Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
dehammer wrote:
Yes I did. I've also seen the full scale ones at the local NOAA office. Just one thing ... when you say "New York" are you referring to the state or the city? The city will not survive.
perhaps ive misread the maps, but every map ive seen shows that only part of new your city is on the islands of manhattan and staten. also by reading the map that you pervided it showed that a good part of the city would survive a large (6m) increase in sea level.


Quote:
And not because most of it isn't more than 18' above the hudson river. Rather because the bridges, tunnels, and other infrastructure would be unstable and cease to exist. Manhattan is an island dehammer: An island.
notice that instead of saying 18' above sea level you said 18' above the hudson river. the river flows down hill so it is not the measuring stick that should be used. its sea level were discussing here. lets stick to that. where the bridges and tunnels are less than 6 meters above sea level, they would require some thing to make them more useable or rebuilding. if this would happen in a matter of hours, or even a few days, then there would be major problems. what were discussing is over a century or at least 50 years by all accounts that you have shown. most of them say 1 cm a year rise in sea level. at that rate, those bridges will be destroy by time long before the sea takes them out. or perhaps a hurricane will cause them to have to be rebuilt.

Quote:
BTW: The average elevation of New York City is 10 meters. That is only 12 feet higher than the 6 meter rise expected if Greenland melts.

Source:
http://www.bycitylight.com/cities/us-ny-new_york-facts.php
again notice the word average. that means if there is some at sea level then some of it is at 20 meters. that is considerable higher than 12 feet.

Quote:
And please pay attention. The 6 meters is JUST Greenland. If Greenland melts it will not do so in isolation. There will also be melting of arctic sea ice, Scandinavian ice, European ice (the Alps), and antarctic ice.
yes and if the scandinavian ice melts, the land will rebound by rising up as the weight of the ice is transfered to the ocean where it will push the magma under the land. same with antartica and europe. IF the ice were to melt in one year, then we'd be in big trouble since the mamga would not likely more as fast. with it spread over a century, then the magma will compensate, and push the land higher compensating for a lot of that ice melt, if not all of it.

the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.