English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Scientists are predicting it will be that way by 2100

2007-02-01 10:25:48 · 5 answers · asked by Stigmeister 2 in Environment

5 answers

30 centimeters is quite a bit!

For reference, one inch = approx. 2 cm

A few inches causes noticable weather shifts. 30 centimeters would require significant melting of the polar ice caps. Bear in mind, 30 inches is quite a difference in volume for a swimming pool!

Think about this: for every square centimeter of ocean surface, you would need 30 square cm of fluid. That much more water would have to come from somewhere (as I said, ice caps). That would mean lots more water than was there before (millions upon millions of gallons more!). This would be disasterous, and would result in tsunamis, earth quakes, and massive hurricanes, as well as larger-than-typical tornadoes on mainland areas.

Furthermore, the increased volume would mean a change in the water weight resting on the tectonic plates underneath, which would result in huge shifts, and thus, equally-huge seismic activity (earthquakes). Such siesmic activity would also open up various fissures around the world, exposing the superhot molten magma to the cooler tempuratures of ambient air. The pressure difference would cause great volcanoes to spew forth, as the hot gasses and molten rock would seek the cooler air to soak its heat in, esentially turning our atmosphere into a big heat sink, soaking up the heat from below.

At the same time, these volcanoes would grow, and throw debris in the air, some of this in the form of particle-sized ash -- enough to poison the air.

Combined with the increased humidity from extreme weather conditions, this would create a thick, sulfur-rich, now-poisonous air, as well as similarly poisonous muck on the ground. Most life would be killed off without some form of man-made environmental protection, and what little that did survive would have a difficult time thriving in this new environment.

Of course, whatever survives and thrives would eventually have plenty of natural resources; over eons of time, the sulfur-rich earth would later become nutrient-rich.

It is postulated that something similar happened with whatever meteor crash we had that caused a similar effect. Different origins, same result. Either way, that much water increase would be certain catastrophe for the entire world for quite a long time.

I hope this answers your question.

2007-02-01 10:41:48 · answer #1 · answered by Suleeto 2 · 5 2

The predictions are for it to be around 5 times that.

As to efffects:

>many low-lying areas will be flooded. In the US that would include several miles inland along the Gulf coast, the entire Mississippi Delta, the Everglades, and parts o f othr areas, including Manhatten and areas on the west coast as well. Plus comparable flooding around the rest of the world.

>Extensive increases in storm activity--well beyond what we saw in 2005

>Severe ecological disruption, including the loss of many species. These ecologicaldisruptions, along with shifts in weather patterns, will cause widespread crop failures--not in isolated areas (that happens now) but all over the world--for decades. This could easily cause millions of deaths

That much scientists are sure of. And that's if we are very luck. If we aren't--well, humanity will survive. Our civilization won't.

2007-02-01 10:39:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

it may upward push un-alarmingly? what's left? basically the elementary rules of physics that let us know pumping a typical greenhouse gasoline in enormous parts at a value quicker than the planet can get rid of it is going to seize extra warmth and heat the ambience. yet, that's the bit the deniers by no skill extremely get around to discussing using fact it would contain them having to coach that we don't use fossil fuels, that C+O2 would not equivalent CO2 as quickly as we burn it, that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gasoline, and that the guidelines of thermodynamics are incorrect.

2016-12-13 06:34:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Well, sea levels will be approximately 11.8 inches higher.

Mt Everest would be 29,034' above sea level instead of 29,035'.

A small amount of the world's population would be slightly more susceptible to flooding and storm surges. But, I don't think one foot would be anywhere near catastophic to most areas.

2007-02-01 10:34:43 · answer #4 · answered by bkc99xx 6 · 1 1

heh... Anything 30cm above sea level will become sea level...

2007-02-01 10:33:39 · answer #5 · answered by jarrow t 3 · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers