You seem to think that it is up to us Deniers to prove True Believers wrong. "
Straw Man much? Yep.
" Your thinking process is akin to Creationists, who when confronted with the fossils of another missing link puff their chests and proclaim, "Well so what, you haven't found this OTHER missing link". That type of view is not scientific, and clearly you just don't understand that falsifiability is a death sentence to a hypothesis, not a commutation."
So the fact that a vast mountain of empirical evidence that has been published supporting AGW means nothing to you? And you wonder why they call you Deniers.
"Falsifiability dictates that for a hypothesis to be accepted, it must not be proven false. A million pieces of information consistent with the hypothesis can be presented, but all that is required is that the hypothesis be proven false once. Responsible scientists spend their time looking for ways to disprove their hypotheses, racking their brains to find ways that they can be wrong. That is what makes science so difficult. "
So this means your going to publish the reason why the stratosphere is cooling and the troposphere is warming? Oh, I am sorry! Did I interrupt your torrent of ignorance and bluster? Carry on.
"What you continue to offer is junk science,
The above statement is true only in the board rooms.
."..observations that can have a myriad of causes."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey sure can. Now that you have finished the straw man demolition, do you have a rational explanation backed by empirical data published in peer reviewed for why the stratosphere is cooling and troposphere is warming. Can I expect more bluster?
" You quote and requote scientists and papers and cite authority. That charade has worn thin;"
Translation: I do not want the facts! Please no more facts that have been published in peer reviewed journals.
" ...appeals to authority are meaningless."
So when you go to get your heart checked out who is more believable? The plumber or cardiologist? If you answered the cardiologist why does not the same reasoning apply to climatologist? The question arises why do you think a retired radio weather man who has no publications in the field is more believable than experts who publish in it? Does it have anything to do with what you want to believe?
"I'd be more interested in what independent original thought you've ever had than your rote recitation of others work."
I do not pretend to be an expert. I side with the facts not with the Exxon-Mobile sponsored rhetoric.
Internet troll:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe simple observation has already been done, and AGW has been falsified. The total heat content of the planet is not increasing. AGW states that as heat is trapped, the heat content of the system should rise. That falsifies the AGW theory as there is clearly no additional heat being trapped by the system. It doesn't get much simpler than that. The link is in one of my earlier posts on this string.
Trent1492: Neither Einstein's Theory of Relativity nor Watson and Crick's papers on DNA were peer reviewed. You need to get over your obsession with authority and amazement that others have independent thoughts and don't knuckle under when you feel they should.
As I stated earlier, scientific papers often do not agree. Big deal.
BTW, I assume that you walk everywhere barefoot, don't wear Chlorophyll fleeces never take the bus, live in an unheated house, eat only food that you grow yourself, crank a hand generator so that you can communicate on this board, use a keyboard made of wood and that your bicycle doesn't have rubber tires? If you say no to any of the above, you should thank EXXon Mobil and stop being such a transparent hypocrite.
"The simple observation has already been done, and AGW has been falsified."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly in your Exxon-Mobile sponsored dreams.
"The total heat content of the planet is not increasing."
"GW states that as heat is trapped, the heat content of the system should rise."
See above.
"Trent1492: Neither Einstein's Theory of Relativity nor Watson and Crick's papers on DNA were peer reviewed."
Yes, they where.
"A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid
Watson J.D. and Crick F.H.C.
Nature 171, 737-738 (1953)"
PDF download of the original article in NATURE:
http://www.nature.com/nature/dna50/watsoncrick.pdf
Einstein, Albert (1905a), "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light", Annalen der Physik 17: 132148
PDF Download: http://lorentz.phl.jhu.edu/AnnusMirabilis/AeReserveArticles/eins_lq.pdf
Einstein, Albert (1905d), "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", Annalen der Physik 17: 891921 .
Now if your wondering if Nature and the Annals of Physics are peer reviewed, allow me to point out to you that both are among the world's oldest PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS on the planet.
Sheer misinformation: Every GLOBAL index of the Earth's temperature shows it has increased over the past thirty years and that includes that favorite tool of the Deniers, the satellite data.
In the Age of the Internet why do you think that your deliberate misinformation campaign is going to work? Really, why lie about something so easily uncovered?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/04/farewell-to-our-readers/langswitch_lang/sw
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"1 April 2009
Farewell to our Readers
Filed under: Climate Science group @ 11:22 AM
We would like to apologize to our loyal readers who have provided us so much support since we first went online in December 2004. However, after listening to the compelling arguments of the distinguished speakers who participated in the Heartland Institute's recent global warming contrarian conference, we have decided that the science is settled in favor of the contrarians. Indeed, even IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri has now admitted that anthropogenic climate change was a massive hoax after all. Accordingly, RealClimate no longer has a reason for existence. The contrarians have made a convincing case that (a) global warming isn't happening, (b) even if it is, its entirely natural and within the bounds of natural variability, (c) well, even if its not natural, it is modest in nature and not a threat, (d) even if anthropogenic warming should turn out to be pronounced as projected, it will sure be good for us, leading to abundant crops and a healthy environment, and (e) well, it might actually be really bad, but hey, its unstoppable anyway. (Can we get our check now?)"
I can think of no reason to discuss these denier/ skeptic rants anymore.
How big is the check if we ignore the facts and don't decrease our greenhouse gas emissions?
http://www.realclimateeconomics.org/
"As the climate policy debate intensifies, economic analysis is playing an increasingly central role. The case for inaction is no longer argued on the grounds of skepticism about the science; instead, some have claimed that it will be too expensive to take more than token initiatives. There is now extensive economic analysis that challenges and refutes this idea. The peer-reviewed literature demonstrates that there is rigorous economic support for immediate, large-scale policy responses to the climate crisis."
Not exactly what the Greenie Weenies have been preaching about, now, is it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Can I just vomit right now?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeriously, this is ridiculous. Even though it's a little easier to understand why some people have a stake in global warming being a lie, this willful denial of reality is just sick. This debate is as much a farce as the creationism / evolution rivalry. And much less likely to succeed in favor of the deniers.
I am going to take a bite of poisoned apple and go along with Shoshin just once for the sake of argument. Supposing Einstein really wasn't peer reviewed (he was, but again, for the sake of argument), what does that mean? That it is somehow okay to completely bypass the rigor and attention to detail that is required by science right down to its very foundations? Just what are you trying to prove about science here, that it's a joke? If that's the only way you can win support for your denial of global warming, I suggest there is a great deal wrong with your 'findings'.
Fortunately, Einstein WAS peer reviewed. His theories have been validated consistently to this day. So has global warming.
By the way, falsifiability does NOT mean that something must be proved false, which seems to be the track you're riding on. It can just as easily be stated that a theory must be verifiable. In this case, it is. Oh, and looking for that one little argument that you think is enough to debunk the entire undertaking? That's been your province the whole time. Thanks for playing.
Honestly, people like this sometimes make me think we deserve to go extinct.
Just compare the general standards of the scientists producing papers forming the basis of IPCC reports and those of the global Climate Coalition. It is clear that the former represent good science and the latter represent eyewash. Please refrain from clogging the pages of the American Scientist with bogus comments on unrefereed tracts. These only reveal that free speech can be a totally unscientific scam.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ Quinn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Not exactly what the Greenie Weenies have been preaching about, now, is it?"
Did you read the article?
Published doesn't mean peer reviewed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe precautionary principle is a red herring. It pre-supposes massive costs of inaction and is based purely on fear. The fact is that as more data is published, the realization (as this article points out) is that the risks are being blown far, far out of proportion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd the problem for the True Believers is that Joe Lunchbucket gets it and is not buying the fable anymore.
Where are you publishing that you don't have to submit to peer review? Nuts Magazine?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Shoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Published doesn't mean peer reviewed."
Hold it. I just showed you that both Einstein, Watson and Crick published their best know work in peer reviewed journals and you out right lie about that fact on the very thread where you have been debunked? Do you really think everyone who reads the thread is that stupid or are you just that stupid to not realize that you have been thoroughly refuted?
Then you better explain to me how two articles with opposite views can be peer reviewed and be published. Whose peers are right and whose peers are wrong? The peer review process does not immediately confer the mantle of truth, and people who feel that it does do not understand science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll peer review does say is: "Well, this appears to sound reasonable and we'll run with it until somebody comes up with something better"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Whose peers are right and whose peers are wrong?"
So now you are reduced to sophistry. Pitiful
"The peer review process does not immediately confer the mantle of truth, and people who feel that it does do not understand science. "
Who is arguing other wise?Oh, I see your setting up another straw man. No one argues that peer review is infallible but it is a far better process to figure out reality than a blog post or newspaper editorial. That you can not see the difference between peer review and a blog editorial is more a testimony to your incompetence than a fault laying in the scientific process.
I stand by my comments. Neither Watson& Crick's DNA paper, nor Einstein's paper on Relatiivity were peer reviewed. Anyone with google can Google "Einstein peer review" or "Watson and Crick peer review".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent 1492 you need to further explore your obsession with having others submit to authority and compliance. It is a fascist-borg type of thing and I'm concerned for you.
@Shoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I stand by my comments. Neither Watson& Crick's DNA paper, nor Einstein's paper on Relatiivity were peer reviewed."
You are standing by a patent lie. Once again:
"A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid
Watson J.D. and Crick F.H.C.
Nature 171, 737-738 (1953)"
PDF download of the original article in NATURE:
http://www.nature.com/nature/dna50/watsoncrick.pdf
Einstein, Albert (1905a), "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light", Annalen der Physik 17: 132148
PDF Download: http://lorentz.phl.jhu.edu/AnnusMirabilis/AeReserveArticles/eins_lq.pdf
Why do you keep on repeating this lie? If you say it enough times do you think it will come true?
"Trent 1492 you need to further explore your obsession with having others submit to authority and compliance. It is a fascist-borg type of thing and I'm concerned for you."
Please note that you failed to address ANY my points about peer review and continue to erect straw man arguments and ad hominems.
He's just baiting people. It's become obvious now that he has no idea what he's talking about. All he can do is throw out fake arguments and watch people get worked up about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust ignore him.
You guys are unbelievable. Publication does not equal peer review.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour a moron. Nature and the Annals of Physics are PEER REVIEWED. Disagree? Go ahead then and show how Nature is not a peer reviewed journal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"He's just baiting people. It's become obvious now that he has no idea what he's talking about. All he can do is throw out fake arguments and watch people get worked up about it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrue, but I write for the lurkers. I never had much hope convincing a liar and ideologue like Shoshin. I just do not want his lies and faulty reasoning to go unanswered.
Peer review of publications did not begin until after both Einstein and Watson & Crick published their papers. So, no, neither of the papers were peer reviewed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI expect an apology and a retraction from both you Trent1492 and galaxyman.
First, prove it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond, learn to live with disappointment.
In reading this log I am troubled by repetative reference to "peer review" as some sort of validation process for some proposed theory. First let me state that the virgin birth was "peer reviewed" by the Council of Nicea in a similar 'peer review' process; as lay people, are we allowed to doubt its conclusions? If not why not?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe following questions must be answered by anyone attempting to put credence in peer review as some sort of validation process for consensus science (BTW is consensus a political process, a scientific process, or both?)
1) For any given theory, which body or authority establishes membership to the peerage? Is it a political, academic, or scientific authority and where does the power to accept or deny membership reside. Can you name some individuals who currently carry the power to influence membership to one particulae peerage or another?
2) When and where to plebescites to establish the validity of a propositiion or theory occur? Where are the results published? Is a quarum required and what percentage of members of the peerage must pass positive (or even neutral) judgement before the proposition may be acclaimed to be the proven word of science?
3) Who referees these contests, and more importantly, who selects who referees these contests?
4) What if two separate peerages from separate disciplines propose theories that conflict? Eg. What if a solar scientist peerage attributes warming/cooling to be caused by solar activity while a "climatologist" peerage holds that climate variability is largely attributed to the misbehavior of some one species or another: ie grasshoppers, homo sapiens, etc. Who then decides which peerage's opinion carries the day and most importantly, which of them shoud receive the most federal funding in the next budget cycle. Does it matter which districts their members might reside in?
Date 12/26/09
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCombating Global Sea Rise
Not sure if anyone has considered this before, but there are a number of areas below sea level that isnt too far from the ocean where a simple canal could be established to allow water to flow from the ocean to fill some deep areas on dry land and help offset global sea rise. Areas such as the Qattara Depression could be filled by ocean water. A simple cannel that would hardly support a boat could enlarge itself through erosion to allow for a larger flow of water to fill this natural depression.
Africa is in the process of breaking apart with low-lying areas that will be filled by the sea at some point in the future, and those who depend on water today are struggling because of these geographical changes and the lack of water. By establishing a canal to fill these low-lying areas with sea water, this will result in more rainfall in the region and help to establish better farmland.
Another example of a low-lying area is Israel, where the Dead Sea is shrinking. A canal from the sea with a dam could regulate the height of the Dead Sea to a desirable level.
Also, water from Lake Erie could be redirected to the southwest to refill aquifers.
http://geology.com/below-sea-level/
Mathew Sullivan
Boynton Beach, Florida
Date 12/26/09
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCombating Global Sea Rise
Not sure if anyone has considered this before, but there are a number of areas below sea level that isnt too far from the ocean where a simple canal could be established to allow water to flow from the ocean to fill some deep areas on dry land and help offset global sea rise. Areas such as the Qattara Depression could be filled by ocean water. A simple cannel that would hardly support a boat could enlarge itself through erosion to allow for a larger flow of water to fill this natural depression.
Africa is in the process of breaking apart with low-lying areas that will be filled by the sea at some point in the future, and those who depend on water today are struggling because of these geographical changes and the lack of water. By establishing a canal to fill these low-lying areas with sea water, this will result in more rainfall in the region and help to establish better farmland.
Another example of a low-lying area is Israel, where the Dead Sea is shrinking. A canal from the sea with a dam could regulate the height of the Dead Sea to a desirable level.
Also, water from Lake Erie could be redirected to the southwest to refill aquifers.
http://geology.com/below-sea-level/
Mathew Sullivan
Boynton Beach, Florida
Date 12/26/09
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCombating Global Sea Rise
Not sure if anyone has considered this before, but there are a number of areas below sea level that isn’t too far from the ocean where a simple canal could be established to allow water to flow from the ocean to fill some deep areas on dry land and help offset global sea rise. Areas such as the Qattara Depression could be filled by ocean water. A simple cannel that would hardly support a boat could enlarge itself through erosion to allow for a larger flow of water to fill this natural depression.
Africa is in the process of breaking apart with low-lying areas that will be filled by the sea at some point in the future, and those who depend on water today are struggling because of these geographical changes and the lack of water. By establishing a canal to fill these low-lying areas with sea water, this will result in more rainfall in the region and help to establish better farmland.
Another example of a low-lying area is Israel, where the Dead Sea is shrinking. A canal from the sea with a dam could regulate the height of the Dead Sea to a desirable level.
Also, water from Lake Erie could be redirected to the southwest to refill aquifers.
http://geology.com/below-sea-level/
Mathew Sullivan
Boynton Beach, Florida
Date 12/26/09
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCombating Global Sea Rise
Not sure if anyone has considered this before, but there are a number of areas below sea level that isnt too far from the ocean where a simple canal could be established to allow water to flow from the ocean to fill some deep areas on dry land and help offset global sea rise. Areas such as the Qattara Depression could be filled by ocean water. A simple cannel that would hardly support a boat could enlarge itself through erosion to allow for a larger flow of water to fill this natural depression.
Africa is in the process of breaking apart with low-lying areas that will be filled by the sea at some point in the future, and those who depend on water today are struggling because of these geographical changes and the lack of water. By establishing a canal to fill these low-lying areas with sea water, this will result in more rainfall in the region and help to establish better farmland.
Another example of a low-lying area is Israel, where the Dead Sea is shrinking. A canal from the sea with a dam could regulate the height of the Dead Sea to a desirable level.
Also, water from Lake Erie could be redirected to the southwest to refill aquifers.
http://geology.com/below-sea-level/
Mathew Sullivan
Boynton Beach, Florida