even if sea level rise will be lower than expected, it may stay a big threat when natural disaster like tsunami happen. While height of tsunami is less than 1m, the power of tsunami is enough to throw down people. We remember though the tsunami wasn't so high, it broke down everything near the coast of Indonesia.

Sea level rise isn't influential for all peoples on the earth, but it's influential for some peoples like Indian, peoples of AOSIS, and also Japanese (If sea level rises 1m, 90% of coast of Japan is thought to disappear. Also, Okinotorishima, which relates to economy and security, will disappear in the sea).

But if the issue isn't influential to each country we belong, is it total...

even if sea level rise will be lower than expected, it may stay a big threat when natural disaster like tsunami happen. While height of tsunami is less than 1m, the power of tsunami is enough to throw down people. We remember though the tsunami wasn't so high, it broke down everything near the coast of Indonesia.

Sea level rise isn't influential for all peoples on the earth, but it's influential for some peoples like Indian, peoples of AOSIS, and also Japanese (If sea level rises 1m, 90% of coast of Japan is thought to disappear. Also, Okinotorishima, which relates to economy and security, will disappear in the sea).

But if the issue isn't influential to each country we belong, is it totally none of our business? In the globalised world, it seems an out-of-date way of thinking...and disappointing ;(

btw, to study such circumstance where countries are rational the new field of science, global governance, has appeared.

Here is the bottom line regarding the varying "sea level rise" numbers. Basically, if the Antarctica or Greenland ice shelves break up, we're talking about a 25 - 30 ft. rise of the sea level. If they don't, we're looking at significantly less.

The science behind the breakup of ice sheets is somewhat new and is quite unpredictable, thus many agencies issuing reports don't feel comfortable including the Antarctica or Greenland ice sheet break ups in their predictions.

Mr. Gore took the more alarmist approach and included them in his movie, so the 25 ft rise number is getting a lot of attention.

One interesting thing I've noticed, however, that Gore didn't include in his movie (because it a...

Here is the bottom line regarding the varying "sea level rise" numbers. Basically, if the Antarctica or Greenland ice shelves break up, we're talking about a 25 - 30 ft. rise of the sea level. If they don't, we're looking at significantly less.

The science behind the breakup of ice sheets is somewhat new and is quite unpredictable, thus many agencies issuing reports don't feel comfortable including the Antarctica or Greenland ice sheet break ups in their predictions.

Mr. Gore took the more alarmist approach and included them in his movie, so the 25 ft rise number is getting a lot of attention.

One interesting thing I've noticed, however, that Gore didn't include in his movie (because it appears that it was announced after the movie was completed): Small earthquakes in Greenland, caused by sliding glaciers, became twice as frequent in the previous five years: Ekström et al. (2006).

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/floods.htm

One interesting thing I've noticed, however, that Gore didn't include in his movie (because it appears that it was announced after the movie was completed): Small earthquakes in Greenland, caused by sliding glaciers, became twice as frequent in the previous five years: Ekström et al. (2006).

Just moment..., perhaps he 'may not' the research into his movie more than he didn't intentionally, because making movie takes us, I believe, half a year at least. I remember the movie was released in 2006, and the research appeared in the same year.

Of course he should introduce the research into his discourses as soon as he noticed, but probably because the movie was based on previous d...

One interesting thing I've noticed, however, that Gore didn't include in his movie (because it appears that it was announced after the movie was completed): Small earthquakes in Greenland, caused by sliding glaciers, became twice as frequent in the previous five years: Ekström et al. (2006).

Just moment..., perhaps he 'may not' the research into his movie more than he didn't intentionally, because making movie takes us, I believe, half a year at least. I remember the movie was released in 2006, and the research appeared in the same year.

Of course he should introduce the research into his discourses as soon as he noticed, but probably because the movie was based on previous discourses, he may not do it at the moment :o Am I missing point?

The problem of IPCC assessment lies on same kind of point as well; maybe so large time-lag for the latest research to be included that the correctness of these researches can no longer be fully ensured! There should be some balanced considered, correctness or quickness.

FYI: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17150339/
"World Bank weighs sea level risks in poor areas"