Tera = 1000 gigas. Idk if they are doing a switch between metric and imperial tons as well but that difference is less than the margins of error anyways.
my math must be really off then. ( (1/361.8 mm of sea-level rise per Gt of ice loss) * 1000) * 7.5 = 2713mm = 106.83 inches = 8.9 feet. and the global ocean hasnt risen that much.
( (1/361.8 mm of sea-level rise per Gt of ice loss) * 1000) * 7.5 = 20.73mm. Which is about double what the actual paper says, so there’s probably some weird metric vs imperial issues.
ok, but how large is that compared to something we can visualize? like, a building, a city, an island, etc
It’s more than 10 Olympic-sized swimming pools.
About a centimeter (spread out across the oceans).
“1/361.8 mm of sea-level rise per Gt of ice loss” is the assumption they use for that.
Gt being 1/1000th of a Tn? or is Tn the small one?
Tera = 1000 gigas. Idk if they are doing a switch between metric and imperial tons as well but that difference is less than the margins of error anyways.
my math must be really off then. ( (1/361.8 mm of sea-level rise per Gt of ice loss) * 1000) * 7.5 = 2713mm = 106.83 inches = 8.9 feet. and the global ocean hasnt risen that much.
( (1/361.8 mm of sea-level rise per Gt of ice loss) * 1000) * 7.5 = 20.73mm. Which is about double what the actual paper says, so there’s probably some weird metric vs imperial issues.