| Page 1 of 1 |
Invasor
Moderator
Posts: 7638
Location: On the road
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
 Posted: Mon, 30th Apr 2012 03:23 Post subject: |
|
|
At 60m I would have to travel 7-10 miles to get to the beach.
Ryzen 5 5600, ASUS ROG STRIX B550-F GAMING WIFI II, Corsair Vengeance RGB RT 32GB 3600MHz C16, MSI RTX 5070 Ti Ventus 3X OC , Corsair RMx Series RM750x. AOC AGON AG324UX - 4K 144Hz 1ms
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 30th Apr 2012 04:26 Post subject: |
|
|
at 60 theres no denmark or Nederlands!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Przepraszam
VIP Member
Posts: 14652
Location: Poland. New York.
|
| Posted: Mon, 30th Apr 2012 05:13 Post subject: |
|
|
At 5-13m Half of New York City is gone 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garus
VIP Member
Posts: 34197
|
| Posted: Mon, 30th Apr 2012 07:33 Post subject: |
|
|
snip
Last edited by garus on Tue, 27th Aug 2024 21:29; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spankie
VIP Member
Posts: 2958
Location: Belgium
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spankie
VIP Member
Posts: 2958
Location: Belgium
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24321
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Mon, 30th Apr 2012 12:19 Post subject: |
|
|
60m i wouldnt even know ^^
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nalo
nothing
Posts: 13574
|
| Posted: Mon, 30th Apr 2012 12:53 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by Nalo on Wed, 3rd Jul 2024 06:37; edited 2 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24802
Location: Your Mom
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
b0se
Banned
Posts: 5901
Location: Rapture
|
| Posted: Mon, 30th Apr 2012 13:46 Post subject: |
|
|
I'm cool at 60.
[spoiler][quote="SteamDRM"]i've bought mohw :derp: / FPS of the year! [/quote]
[quote="SteamDRM"][quote="b0se"]BLACK OPS GOTY[/quote]
No.[/quote][/spoiler]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Mon, 30th Apr 2012 13:56 Post subject: |
|
|
safe... \o/
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Mon, 30th Apr 2012 14:07 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 30th Apr 2012 14:14 Post subject: |
|
|
My coastal home is underwater at 6 meters.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 30th Apr 2012 14:18 Post subject: |
|
|
At 60 meters I wouldn't even know about sea rise unless shown on TV 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grale
Banned
Posts: 3323
Location: Invert
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neon
VIP Member
Posts: 18935
Location: Poland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ixigia
[Moderator] Consigliere
Posts: 65169
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Mon, 30th Apr 2012 15:27 Post subject: |
|
|
| Neon wrote: | | WhiteBarbarian wrote: | | At 60 meters I wouldn't even know about sea rise unless shown on TV |
|
+1
And the beach would be several kilometers nearer, good! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kumkss
Posts: 4844
Location: Chile
|
| Posted: Mon, 30th Apr 2012 17:04 Post subject: |
|
|
i checked chile and surprisingly, only some minor areas would get affected. like 500.000.- ppl would be lost their homes, that's minor for a 16.000.000.- population...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 30th Apr 2012 18:30 Post subject: |
|
|
The thing I noticed about that simulation is that water rises only up and down of equator. Farthest north and south are unaffected at all.
Is it a planetary physics or just that site 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zmed
Posts: 9234
Location: Orbanistan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 30th Apr 2012 18:59 Post subject: |
|
|
Appears not even the site, but the lack of data points to build precise model.
From the site FAQ:
| Quote: | And is it really accurate ?
There are a number of significant sources of inaccuracy. All of these inaccuracies are optimistic – correcting the inaccuracy would make the consequences of sea level rise look worse. I’ve made a conscious effort to avoid ad hoc corrections for these effects. If these maps have a purpose, it is to encourage the general public to consider the consequences of global warming. If I were to make corrections that make more bits of the map shaded blue, then I would run the risk of having the whole thing discredited as alarmist.
Firstly, the model knows nothing about the tides. Since tidal variation can be 10m or more in some parts of the world, this is a major deficiency.
Secondly, the NASA data itself is not very accurate. Jonathon Stott has said that “NASA claims their height data is accurate to +/- 16m with 90% certainty”. NASA gathered the data by radar from orbit, so buildings and trees cause a systematic overestimation of the elevation of built-up and forested areas.
Thirdly, the NASA data does not extend beyond +/-60 degrees latitude. Its accuracy becomes degraded at the extremes of its range, especially in the Southern hemisphere, I am told.
Fourthly, the simulation takes no account of the effects of coastal erosion. I believe that anywhere within a metre or so of daily maximum sea level would be swiftly eroded. So areas which my model shows as future ‘coastline’ would almost certainly be quickly eroded away.
Fifthly, I don’t take any account of coastal defences. It’s obviously possible to build defences that protect habitable land far below sea level. I’ve got no way of knowing whether current defences (in Holland, say) are able to withstand an extra +1 metre of mean sea level. I imagine that the impact would depend upon how quickly the oceans rise, and how much money was available for building new defences.
Finally, there are areas of the world far from the oceans that are far below sea level. These areas are shown as flooded on my map, where clearly they are not in danger. The area North of the Caspian Sea is the most striking example. |
http://blog.firetree.net/2006/05/18/more-about-flood-maps/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
