What is Digg?131 Comments
- KMye, on 10/24/2007, -8/+76I suppose "Rising seas threaten 21 mega-cities" is a more eye-catching headline than "Majority of world's major cities still by the ocean"
- shadowblade989, on 10/22/2007, -5/+24I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied
Learn to swim - florrie7, on 10/22/2007, -2/+14this looks like the world's shortest report about coastal cities. third graders would fail for not providing enough evidence to back up facts- how the F is this news!?!?
- WasabiBomb, on 10/22/2007, -9/+20Wow... "eco-marxist propaganda". That's a wonder of head-in-the-sand paranoia, right there. Well done!
- B1gm1tch, on 10/22/2007, -6/+17In the words of Maynard Keenan:
"Learn to swim, see you down in Arizona Bay." - tmbrwolf19, on 10/22/2007, -1/+12Thats over 10 years old. Scientific data on the matter has more then doubled in that time. Science isn't static.
- proliance, on 10/24/2007, -1/+11Another study relevant to this controversy is Zwally et al. (2005), which examined changes in ice mass "from elevation changes derived from 10.5 years (Greenland) and 9 years (Antarctica) of satellite radar altimetry data from the European Remote-sensing Satellites ERS-1 and -2." The researchers report a net contribution of the three ice sheets to sea level of +0.05 ± 0.03 millimeters per year. CO2Science.Org puts this in perspective: "At the current sea-level-equivalent ice-loss rate of 0.05 millimeters per year, it would take a fullmillennium to raise global sea level by just 5 cm, and it would take fully 20,000 years to raise it a single meter."
- bigpeeler, on 10/22/2007, -6/+15Why of course they are. We have an election coming up.
- vertinox, on 10/24/2007, -5/+14To be fair... Those cities that aren't by the ocean will be soon.
- rolosworld, on 10/22/2007, -1/+9can someone explain if im wrong in this argument:
ice volume > water volume (solid water takes more space then liquid water) .... so the only new water on the ocean would be the ice over land.
If so, is there soo much ice over land to make the world ocean flood near cost cities?
I mean, the volume of the water of the melted ice (over land) will be distributed around the whole ocean... - DrunkMonk, on 10/22/2007, -3/+11Don't forget Rapture ...
- crammaz, on 10/22/2007, -1/+7A few pacific islands have already been abandoned.... not huge news.... there are literally thousands.
Still, makes you think doesn't it - EndersGame, on 10/23/2007, -1/+6I live in Sacramento and I'm crossing my fingers for a beach front home in the near future. It could happen.
- catalysis, on 10/22/2007, -1/+6It is america's #1 smug polluting city.
- Pic0, on 10/22/2007, -7/+12this is good news, more water we have the more CO2 it will take in! we are solving the global warming problem!
- VitriolAndAngst, on 10/22/2007, -0/+5Yes, it is the Ice above the water trapped on land that has an effect on the oceans.
The above poster is wrong; http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/askjack/ ...
A: Scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey estimate that If all of the ice sitting on land in Greenland and Antarctica melted it would cause global sea levels to rise by about 215 feet, or about 65 meters.
>> That article goes on to say that it would take a long time to melt.
This one disagrees; http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0811-06.ht ...
>> What we've since learned is kind of amazing because it is so obvious -- the Greenland ice doesn't have to melt to raise ocean levels. Because of the fast warming -- it is more likely to slide as the lower layers get saturated with water. The glaciers are likely to just slide into the ocean and totally erase the "rate of melting" predictions.
So, what might take 200 years to melt, can slide and do the same damage in 10 years. - Sabretou, on 10/22/2007, -1/+5Dugg for "Science isn't static."
- iomegaboy, on 10/22/2007, -3/+7I must be overlooking the "Average Ocean Depth Rises Another 6" This Week" headlines. Are there currently any issues that coastal cities are dealing with that they haven't already been dealing with for decades?
- Iriel, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4I think it just sounds like a great movie idea (^_-)
- D3koy, on 10/21/2007, -0/+4There is only one solution here...We have to take water out of the ocean and ship it to the moon...I'll volunteer to take it there.
- Sabretou, on 10/22/2007, -1/+5Because The Sky isn't Falling. :
- BlueSkyfish, on 10/21/2007, -0/+4Yes. Most of the ice in the south pole is over land, and that's a pretty large amount.
- whatever01, on 10/22/2007, -0/+4You're wrong. Antarctic and Greenland, both ice covered land masses.
- BlueSkyfish, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3...because it would just flow back?
- rhabd0mancer, on 10/22/2007, -3/+6Because he's a closet *****.
- silfiriel, on 10/22/2007, -4/+7you didn't see the movie????
- trer, on 10/22/2007, -4/+7Why do you hate San Francisco?
- LeeSoong, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3FYI - Major shipping companies have already charted out shipping routes over the north pole ocean,
all ready for when the last iceberg melts.
Global warming is not only real,
major corporations are already banking on it. - TheSwashbuckler, on 10/22/2007, -1/+4An election's coming?!
Then
- "9/11"
- "terrorism"
- "We're safer, but not yet safe"
- More Republican ***** lies - LeeSoong, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3Good thing President Bush has a safe house in the mountains of South America.
Who wouldn't want a private 980,000 acre estate for when
the U.S.A. Collapses just like the U.S.S.R. ? - bungoman, on 10/22/2007, -1/+4They're just generally horrible places. Sucks that Detroit isn't close to an ocean.
- solid12345, on 10/22/2007, -4/+6Neo-cons have terrorism as an issue to scare you, lefties now found environmentalism.
- LeeSoong, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Nature's solution, cool things off for a short time,
just a brief 10,000 year Ice Age.
I hope you have stocked up on fresh water and canned goods. - multitude, on 10/22/2007, -6/+8If you had given hard facts to back this up, I would have dugg you. Since you didn't, I'll digg you down.
- dinatron72, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Even all the way to the gulags and death camps?
- crowbarred, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Mega City? Hmmm sounds very Judge Dredd to me
- inactive, on 10/22/2007, -1/+3For repeating an AP news report? (Guess we gotta shut down Google too...http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iTT3It6z99RX-EU ...
- silfiriel, on 10/21/2007, -1/+3interesting how only the above 8 million got on this list. What about those with 7 or "just" 1 million, are they less important? Or it would be already heard title "by shore cities in danger", Is yahoo getting dull?
- solinent, on 10/21/2007, -0/+2I'll be right behind you with the rest of earth's problems, nicely packaged, ready for delivery.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2That COULD happen.
There is probably a lot of Chaos involved with what happens when the climate is destabilized.
We need to make researching what things we can tweak for our benefit a priority. - rolosworld, on 10/21/2007, -0/+2typo, coast cities
- AngryOx, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2I knew there was a reason I love these mountains.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 10/22/2007, -2/+4Warm water holds less CO2. Evaporated water in warmer air will be greater -- thus trapping more heat.
The quickness of the temperature change will have a big boost by massive releases in trapped methane -- both from the ocean and from permafrost.
Then there will be a lot of algae blooms -- and Iron and Carbon-dioxide released from dying plankton.
There have been a few times in history where there was NOT an automatic resolution to these cycles -- humanity may have broken the cycle. For instance, 2.5 Billion years ago, the atmosphere did not have free oxygen in it -- it was cyano-bacteria from algae that created the free oxygen. It's growth and "poisenous" release of Oxygen nearly plunged the earth into a permanent freeze.
The idea that we can drain swamps, pave the land, kill forests and oceans with abandon and not have an effect is idiotic. And to depend on Nature to balance things that we have unbalanced is also a lot more faith than I'm willing to have. It's a big risk we are taking with the future, to produce a few meaningless comforts that we take for granted.
How hard would it be to eat ostrich instead of beef if it meant NOT ending the world? You folks are going to be embarrassed one day about your attitude towards this problem -- or am I expecting too much of you? - triskele, on 10/21/2007, -0/+2What kind of time scale are we looking at here? I'd imagine it's long enough that just like any other catastrophe including climate change over history, the human race will manage.
- Sabretou, on 10/21/2007, -1/+3Yep, right up there with anarcho-communism.
- turbakt, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Hmm, and here I was about to get my scuba training.
- Typhoon2009, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1Judge Dredd will save us
- LeeSoong, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2Don't forget the Pro-Zionist Neo-Fascist grand right wing conspiracy ...
poor Hillary. - solinent, on 10/21/2007, -0/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCEeAn6_QJo&mode=re ...
- jhuebel, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1That wasn't from global warming. It was because the levies were poorly built, the city pumping stations were down and (most of all) those sections of New Orleans were built below sea level.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 126 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is