EnviroLink Forum

^ Typical psudo-maths.

You have used the equation for constant acceleration.

The sea level has been rising at a rate of 3mm/year (although how you measure sea level to that sort of accuracy I don't quite understand) but currently the rate of change of this number (it's acceleration) is negative.

To predict sea level changes you must have a more detailed model. This must include the thermal expansion of the water (not much 6-8 inches max by 2100) and the amount of ice expected to melt. The worst predictions of sea level rise by 2100 are about knee high (59cm ~ 22 inches).

Applieing the wrong physics equation just makes you look stupid.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

OK, using your ideas why not look at it this way:-

Rather than use the small coastline of Holland I will use a much bigger coastline.

Antarctica has a coastline of 4,989 km.

Zero money is spent protecting it from coastal erosion and flooding.

Despite it being of considerable interest in terms of GW the amount that it's budget for coastal defence will increase by 2100 if the worst case scenario happens will be zero.

Thus the whole world's budget will not change and indeed be zero.

It's drivel, just like you using Holland and arguing that the entire world's coast lines are going to cost as much as Holland's.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein