.. has hit media recently so let's take a look here: ITGC Thwaites Glacier Thwaites glacier melt is now raising sea level by about 2 millimeters per year (within total 3.5 to 4 mm/yr). If it all goes, would increase sea level by 65 cm. Ice guys think that could happen in about 2 centuries. Other ice contributes to sea-level rise but all taken together seem unlikely to raise sea level by > 1 meter by year 2100. That's not enough to trash most global commercial ports (but maybe a few). It would be enough to harm ~ half billion global residents, mostly poor people. Most important here is that oceans have already been warmed by +CO2. Holding that line at current level will not prevent it. Baked in. == Separately we could consider west Antarctic ice sheet mostly held back by Thwaites. It melted has ~ 3 meters of sea-level rise, but would require more centuries. Most other Antarctic ice looks very stable now see link above. == Other things that future +CO2 can do, including +T and increased climate variability could be limited by not making CO2 higher. They have much shorter time controls. I think it merits attention, what we can or cannot do.
The planet is moving off its axis. Where there was always heat, now it snows. Melting glaciers are falling on the lands of the African continent.
if this report obtains Antarctica Is Unraveling https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09349-5.epdf?sharing_token=xhf1KQqZ3EYRKv_OZa1octRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OuFb8Q5aeqZODjLc7qZZVLw55xqfTG_fQq6b3Ip1h2_tupQH-PAoCXE5pviOVKkC6rfxKQaJOA-gZC_pUd4druTWLvJrA4Cz7MSyqQe96mGUJGc_YbqmdZ6nSetmkdXPLPLcsX6DjZgfLvM4UoepujJN9oXhLXhViG0EK0WLCZeP5GdST-FuCyveaVH3NimPpyuDh5TCH0UawUIC6CkanLwTFt-M3XCYSe6iwbxh9juA%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=gizmodo.com More SLR could come from Antarctica ice freeing ~soon. Oh bother.
Where the Murray River passes through Mannum, South Australia, where we live, it is 750mm above the AHD (Australian Height Datum) sea level at the moment, yet it still has 150 kms (95 mile) still to flow till it reaches the ocean. Just one example of how far inland, any ocean rise will cause flooding without a rain even to increase the river level. Even a 50mm rise (2") will cause flooding up and down the Murray River. Where the Darling River joins the Murray, the river that drain most of inland Qld to the sea, is 30 mtrs above sea level yet 990kms by river from the sea. When it rains a lot in NSW inland of the mountains, the Murrumbidgee River floods and that empties into the Murray 1,090kms by river before it reaches the ocean. This is the most common flooding that causes flooding all the way down the Murray River, raise the sea level even 2", and a lot of land that is above water at the moment, wouldn't be any more, simply because the effect it would have on the river flow. There must be thousands of similar cases world wide, it isn't just those on the coast that will be affected ..... but it will be the mineral rich farm land beside these major rivers that will be lost ..... that is a serious world food supply risk .... no one seems to consider that part, without all the people who will lose their homes, roads that will be no ,longer useable ....... Venice has already seen major walking areas become flooded more often and take a lot longer for the water to recede ... they fully understand a time will come when it doesn't recede enough for that area to be above water level. Holland is already below sea level, things will get serious there very soon ..... T1 Terry
If you packed all that snow into a container and heated it till it melted, there wouldn't be a lot of water recovered. If that snow was to remain for a mth, that might be significant, but you can see by the complete lack of chains on any of the vehicles, this was a freak even, not the new normal. T1 Terry
I'm thinking 14 ft (4.25 m) would be an excellent gain in sea level rise. However, storm surges reduce how much is needed. I would morn the loss of Kennedy Space Flight Center. Bob Wilson
Our house would have absolute water frontage, actually all round water views, tie the boat up to front patio railing, car and motorhome would be useless, but a houseboat ...... with that much water, we could go anywhere .... but a bit like Water World, besides even more ocean, what would there be to actually look at ..... the trip down off the mountain in Adelaide would be one of the most exciting water sliders ever T1 Terry
It was "global warming" but they had to change it to "climate change" because it started cooling 10 years ago. It's a canard to bring in the NWO. The people pushing this aren't going to do anything about it, in fact they want to make it worse. Bill Gates wants to cut down trees and bury them to "sequester carbon" Plants thrive on more CO2 not less. There are real problems like deforestation and during the Carboniferous when the entire planet was covered with plant life including the poles the CO2 levels were 15 times higher than today. We are in the middle of a very stable climate period, just 15,000 years ago the sea level was 450 ft lower than today, Florida was twice as wide and there was a land bridge at the Bering straits. This was due to all the ice covering the entirety of Canada and the upper 1/3 of the USA. Think of the deforestation caused by Canada covered in ice. Scientists drilled ice cores in Greenland, miles deep, 5 years of drilling and another 5 to analyze the results, annual temperature records going back 100,000 years. Before the Younger Dryas there was wide temperature swings over short periods of time. It's calmed down a lot since then. Tesla invented free energy, he was funded by JP Morgan. Morgan was invested in oil and Tesla's lab was burned to the ground.
It is just a theory. After his death the government seized all his papers, "John Trump, (Donald's uncle) an engineer and MIT professor, is alleged to have been one of the few individuals to have access to Nikola Tesla’s private papers after Tesla’s death. Following Tesla’s passing in 1943, the U.S. government seized his belongings, including many of his notebooks, research files, and inventions. John Trump, who had ties to the U.S. government and was a consultant for the Department of Defense, was tasked with reviewing these materials to determine whether any national security threats existed."
I don't want to come off sounding like a climate denier, but 2 mm of sea level rise doesn't strike me as certain doom. We have been able to keep ahead of other types of floods, and this one doesn't seem like an insurmountable challenge, even if we fail to get our carbon emissions under control, which we seem to be doing, slowly but surely. The sea level has been changing for billions of years; it would seem to be much more remarkable if it remained static.
