Global Warming And Sea Level Rising Questions

If the sea level were to rise twenty feet, how far inland would that sea travel?What is the math for determining how far inland the water will go from how much the sea level rises?What would a map of the world look like based on how far the sea would travel inland?

Thread copied here from the Global Warming And Sea Level Rising Questions thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

No math really. Just find a topographical map and look for the 20ft elevation line. This will essentially be the new shore line.

Google for 'sea level rise map' or 'sea level rise map interactive' and you'll find a variety of maps showing this. There's no simply formula because the elevations of landmasses are not regular. Here's one map I found

Since the end of the last ice age the sea levels have risen about 400 feet.That's why the Bering Land Bridge is underwater.In addition to maps as noted above showing what an additional 20 will do, you can also find maps of what the land masses were like with 400 feet less water.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

There seems to be a trend in that low sea levels occurred during major extinction events. Temperature rises creating higher sea levels and ice ages create lower sea levels.

i have a similar questionsince the rotation of the erth is causing a centrifugal force that keeps all the sea water from acumulating at the north and south pole and leaving vast aerea around the equator dry.do to this that its the centrifugal force that is keeping the sea levels all around the world at their present levels would a cm rise of sea levels on the north or south pole cause a cm rise on the equator or would the rise there be smaller or bigger.(its hard to translate my Slovenian thaughts to English but i hope you get what im trying to say)

The sea levels at the equator and the poles should increase by an amount corresponding to their proportionate depths.
For example, say the polar depth is 20 kilometres and the equatorial depth is 21 kilometres. Then because of whatever, the polar depth increases by 20 metres. The equatorial depth should increase by an amount proportionate to its depth, and would increase by 21 metres (assuming all other things are equal). There might be a slight offset becaause of the increased area to cover at the equator and accordingly a larger volume and mass of water for the same depth, and I'm damned if I could figure out what it would be: less depth change because it covers more area, or more depth change because there's more water there?It isn't centrifugal force keeping "vast areas around the equator" dry. That's because the equator gets far more energy from the Sun per area unit than the poles.
The centrifugal force does have something to do with current sea levels around the world though. However, because the Earth is always spinning, this effect is pretty much constant and so we get things like tides or climate-related sea level change which add onto that difference while we hardly notice the change due to the centrifuge effect. It is also worth noting that this "proportional difference" occurs in the mantle and core too. While there is an 20 kilometre difference between polar and equatorial radii, almost all of that difference occurs inside and is not due to 20 kilometres worth more water at the equator.Again, it's a proportional thing.
And don't worry, we'll ask if we don't understand. You're doing fine so far.

[qs]It isn't centrifugal force keeping "vast areas around the equator" dry[qs] its keeping them wet not dry well acording to some theories if the erth stopped rotating all the wather from the seas would acumulate on the north and south pole do to the r distance from the equator to the center of the erth and the r distance from the poles to the center of the erth is difrent.on evrything else i also thing that the sea levels would rise proportionaly although there is not enough information in my brain to speculate witch side would get the bigger portion of the proportion the equator or the poles, (probably a sighn that i should stop going out so much), although i am leaning twords a meeter rise at the poles that the equator would rise a smaller portion say 10 cm.

1. They're hypotheses, not theories. Basic wording usages, and it helps to use the proper ones when discussing things in a scientific forum to avoid confusion.
2. They'd be invalidated by basic physics. They're wrong. They leave out the other important bit, which is:

As I mentioned, the same centrifugal effect that causes a slight difference in the sea level distance from the centre is what creates that difference between the equatorial radius and the polar radius (i.e. the distance from the centre to the crust's surface at that point).
If Earth stopped spinning, the 20 kilometre difference would disappear. Earth would lose its oblate shape and become a near-perfect sphere (the minor alterations due to gravity would continue, but are nowhere near as large as the centrifugal effect).The distance from the centre to any point on the surface of the ocean would become the same at the equator, at the poles, and anywhere in between. The water would not all gather at the poles; it would rearrange to be equally spread. {I also did a little basic figuring using numbers from Wikipedia. The difference between the average depths at the poles and at the equator is around 13 metres, which means any equalisation would be around 10 metres more on the poles and around 5 metres less on the equator -- and little if any change at the 30° to 35° latitude mark -- because of the different areas, they don't add up to one 13 metre difference.}Not much change at all, on the scale of things.
For anyone living in polar or subpolar regions, there are far worse things to worry about if the Earth stopped spinning than a mere several-metre-high flood. Like the sudden loss of air pressure and any feeling of gravity as inertia flings everything off the planet.{abe: you missed the slash in the end box for your coding for the quotebox. That's why it doesn't appear in one, JIC you couldn't find the problem.}Edited by Nij, : Note regarding coding.