AGELBERT NOTE: This is reposted from the Doomstead Diner Forum today:
June 26, 2017
Estimates of Sea Level Rise by 2100 Have Tripled in the Past Few Years
SNIPPET from the video interview:The IPCC estimate
relied on the notion that expanding ocean waters and the melting of relatively small glaciers would fuel the majority of sea level rise,
rather than the massive ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica. It turns out, however, that scientists were underestimating the rate at which the giant ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland were melting. About one month ago, scientists increased their estimates of sea level rise even further. New research, including from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, increased the plausible sea level rise maximum to as much as 2.7 meters. Thus, in the space of a mere five years, the scientific community nearly tripled its estimate of maximum sea level rise under a business-as-usual scenario.
These three estimates in maximum plausible sea level rise received extensive media coverage,
but the far more alarming scientific estimate has received little, if any, attention as far as we can tell at The Real News.
Earlier this year, NASA scientist
Eric Rignot: gave a presentation in which he predicted that if we experience global warming in the range of 1.5 degrees Celsius to two degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels,
we are committing the planet to sea level rise of six to nine meters. Moreover, according to Dr. Rignot, sea level rise of that magnitude may occur within the next 100 to 200 years. Let's listen to some of what Dr. Rignot had to say
.
Eric Rignot: By 2100, more than one meter, very likely. This is not a futuristic situation. It's on pace now. The irony of this is when we started talking about this 10 years ago, everybody was raising eyebrows, one meter sea level rise. You're crazy, right? Now it's common knowledge. I watch these interviews. Everybody says, "Yeah, one meter sea level rise per century." Sometimes I even want to say, "Which publication are you referring to?" Twitter. Twitter. Sea level rise commitments, to me that was probably one of the biggest news in the last decade. We see a lot of happening in the ice sheets, but the [inaudible 00:03:00] coming very strong and clearly and saying,
"If you warm the climate this much, it's six to nine meters."Read full transcript at the link below:http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=19241Agelbert NOTE: Recently I updated and republished parts one and two of a three part article I wrote that includes the fact that 6 meters of sea level rise is our trajectory, unlike the low balled IPCC estimates had claimed of about 1 meter by 2100. I received a much better reaction at the Daily Kos, where I published them, than here, where good old Palloy went out of his way to claim, with a smiley, that my article was trash and worthy of being ripped up and discarded. Palloy was wrong, about a year and a half ago when I first published the article series here, and I have been proven accurate about our trajectory, as the scientific community is now admitting. No, I don't expect Pally to apologize. People like him are not fond of admitting error. Too bad for him.
Here are some of the comments from Part One recently published at Daily Kos. Yes, there were a couple of naysayers, but the positive comments were welcome encouragement for all the research I performed to provide the public with this urgent and valuable information.
ian douglas rushlau Jun 18 · 09:36:06 AM
Agelbert,
This is fantastic!
Comprehensive, and clearly presented so those of us who aren’t atmospheric scientists can grasp the significance of the various strands of data. Love the graphics!
This is an example of an effect of AGW that, as you highlight, the insurance companies are all aware of, but most folks wouldn’t consider (the insurers are pretty up on AGW generally, though they seem reluctant to say so publicly):
Most of those affordable products in our homes are a direct result of a the uninterrupted global lifeblood of efficient blue ocean shipping.
Will enough people connect the dots when the cost of living outstrips any reasonable prospect of income for many people? Will enough people who have ever identified with the GOP connect the dots?
It’s hard to fix the world when 30% of the population keeps right on trying to break it, and steals our tools in the process.
Reply Recommended 3 times
Agelbert ian douglas rushlau Jun 18 · 03:53:48 PM
Thank you! I authorize you and all readers here to post any part or the whole of this article anywhere with, or without, attribution.
People need to know what we are up against.
Reply Recommended 0 times
Stormynurse Jun 18 · 10:12:10 AM
Wow! What an intensive, comprehensive diary. Will take me awhile to read it all, which I definitely intend to do. Written down so I can keep getting back. Thank you for your incredible effort.
Reply Recommended 1 time
Agelbert Stormynurse Jun 18 · 04:11:04 PM
You are very welcome. The comment by you and others here today have given me added encouragement to post the the other two parts as soon as possible.
Reply Recommended 0 times
jjohnjj Jun 18 · 11:07:55 AM
Thank you for this work. A good Climate Diary leaves me thinking, “Christ, I knew it was bad… but not that bad!”
I agree that it’s important to shift the political debate to near-term economic effects. Visions of Florida disappearing, Atlantis-like, under the waves are simply too easy for ordinary people to dismiss with a nervous giggle. Talking about crop failures and ruined seaports has a better chance of holding their attention until the next election.
I am reminded of a Sci-Fi novel, “The Kraken Wakes”, written by John Wyndham (author of “Day of the Triffids”). The story is a wet version of “War of the Worlds”. One protagonist is a reporter for the BBC, the other is an outspoken professor, whose warnings (of course) go unheeded.
Mysterious fireballs plunge into the oceans. Unseen aliens are believed to be colonizing the deep ocean trenches. Attempts to the communicate fail, a submersible is destroyed along with its crew, and humans nuke the visitors.
The aliens retaliate by releasing betentacled sea monsters that attack surface ships… and the world economy goes straight to hell, triggering social and political collapse. Before the conflict ends, the aliens have started melting the polar ice cap; London and the Netherlands are flooded.
…Pretty good for a book published in 1953.
Reply Recommended 4 times
Agelbert jjohnjj Jun 18 · 03:59:43 PM
You are very welcome. Naomi Oreskes has a good sci-fi book out called “View From the Future: The Collapse of Western Civilization”, a scenario where the world reels from dealing with Catastrophic climate Change. She is an authority on what the fossil fuel industry has been up to for the last several decades, and why that is so dangerous for us.
Reply Recommended 0 times
subtropolis Jun 18 · 02:41:58 PM
I’ve never believed the forecasts for how quickly the ice caps could disappear. I acknowledge that the scientists must be conservative, of course, but i’ve always felt that they were being far too conservative. Feedback is a
****.
I posted this comment a few days ago but it seems relevant here:
Opening up their sack, the children chorus, "Oh Snowman, what have we found?" They lift out the objects, hold them up as if offering them for sale: a hubcap, a piano key, a chunk of pale-green pop bottle smoothed by the ocean. A plastic BlyssPluss container, empty; a ChickieNobs Bucket O'Nubbins, ditto. A computer mouse, or the busted remains of one, with a long wiry tail.
Snowman feels like weeping. What can he tell them? There's no way of explaining to them what these curious items are, or were. But surely they've guessed what he'll say, because it's always the same.
"These are things from before." He keeps his voice kindly but remote. A cross between pedagogue, soothsayer, and benevolent uncle - that should be his tone.
"Will they hurt us?" Sometimes they find tins of motor oil, caustic solvents, plastic bottles of bleach. Booby traps from the past. He's considered to be an expert on potential accidents: scalding liquids, sickening fumes, poison dust. Pain of odd kinds.
—Margaret Atwood, Oryx & Crake
When the seas around the world are battering our infrastructure to bits there won’t be any jokes about suddenly getting to enjoy seaside property.
Reply Recommended 1 time
Agelbert subtropolis Jun 18 · 04:08:40 PM
Well said. There is a predicted sequence to these events. I hope to educate readers on what they will be. For example, the acidification of the oceans is already affecting fishing deleteriously. The next big hit has begun with salt intrusion along the coasts, threatening a huge amount of near sea level land that is used for crop growing. This is happening now, well before port facilities and homes are affected, though the papers aren’t talking about it.
Most people are not aware of how much farm land is near sea level along the coasts of the continents. It is a significant amount.
But when the turbulent oceans make shipping nearly impossible, that will get plenty of attention.
Reply Recommended 0 times
jjohnjj Jun 18 · 05:49:23 PM
The Oxnard Plain, just north of Los Angeles, is prime coastal farmland with 18 feet of topsoil. But but there is little rain in SoCal and this region does not get state water via canal. As more acres were planted with strawberries and tract homes, once-generous quantities of groundwater have been overdrafted with ever-deeper wells.
It’s not widely known that saltwater aquifers extend inland from the sea below coastal land. When freshwater is taken out, saltwater moves in, contaminating wells nearest to the coast. In Oxnard they actually treat wastewater and pump it into the ground to recharge the the most vulnerable aquifers.
Saltwater_Intrusion_Oxnard.jpg
Sea level rise is going to exacerbate this problem before obvious issues like beach erosion become visible.
Reply Recommended 1 time
[new]
graceadams830 jjohnjj Jun 20 · 04:23:02 PM
On top of fact that all of California is susceptible to drought.
Reply Recommended 0 times
Pescadero Bill greenandblue Jun 19 · 11:34:08 AM
Therefore, humanity should surely act upon a worse case scenario given the uncertainty presented by the level at which CO2 is rapidly and catastrophically increasing.
2 degrees warmer climate in late Pliocene meant 12-32 meters higher sea levels
Sea level has some catching up to do. How quickly that happens is the question. In any case, sea level rise is locked into our future. Infrastructure meant to last into next century has to take the potential for at least 6 meters of sea level rise into consideration.
Reply Recommended 1 time
Pescadero Bill Pescadero Bill Jun 19 · 11:48:34 AM
More on that — e360.yale.edu/…
“That was a natural warming period in Earth’s history,” Scambos says. “We’re putting our pedal to the metal today; we’re driving the system very hard.”
Reply Recommended 1 time
greenandblue Pescadero Bill Jun 19 · 12:39:27 PM
Yes, our emissions have been terrible. It looks like we may have started changing.
Global CO2 emissions since 1980 (solid black) and country pledges under the Paris Agreement (dashed) compared to a high emissions scenario (orange) and a scenario compatible with limiting warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels (blue).
This does not include methane release from permafrost or clathrates. Even so, there is hope that we can control the temperature increase.
New analysis from Climate Dynamics this week finds that to keep warming well below 2C and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5C in the most cost-effective way, rich countries must phase out coal-fired electricity by 2030, China by 2040 and the rest of the world by mid-century.
China is now leading in switching to renewables. The US is lagging and dragging its feet. We have to change, but there is next to zero probability that there will be a 6 m rise in seal level in the coming 1-3 decades.
Reply Recommended 0 times
Agelbert greenandblue Jun 19 · 06:04:22 PM
Zero probability? What science paper are you getting that thoroughly unscientific bit of hyperbole from, the latest Koch Brothers New Ice Age predictions paper?
Shame on you.
Reply Recommended 0 times
greenandblue Agelbert Jun 19 · 06:42:14 PM
The 2016 Nature paper that I cited lists means and standard deviations. It’s 1.05 or - 0.30 m for 2100 in their worst case model. However, I made a mistake. That paper only accounts for Antarctica. This 2017 Science article predicts the following.
eight ice sheet models predicted anywhere between 0 and 27 cm of sea level rise in 2100 from Greenland melt.
Add them together, and it is still less than the 2 m I mentioned.
I am not ashamed for citing and trusting experts in their Science and Nature publications from 2016 and 2017. I could be wrong, so I sincerely ask for references predicting a 6 m rise in seal level by 2050.
Reply Recommended 0 times
Agelbert greenandblue Jun 19 · 07:18:05 PM
Well, you should be. It is disingenuous to fixate on the most conservative scenarios when you yourself admitted that the common wisdom assumes Catastrophic climate change, as in RCP 8.5 or GREATER. Also, all the sea level rise scenarios in the peer reviewed papers have variations based on the rate of achieving equilibrium. What was assumed to take centuries (the scientific rationale behind SLOW sea level rise), now is occurring much, much faster than predicted.
If you want to hair split with me until the cows come home on this issue, go for it, but “erring on the side of caution is NOT about what the Precautionary Principle of Science is all about.
And that appears to be what you are using to defend the most conservative scenarios.
Are you aware of the fact that ALL the RCP scenarios, including the “Business as Usual” clusterfork, are based on mathematical modeling that EXCLUDES the increasing arctic positive feedback (“positive” is the term for things getting a lot worse than expected) that accelerated the melt rate in Greenland? That means the paper you referenced is low balling the sea level rise.
Yes, I can provide quotes from IPCC officials, just like the methane discussion in the video in Part 1, calmly explaining, that, no, we haven’t incorporated added positive feedback activity in any of the models.
That’s why I wrote the article. If you are waiting for an Affidavit from the IPCC that we are going to climate hell in a hand basket for you to agree that the drastic recommendations posted in the article are sine qua non for our survival, then you will be very disappointed.
There is also a 40 year baked in factor that the papers do not want to deal with, except as statistical bell curve “outlier” predictions.
But that 40 year baked in CO2 pollution (some say it only 30 years while others say up to 50) means that if we stop ALL burning of fossil fuels today, the warming and sea level rise will continue for another forty years before we can begin to return to a less destructive climate.
Reply Recommended 0 times
greenandblue Agelbert Jun 19 · 09:09:38 PM
Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback
A number of ecosystem and Earth system models have incorporated a first approximation of global permafrost carbon dynamics….Model scenarios show potential carbon release from the permafrost zone in the range 37–174 Pg carbon by 2100 under the current climate warming trajectory (Representative Concentration Pathway RCP 8.5).
...At these rates, the observed and projected emissions of CO2 and CH4 from thawing permafrost are unlikely to occur at a speed that could cause abrupt climate change over a period of a few years to a decade. A large pulse release of permafrost carbon on this timescale could cause climate change that would incur catastrophic costs to society, but there is little evidence from either current observations or model projections to support such a large and rapid pulse.
They also consider undersea methane clathrates.
What is clear is that it would take thousands of years of CH4 emissions at the current rate to release the same quantity of CH4 (50 Pg) that was used in a modelled ten-year pulse to forecast tremendous global economic damage as a result of Arctic carbon release8, making catastrophic impacts such as those appear highly unlikely
Finally, once again, none of this suggests that we do not have a serious problem. Our differences in conclusions about timing arise from how much we trust researchers in the field and the peer reviewed publications.
Reply Recommended 0 times
greenandblue Agelbert Jun 19 · 09:36:11 PM
RCP-8.5 is not conservative in terms of C emissions.
Development of global primary energy supply in RCP8.5 (left-hand panel) and global primary energy supply in 2100 in the associated mitigation cases stabilizing radiative forcing at levels of 6, 4.5, and 2.6 W/m2
Development of global GHG emissions (CO2-eq., CO2, CH4, and N2O) in RCP8.5 and MESSAGE mitigation scenarios of this study (brown lines). For a comparison the trends of the official RCPs described elsewhere in this SI are shown as well (red = RCP6, blue = RCP4.5, green = RCP3-PD)
It is conservative in accounting for mitigation and changes to renewable energy, which is not accounted for in the diary of comments of the diary author.
As always, it can be improved, as noted with permafrost. But that does not make it conservative.
Reply Recommended 0 times
[new]
greenandblue greenandblue Jun 19 · 09:55:14 PM
Correction, diary or comments by the author
Reply Recommended 0 times
Agelbert greenandblue Jun 19 · 07:29:05 PM
To give an idea about how far behind reality most of the published papers on sea level rise are, read this article from just two day ago:
SCIENTISTS SAW A NEARLY UNHEARD OF ANTARCTIC MELTDOWN
By Brian Kahn
Published: June 17th, 2017
Antarctica is unfreezing. In the past few months alone, researchers have chronicled a seasonal waterfall, widespread networks of rivers and melt ponds and an iceberg the size of Delaware on the brink of breaking away from the thawing landscape.
A new study published in Nature Communications only adds to the disturbing trend of change afoot in Antarctica. Researchers have documented rain on a continent more known for snow and widespread surface melt in West Antarctica last summer, one of the most unstable parts of a continent that’s already being eaten away .by warm waters below the ice.
Reply Recommended 0 times
greenandblue Pescadero Bill Jun 19 · 12:04:42 PM
If we act upon the theoretically possible, then we should evacuate California, Japan and the rest of the ring of fire immediately. We need to base our actions in established and accepted science, while trusting experts with track records in studying the systems in question. Nobody here is arguing that humanity is sufficiently prepared for climate change. That is why we had the Paris agreement, and why leaders are pushing for more. IMO, making claims that exceed accepted science by an order magnitude in the near term and the timing of changes by two orders of magnitude, all while pushing unsubstantiated claims about the IPCC will do more to cause hopelessness and panic or doubt then they will to stimulate preparation. Saying that we have to build infrastructure for the next century is one thing. Saying that we must do it all in the next decade is not realistic or based in accepted science.
Reply Recommended 0 times
Agelbert greenandblue Jun 19 · 05:23:00 PM
Evacuate CALIFORNIA!!? Talk about being unrealistic. Hyperbole is a fallacious debating technique totally at odds with sound science.
If you want to make an argument that a 10 year transition is not “realistic”, provide some data instead of attempts at ridicule.
Nothing I wrote is simply a “low probability theoretical” possibly, but a GUARANTEED RCP- 8.5 outcome. And, YEAH, we ARE ON RCP- 8.5 or greater according to ALL the latest stats and data on global average temperatures and CO2 pollution levels. There is NOTHING “theoretical” about our present trajectory.
This web site run by Climate Scientists will fill you in, if you are interested in reality, that is.
www.realclimate.orgLook around your home, pal. How many appliance/machines/vehicles/gizmos/computers do you have there that are OLDER than 20 years? Usually, the answer is ZERO.
Do you know why that is? It’s because MTBF (mean time before failure) designs in our civilization TURN OVER NEW MACHINES in a much shorter than 20 year cycle.
Consequently, ANY PROCESS to transition to Renewable Energy in our civilization is NOT held back by industry or replacement costs spanning one, or at most, two decades. If you knew anything about how our manufacturing industries work, you would understand that.
The ONLY thing holding back the transition away from fossil fuel powered machinery is entrenched corruption defending polluting fuel sources, which fund ridiculously unscientific status quo defending propaganda like claiming a ten year transition is “unrealistic”.
Try again. :>)
Reply Recommended 0 times
[new]
greenandblue Agelbert Jun 19 · 05:35:05 PM
sea level will most likely rise a minimum of 6 meters within 10 years, not 35 years.
Please provide a reference. It’s not in the Science paper you linked. I posted a reference of an estimate of 2 m by 2100. Here is the source in Nature. I was being generous. The authors state greater than 1 m, but I said 2m.
Also, please provide a reference predicting that rogue waves of up to 35 m will be frequent enough to destroy the shipping industry.
Reply Recommended 0 times
Agelbert greenandblue Jun 19 · 06:47:55 PM
Please read PART II. It will be out around this Sunday.
As to the sea level rise within a decade, that is referenced in PART III. If you cannot wait that long, go to my forum, register, log in and I will be happy to provide sufficient well referenced data to answer your questions and doubts.
Your assumption that my article is “unrealistic” lacks objectivity. If our dire circumstances make you so uncomfortable that you have to retreat into overly conservative scenario happy talk, and then proceed to attempt to undermine the very high probability events predicted, then you have a denial problem.
The view, that you apparently have, that starkly stating the urgency of a radical transition will “create hopelessness” if no action is taken is what is unrealistic. People that need to be babied lack critical thinking skills.
We are walking the plank to extinction. This is not hyperbole. We need to turn around. We are not doing that. That is also not hyperbole.
Your comment about the fact that our emissions are steadily going down, while accurate, is not a sign of hope because of the FACT that our emissions must STOP, or we will certainly sentence billions of people, and a large part of the biosphere’s species we depend on to death.
That is reality. Why are you so uncomfortable with reality? Face it.
I’m not a doomer. I propose solutions. But the point at which those solutions could be incremental and gradual passed over 20 years ago. It is clear that you are not prepared to accept the reality of the urgency to take drastic action. But soon you will.
Renewable Revolution
Reply Recommended 0 times
greenandblue Agelbert Jun 19 · 08:22:21 PM
I didn’t say emissions were steadily going down. Here is what I said.
It looks like we may have started changing.
It’s far from acceptable or sustainable, but I will take it as a hopeful step. I will also accept the word of experts when it comes to timing. Once again.
New analysis from Climate Dynamics this week finds that to keep warming well below 2C and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5C in the most cost-effective way, rich countries must phase out coal-fired electricity by 2030, China by 2040 and the rest of the world by mid-century.
If you want to persuade me that your timing is correct, please provide references to predictions of a 6 m rise in sea level by 2050, along with one for increased frequency of waves that will destroy international shipping.
Reply Recommended 0 times
greenandblue Agelbert Jun 19 · 09:50:49 PM
I don’t understand this.
starkly stating the urgency of a radical transition will “create hopelessness” if no action is taken is what is unrealistic.
It will increase the probability of taking insufficient action. It is not a response of taking no action. If you can believe psychology experts, then you might be interested to know that creating hopelessness and other negative outcomes are real dangers associated with climate change communication.
Indeed, recognition that the psychological impacts of climate change pose a current threat to individual and community health—even to those who have not directly experienced biophysical impacts—has the potential to lead to more active mitigation and adaptation activities.
Until it is falsified, I see no to disbelieve peer reviewed climate change science. Overstating the danger is denying the state of climate science and it risks tuning people out to effective responses.
Reply Recommended 0 times
[new]
greenandblue greenandblue Jun 19 · 09:51:43 PM
Correction, I see no reason to disbelieve...
Reply Recommended 0 times
greenandblue Agelbert Jun 19 · 05:43:26 PM
The ONLY thing holding back the transition away from fossil fuel powered machinery is entrenched corruption defending polluting fuel sources
I disagree. It’s not that simple. But then, if you are correct that sea levels will rise 6 m in the next 10 years, then transitioning away from fossil fuels is not the only thing we need to do in that time frame.
Reply Recommended 0 times
Agelbert greenandblue Jun 19 · 07:55:22 PM
You are entitled to your opinion, of course.
In regard to the rapid sea level rise, here is a scenario, though you won’t find it published yet, that I envision based on new discoveries about the nature and movement of the Greenland ice sheet. There is far more lubrication form melt water going on between the nearly mile high ice than had been assumed. Even the the temperature of the ice next to the ground is well below freezing, a phenomenon of liquid water is occurring due to the high pressure of the ice cap. The melt begins on the surface, but tunnels down to the ground here it spreads in capillaries and tributaries between the ice and the ground. This is not static. The area of the ice cap being lubricated by this super pressurized melt water increases ever year. Already the rate of glacier flows toward the ocean has accelerated. But the danger, in regard to rapid sea level rise, is that enough lubrication occurs to slide a massive amount of ice covering several hundred square mile into the ocean at once. This would ,in turn, trigger much faster movement (and melt rate) of the ice behind the broken segment on land. If this happens all over Greenland, a jump of a few inches could occur in only one year.
Watch Greenland. When she starts to really melt, all bets are off on slow sea level rise and there will be a lot of overly conservative scientists with egg on their faces.
Remember, the issue is not whether a change in temperature of 2 degrees C can raise the sea level 6 meters or more (that has been established by the measurement of the amount of ice on Antarctica and Greenland that would melt into the oceans). The issue is how fast it takes to reach equilibrium.
Reply Recommended 0 times
greenandblue Agelbert Jun 19 · 08:28:44 PM
I asked about this, though not as detailed or eloquently, in a comment in a another thread. Even so, I do not see it adding 6 m to sea level in the coming 1-3 decades, and this unrealized hypothesis is not enough to make me disregard peer reviewed experts.
Reply Recommended 0 times
Agelbert greenandblue Jun 20 · 01:17:29 PM
That’s your problem; you are reality challenged.
Reply Recommended 0 times
greenandblue Agelbert Jun 20 · 07:17:33 PM
OK, then enlighten me. Show us the public data and models where you or others have made the observations and done the calculations for the volume of ice threatening to collapse into the ocean as you described. Describe the details of any models of the physical processes involved, and present graphical maps of the probabilities for each region of ice cover to collapse.
Reply Recommended 0 times
Agelbert greenandblue Jun 23 · 06:04:58 PM
Sorry to be repetitive, but the models have been conclusively proven to be massively erroneous short on predicting ice melt , acidification rates and temperature increase rates. And none of the models even dwelt with wave action!
The only model pointing somewhat towards reality is RCP 8.5. And that is, as the observed versus predicted effects evidence, short of reality as well, even tough that is considered the “business as usual” scenario.
The models have NOT been updated to reflect melt realities in Greenland and the positive feedback loops already evidenced.
The models have NOT been updated to reflect the new ancient evidence of more rapid equilibrium rates per Hansen and Dutton papers.
If that does not convince you that all the models are way too conservative, what can I say? Of course we need new models. They aren’t out yet. But the trajectory is clearly dangerous.
Part Two is now published for your perusal.
Reply Recommended 0 times
Agelbert greenandblue Jun 19 · 05:37:21 PM
I provide the details evidencing a 6 meter (or more) rise in part three. But as to your scientific paper reference, did you not read in my article about the massivly embarrasing errors from all the IPCC predictions? Where in God’s good earth do you think that “2 meter rise” prediction comes from, if not from the VERY SAME people in the IPCC betting on an RCP- 2.6 happy talk scenario when we left THAT ONE in the CO2 pollution dust over 15 years ago!!!?
They are overly conservative. Do you understand what that means? The evidence is in. They were, and ARE, wrong. Now if you want to believe outdated predictions, that is your thing. But if you want to get real about the existential threat the continued burning of fossil fuels represents to our civilization, then start looking at the trajectory, not the happy talk.
You are jumping the gun here. The rising sea level rate is important, but is not the main thrust of this three part article, which includes the predicted turbulent ocean conditions that will make modern shipping impossible. Read all the parts as a unit before going out of your way to doubt my conclusions and recommendations. Objectivity demands it.
Reply Recommended 0 times
[new]
greenandblue Agelbert Jun 19 · 07:40:20 PM
Here is what the IPCC says
Models reproduce observed continental-scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades
Comparison of observed and simulated climate change based on three large-scale indicators in the atmosphere, the cryosphere and
the ocean: change in continental land surface air temperatures (yellow panels), Arctic and Antarctic September sea ice extent (white panels), and upper
ocean heat content in the major ocean basins (blue panels). Global average changes are also given. Anomalies are given relative to 1880–1919 for surface
temperatures, 1960–1980 for ocean heat content and 1979–1999 for sea ice. All time-series are decadal averages, plotted at the centre of the decade.
Reply Recommended 0 times
[new]
greenandblue Agelbert Jun 19 · 07:47:56 PM
I asked for 2 references that are directly relevant to this diary.
1. 6 m rise in sea level by 2050
2. increased frequency of what are now called rogue waves of up to 35 m in height to the point of destroying international shipping.
There is no reason to withhold references.
Reply Recommended 0 times
Agelbert greenandblue Jun 19 · 05:57:21 PM
So tell me, what part of the “near unanimous opinion outside of American conservatives that business as usual would be catastrophic” truth about our situation do you think objectively defends piecemeal, step by step, remedial scenarios like you are advocating?
Which of my recommendations do you think are “unnecessary”? Or would you just toss them all out because you think they are “too drastic” (to polluter stock prices)?
Catastrophic is the trajectory we are on. Remedial actions CANNOT by mealy mouthed or piecemeal, unless you want to guarantee failure.
The giant waves are no longer going to be “rogue”. That is why structural improvements on ships will not cut it. Part II details all that. The predicted wave activity will routinely impact hulls with over 90 TONS per square meter of pressure. Ship hulls today are designed for much less (about 30 tons per square meter MAX, and then only if they bend to take the blow).
Try to be more patient instead of rushing to undermine the credibility of a well researched article. And try to be more patient abut reading all three parts before jumping to conclusions.
Reply Recommended 0 times
[new]
greenandblue Jun 19 · 07:45:02 PM
None. I am advocating trusting experts. If you provide references to back up claims that are one to two orders of magnitude beyond peer reviewed publications that I listed, then I will be more inclined to believe you.
Reply Recommended 0 times
[new]
greenandblue Jun 19 · 10:37:21 PM
Thank you for writing an intriguing diary and for participating in the discussion. I believe that you can do good work in getting people to respond to climate change, though you can see I have some reservations. If you provide the requested references, then I will reconsider these reservations. I do not want to continue hijacking your diaries or to appear as a stalker, so, in the coming weeks, I will refrain from commenting in your diaries, except to express the reservations laid out here, or, even better, to acknowledge any updated references.
Reply Recommended 0 times
[new]
graceadams830 Jun 20 · 05:32:01 PM
I suspect USA problem is mostly political. I suspect we will have to pay double, to pay FOB prices for fossil fuel to get permission to keep it in the ground so we can buy renewable energy to use. I have given my local soup kitchen some money over past few years to invest in improving their energy efficiency to prepare for rooftop solar. I hope in December 2017 to be able to give them some money for solar power.
Reply Recommended 0 times
greenandblue Jun 20 · 10:00:58 PM
You mentioned a Hansen paper from 2015, but I didn’t see it linked, and my requests for references were not met, so I didn’t try to track it down until today, when I found this one.
Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate
modeling, and modern observations that 2◦ C global warming is highly dangerous
It is a great paper that I recommend for anybody interested. It is not my field of expertise, so I can’t fully critique it, but I can provide a few quotes that are relevant to this thread. I removed some citations for ease of reading.
Ice melt cooling is advanced as global ice melt reaches 1 m of sea level
in 2060, 1/3 from Greenland and 2/3 from Antarctica.
Melting at ice shelf grounding lines in West Antarctica and Wilkes Basin in East Antarctica has potential to result in rapid, nonlinear sea level rise because these basins have retrograde beds (beds sloping inland), a configuration with potential for unstable grounding line retreat and substantial ice sheet disintegration .... Multiple submarine valleys make much of the Greenland ice sheet vulnerable to
thermal forcing by a warming ocean, but with a few exceptions the valleys are prograde and thus rapid nonlinear growth of ice melt is not likely.
correlations of paleo temperatures and sea level show that lag of sea level change behind temperature is of order a century, not a millennium.
At any rate, it is not a decade, as implied in the diary. But don’t let that make you complacent. There is a lot of reason to be very concerned.
Sea level increases as large as ∼40 m were associated with large insolation forcings at 107 and 86 ky b2k...Sea level rise as great as 10–15 m occurred in conjunction with some other D–O events during 65–30 ky b2k
Given current ice sheet melt rates, a 20 year doubling rate produces multi-meter sea level rise in a century, while 10 and 40 year doubling times require 50 and 200 years, respectively.
The doubling refers to loss of ice, and we are headed for the 10 year doubling time. The authors also spell out why CO2 is a climate control knob, and we are putting amounts into the atmosphere that have not been seen in hundreds of thousands of years, at least.
In short, we don’t seem to be looking at 6 m in the next 1-3 decades, but if we do not act fast, then we will be looking at 6 m at minimum.
In regards to the potential for shutting down shipping, there is some reason to be concerned presented in this paper. There are many lines of evidence. One is boulders on island ridges.
Enormous boulders tossed onto an older Pleistocene landscape provide a metric of powerful waves at the end of stage 5e...The boulders must have been transported to their present position by waves, as two of the largest ones are located on the crest of the island’s ridge
Which is applicable today and moving forward.
This image of our planet with accelerating meltwater includes growing climate chaos and storminess, as meltwater causes cooling around Antarctica and in the North Atlantic while the tropics and subtropics continue to warm.
I don’t see any probabilities for the frequencies of these storms, and how much it would be expected to slow global shipping. If they are periodic events, and not constant, then satellites and weather forecasts might be able to guide shipping routes and timing. At any rate, it won’t be nearly as easy as we have it now.
To be somewhat repetitive, the author and I agree on the big picture, if not the timing or specific details. References that I have found indicate that the changes are coming, but maybe not as fast as is written in this diary. It might give us time to work, but not for complacency. Urgency is still required.
Reply Recommended 0 times
Agelbert greenandblue Jun 23 · 05:37:54 PM
We are in agreement that urgency is required. Part Two of this series is now published here. I hope it answers some of your questions.
www.dailykos.com/...
Reply Recommended 0 times
Agelbert greenandblue Jun 23 · 05:43:47 PM
Also, Part Three, to be published within a week, deals with the Hansen paper and much of what you just quoted. That is why I asked you to be patient at the outset when you asked for references. Part Three has links to the Hansen paper and another one as well, which I listed in the Ethical Executive Summary comment request by another poster.