Mumbai and Kolkata could be wiped out

[Real McCoy]

Don't fall for this folks. it seems the OP is getting some money from an agenda group. There is a serious agenda pushed by these elites to make us feel bad for the products that they themselves sold to us. The same people who pushed petrol and gas guzzling cars are related to the ones who are pushing this global warming crap. If they really cared they would be putting alternative cars that run on even water and emit water vapor. They won't allow it and even suppress and kill those people who invent such things. I just bought a couple of ACs for the summer on a sale. They told me this product emits less greenhouse gases and other mumbo jumbo. I asked how much it was. It costed an extra 3k. I said thanks but no thanks. I bought the evil greenhouse emitting ACs and will contribute more towards global warming

[Muloghonto]

On 10/30/2019 at 10:20 AM, zen said:

Here are the projections for 2050:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/30/world/rising-sea-cities-study-intl-hnk-scli-sci/index.html 

 

 

If you read the actual scientific report, they all say it’s a very rough estimate because simplistic ‘ how much ice will melt= how much net rise in sea level = which coastlines are screwed’ projections do not take many things into account.

 

for eg, Kolkata, Basra or Baghdad most likely won’t go underwater, despite being in the ‘below sea level projections’. Why ? Two words: silt load. When you sit on a delta, especially high siltation delta like Ganges-Brahmaputra or Tigris-Euphrates, you sit on a land that is slowly rising due to silt accumulation. 2000 years ago, the sundarban coastline was near Barrackpore. 3000 years ago, Basra was 50km into the Persian gulf. 

We have to take into account the siltation rates near deltas.

 

another thing to take into account is isostatic rebound: entire Scandinavia is rising because areas of ice sheet are where the crust is depressed into the mantle due to the weight of the ice. When that ice is gone, the land rises. Scandinavia sees 1cm per year land rise due to this.

 

there are many such factors to consider that isn’t in these alarmist reports.

[zen]

7 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

If you read the actual scientific report, they all say it’s a very rough estimate because simplistic ‘ how much ice will melt= how much net rise in sea level = which coastlines are screwed’ projections do not take many things into account.

 

for eg, Kolkata, Basra or Baghdad most likely won’t go underwater, despite being in the ‘below sea level projections’. Why ? Two words: silt load. When you sit on a delta, especially high siltation delta like Ganges-Brahmaputra or Tigris-Euphrates, you sit on a land that is slowly rising due to silt accumulation. 2000 years ago, the sundarban coastline was near Barrackpore. 3000 years ago, Basra was 50km into the Persian gulf. 

We have to take into account the siltation rates near deltas.

 

another thing to take into account is isostatic rebound: entire Scandinavia is rising because areas of ice sheet are where the crust is depressed into the mantle due to the weight of the ice. When that ice is gone, the land rises. Scandinavia sees 1cm per year land rise due to this.

 

there are many such factors to consider that isn’t in these alarmist reports.

What is important is how global warming is impacting the planet   .... One example is the sinking island in the video in one of my posts ....       X may be less likely to be impacted, while Y could be more at risk that is understood but both X and Y are at risk (though the degree may vary) and even if only Y is impacted, it is still a bad result