That's a trivial and silly article that makes light of sea level rise. Instead of messing about with Google Earth, you can check with organizations such as the USGS and find out where the real concerns are.
+Tony Sidaway the article you mentioned points to the maximum possible problem if everything melted being 80m. But the (as mentioned) US National Research Council predicts a maximum rise of 2m.
I agree that there may be a problem, but my concern is around the "wild exaggerations". There is a big difference between 2 and 80 metres. The point was not to trivialize sea level rise, but to trivialize wild exaggerations. The woman mentioned was hysterical and hysteria does little to address the actual concerns. It is not possible identify realistic solutions without being realistic about the problems.
The article is misleading on the prognosis. Under business as usual a substantial rise is expected--sea level doesn't stop rising because it's a new century. Read that USGS fact sheet for what that means. It's rather more serious than the blogger thinks.
+Tony Sidaway I would contend that it is less serious than most hysterics would have you believe. I have read the USGS fact sheet a couple of times looking for conclusions regarding the rate of water rising, as well as anticipated rises in water. They offer volumes of water (useful information), but not anticipated melt rates (left to other researchers/articles). The hysterics would have you believe that the USGS states that 25% of the population is going to drown. In fact they have stated that areas might be flooded over the course of 200 years (depending on variables they haven't studied) and the USNRC states that areas will be flooded over the course of 100 years (based on things they studied). At the rates indicated it is a case of displacement, not drowning.
No expert (including the USGS) is claiming that the waters are going to rise and swallow us whole. It will not be the Indian Ocean Tsunami, it will not be Noah's Flood. Whether we have a problem or not, the hysterics are wrong and are preventing us from seeking real solutions. Infrastructure can be abandoned at the end of its useful lifespan, and people can move.
Stop listening to hysterics. The climate scientists produce peer reviewed research. Locate the papers on sea level rise and read them. That fact sheet I cited isn't all there is.
I think you and the author are in complete agreement. The conclusion of the blog article was, "As ever, I ... ask that we [stop listening to] the ... hysterics and look at the actual consequences ...".
I agree, we should stop listening to hysterics, and start focusing on facts. People need to slow down and think about what the real problems are before advocating for policy. Reading peer reviewed research is an excellent start.
I've been making this statement a lot lately: It is better make the wrong decision for the right reasons, than the right one for the wrong reasons. The second method is called "getting lucky".
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/
People who don't know the facts may wildly exaggerate and panic but that doesn't mean there is no problem.
I agree that there may be a problem, but my concern is around the "wild exaggerations". There is a big difference between 2 and 80 metres. The point was not to trivialize sea level rise, but to trivialize wild exaggerations. The woman mentioned was hysterical and hysteria does little to address the actual concerns. It is not possible identify realistic solutions without being realistic about the problems.
No expert (including the USGS) is claiming that the waters are going to rise and swallow us whole. It will not be the Indian Ocean Tsunami, it will not be Noah's Flood. Whether we have a problem or not, the hysterics are wrong and are preventing us from seeking real solutions. Infrastructure can be abandoned at the end of its useful lifespan, and people can move.
I agree, we should stop listening to hysterics, and start focusing on facts. People need to slow down and think about what the real problems are before advocating for policy. Reading peer reviewed research is an excellent start.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&page=244
I've been making this statement a lot lately: It is better make the wrong decision for the right reasons, than the right one for the wrong reasons. The second method is called "getting lucky".