Beyond the Worst Case Climate Change Scenario

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

User avatar
Winston Blake
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2529
Joined: 2004-03-26 01:58am
Location: Australia

Beyond the Worst Case Climate Change Scenario

Post by Winston Blake »

You're not depressed enough. Here, let me help you with that.

Link.
The IPCC has declared man-made climate change "unequivocal." The hard part: trying to stop it

By David Biello

greenhouse-earth

STATE OF THE SCIENCE: Greenhouse gas emissions and sea levels continue to rise, outpacing previous predictions in the latest research.
©ISTOCKPHOTO.COM

Climate change is "unequivocal" and it is 90 percent certain that the "net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming," the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) —a panel of more than 2,500 scientists and other experts—wrote in its first report on the physical science of global warming earlier this year. In its second assessment, the IPCC stated that human-induced warming is having a discernible influence on the planet, from species migration to thawing permafrost. Despite these findings, emissions of the greenhouse gases driving this process continue to rise thanks to increased burning of fossil fuels while cost-effective options for decreasing them have not been adopted, the panel found in its third report.

The IPCC's fourth and final assessment of the climate change problem—known as the Synthesis Report—combines all of these reports and adds that "warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change." Although countries continue to debate the best way to address this finding, 130 nations, including the U.S., China, Australia, Canada and even Saudi Arabia, have concurred with it.

"The governments now require, in fact, that the authors report on risks that are high and 'key' because of their potentially very high consequence," says economist Gary Yohe, a lead author on the IPCC Synthesis Report. "They have, perhaps, given the planet a chance to save itself."

Among those risks:

Warming Temperatures—Continued global warming is virtually certain (or more than 99 percent likely to occur) at this point, leading to both good and bad impacts. On the positive side, fewer people will die from freezing temperatures and agricultural yield will increase in colder areas. The negatives include reduced crop production in the tropics and subtropics, increased insect outbreaks, diminished water supply caused by dwindling snowpack, and increasingly poor air quality in cities.

Heat Waves—Scientists are more than 90 percent certain that episodes of extreme heat will increase worldwide, leading to increased danger of wildfires, human deaths and water quality issues such as algal blooms.

Heavy Rains—Scientific estimates suggest that extreme precipitation events—from downpours to whiteouts—are more than 90 percent likely to become more common, resulting in diminished water quality and increased flooding, crop damage, soil erosion and disease risk.

Drought—Scientists estimate that there is a more than 66 percent chance that droughts will become more frequent and widespread, making water scarcer, upping the risk of starvation through failed crops and further increasing the risk of wildfires.

Stronger Storms—Warming ocean waters will likely increase the power of tropical cyclones (variously known as hurricanes and typhoons), raising the risk of human death, injury and disease as well as destroying coral reefs and property.

Biodiversity—As many as a third of the species known to science may be at risk of extinction if average temperatures rise by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Sea Level Rise—The level of the world's oceans will rise, likely inundating low-lying land, turning freshwater brackish and potentially triggering widespread migration of human populations from affected areas.

"As temperatures rise, thermal expansion will lead to sea-level rise, independent of melting ice," says chemical engineer Lenny Bernstein, another lead author of the recent IPCC report. "The indications are that this factor alone could cause serious problems [and] ice-sheet melting would greatly accelerate [it]."

Such ice-sheet melting, which the IPCC explicitly did not include in its predictions of sea-level rise, has already been observed and may be speeding up, according to recent research that determined that the melting of Greenland's ice cap has accelerated to six times the average flow of the Colorado River. Research has also shown that the world has consistently emitted greenhouse gases at the highest projected levels examined and sea-level rise has also outpaced projections from the IPCC's last assessment in 2001.

"We are above the high scenario now," says climatologist Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, an IPCC lead author. "This is not a safe world."

Other recent findings include:

Carbon Intensity Increasing—The amount of carbon dioxide per car built, burger served or widget sold had been consistently declining until the turn of the century. But since 2000, CO2 emissions have grown by more than 3 percent annually. This is largely due to the economic booms in China and India, which rely on polluting coal to power production. But emissions in the developed world have started to rise as well, increasing by 2.6 percent since 2000, according to reports made by those countries to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology also recently argued that U.S. emissions may continue to increase as a result of growing energy demand.

Carbon Sinks Slowing—The world's oceans and forests are absorbing less of the CO2 released by human activity, resulting in a faster rise in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases. All told, humanity released 9.9 billion metric tons (2.18 X 1013 pounds) of carbon in 2006 at the same time that the ability of the North Atlantic to take in such emissions, for example, dropped by 50 percent.

Impacts Accelerating—Warming temperatures have prompted earlier springs in the far north and have caused plant species to spread farther into formerly icy terrain. Meanwhile, sea ice in the Arctic reached a record low this year, covering just 1.59 million square miles and thus shattering the previous 2005 minimum of 2.05 million square miles.

"The observed rate of loss is faster than anything predicted," says senior research scientist Mark Serreze of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. "We're already set up for another big loss next year. We've got so much open water in the Arctic now that has absorbed so much energy over the summer that the ocean has warmed. The ice that grows back this autumn will be thin."

The negative consequences of such reinforcing, positive feedbacks (white ice is replaced by dark water, which absorbs more energy and prevents the formation of more white ice) remain even when they seemingly work in our favor.

For example, scientists at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at the University of Kiel in Germany recently discovered that plankton consumes more carbon at higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2. "The plankton were carbon-enriched," says marine biologist Ulf Riebesell, who conducted the study. "There weren't more of them, but each cell had more carbon."

This could mean that microscopic ocean plants may potentially absorb more of the carbon emitted into the atmosphere. Unfortunately, other research (from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution) has shown that such plankton does not make it to the seafloor in large enough amounts to sequester the carbon in the long term.

Further, such carbon-heavy plankton do not begin to appear until CO2 concentrations reach twice present values—750 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere compared with roughly 380 ppm presently (a level at which catastrophic change may be a certainty)—and they are less nutritious to all the animals that rely on them for food. "This mechanism is both too small and too late," Riebesell says. "By becoming more carbon-rich, zooplankton have to eat more phytoplankton to achieve the same nutrition" and, therefore, "they grow and reproduce more slowly."

The IPCC notes that there are cost-effective solutions, such as retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency, but says they must be implemented in short order to stem further damage. "We are 25 years too late," Schneider says. "If the object is to avoid dangerous change, we've already had it. The object now is to avoid really dangerous change."
User avatar
The Vortex Empire
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1586
Joined: 2006-12-11 09:44pm
Location: Rhode Island

Post by The Vortex Empire »

Well, there's nothing we can do to stop it now, so all we can do is try to slow it down and lessen it. But what are the chances of politicians actually reacting to this in a productive way?
User avatar
Ace Pace
Hardware Lover
Posts: 8456
Joined: 2002-07-07 03:04am
Location: Wasting time instead of money
Contact:

Post by Ace Pace »

Counter, seriously, if the southern hemisphere is getting cooled down, something is odd.
Climate data can be difficult to analyze. Take for instance global temperature changes. Whereas the Northern Hemisphere has been warming, the Southern half of the planet is cooling. While Antarctic Ice is at near-record levels, the Northern Pole is warming at an unprecedented pace-- much faster than global warming models predict.

A new study published in the journal Nature identified a possible cause for this discrepancy. It identifies a natural, cyclical flow of atmospheric energy around the Arctic Circle. A team of researchers, led by Rune Graversen of Stockholm University, conclude this energy flow may be responsible for the majority of recent Arctic warming.

The study specifically rules out global warming or albedo changes from snow and ice loss as the cause, due to the "vertical structure" of the warming ... the observed warming has been much too weak near the ground, and too high in the stratosphere and upper troposphere.

This study follows hot on the heels of research by NASA, which identified "unusual winds" for rapid Arctic ice retreat. The wind patterns, set up by atmospheric conditions from the Arctic Oscillation, began rapidly pushing ice into the Transpolar Drift Stream, a current which quickly sped the ice into warmer waters.

A second NASA team, using data from the the GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite, recently concluded that changes in the Arctic Oscillation were "mostly decadal in nature", rather than driven by global warming.
Brotherhood of the Bear | HAB | Mess | SDnet archivist |
User avatar
DarthShady
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1872
Joined: 2007-09-15 10:46am
Location: Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Contact:

Post by DarthShady »

The Vortex Empire wrote:Well, there's nothing we can do to stop it now, so all we can do is try to slow it down and lessen it. But what are the chances of politicians actually reacting to this in a productive way?
The chances are small indeed but even the politicians will have to realize the potential danger eventually.
There is always hope.
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28822
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Post by Broomstick »

The Vortex Empire wrote:Well, there's nothing we can do to stop it now, so all we can do is try to slow it down and lessen it.
No, I'd say we have to adapt if change is now inevitable.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

Actually, worst case is if Hansen's model is right and we enjoy positive feedbacks that bring about 25 metres of sea level rise to go with that chaos. Given the conservative nature of the IPCC report and lack of modelling such features leads me to be very cautious.

This is five metres. The loss of Miami alone would bankrupt the global insurance system.
User avatar
Alferd Packer
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2002-07-19 09:22pm
Location: Slumgullion Pass
Contact:

Post by Alferd Packer »

And that's why I visit the Keys whenever I can; you never know when they'll be gone.

Or when it'll get too expensive to travel down there, whichever. Also, I guess the joke will be that America's wang got circumcised?
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--that principle is contempt prior to investigation." -Herbert Spencer

"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." - Schiller, Die Jungfrau von Orleans, III vi.
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

And 600 million people got made homeless. But that's not such a good piece for witty banter.
User avatar
Gustav32Vasa
Worthless Trolling Palm-Fucker
Posts: 2093
Joined: 2004-08-25 01:37pm
Location: Konungariket Sverige

Post by Gustav32Vasa »

How will that affect New Orleans?
"Ha ha! Yes, Mark Evans is back, suckers, and he's the key to everything! He's the Half Blood Prince, he's Harry's Great-Aunt, he's the Heir of Gryffindor, he lives up the Pillar of Storgé and he owns the Mystic Kettle of Nackledirk!" - J.K. Rowling
***
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on
the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your
hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28822
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Post by Broomstick »

Given that a good chunk of New Orleans is already below sea level I would venture to say that in such a scenario it would entirely cease to exist.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Gustav32Vasa
Worthless Trolling Palm-Fucker
Posts: 2093
Joined: 2004-08-25 01:37pm
Location: Konungariket Sverige

Post by Gustav32Vasa »

Broomstick wrote:Given that a good chunk of New Orleans is already below sea level I would venture to say that in such a scenario it would entirely cease to exist.
And people continue to return and rebuild New Orleans?
"Ha ha! Yes, Mark Evans is back, suckers, and he's the key to everything! He's the Half Blood Prince, he's Harry's Great-Aunt, he's the Heir of Gryffindor, he lives up the Pillar of Storgé and he owns the Mystic Kettle of Nackledirk!" - J.K. Rowling
***
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on
the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your
hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

People are crazy like that. NO is a quite important port for the US, though, which somewhat justifies defending such a site. They can always use what's left of the panhandle after the flooding has started though.
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28822
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Post by Broomstick »

Gustav32Vasa wrote:
Broomstick wrote:Given that a good chunk of New Orleans is already below sea level I would venture to say that in such a scenario it would entirely cease to exist.
And people continue to return and rebuild New Orleans?
Parts of NOLA have been below sea level for decades - for that matter, so is a good chunk of the Netherlands. If the land is valuable enough people will try to hold back the sea. Given NOLA's position on the Mississippi it has great use as a major port.

If the city goes under water I imagine people will, eventually, build a new port further upstream.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Hillary
Jedi Master
Posts: 1261
Joined: 2005-06-29 11:31am
Location: Londinium

Post by Hillary »

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Actually, worst case is if Hansen's model is right and we enjoy positive feedbacks that bring about 25 metres of sea level rise to go with that chaos.
:shock: Perhaps I should move to Hampstead.
What is WRONG with you people
User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7954
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Post by ray245 »

By the way, is there any way for us to maintain our current technological level with global warming and peak oil coming soon?
User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7954
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Post by ray245 »

EDIT: Yes...I know global warming is already here...
User avatar
Surlethe
HATES GRADING
Posts: 12267
Joined: 2004-12-29 03:41pm

Post by Surlethe »

ray245 wrote:By the way, is there any way for us to maintain our current technological level with global warming and peak oil coming soon?
Depends on what you mean by "technological level." Many commonplace technologies will become inaccessible to the vast majority of people -- e.g., cars. At the same time, the technology won't be lost, and some technology that is uncommon will become ubiquitous, like electric trains (at least here in the US). Finally, the hardships and difficulties will spur the development of new technologies and new public works that will serve to help mitigate the crises.
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28822
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Post by Broomstick »

Given that cars can be modified to run on other fuels or even electricity I doubt I doubt very much they will truly become "inaccessible" to those who currently have them. I do think they will get smaller and more efficient. I also think people will drive them a lot less but ONLY if mass transit is not more expensive -- and with the recent debacle in Illinois where the state is threatening to pull the rug out of the Chicago region mass transit that is shown to be not outside the realm of possibility.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Ace Pace wrote:Counter
How does that "counter" anything? The dire consequences being projected here have nothing to do with the question of whether the anomalous Arctic warming (well in excess of global warming predictions) is being aided by natural causes.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37390
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Post by Sea Skimmer »

Admiral Valdemar wrote:People are crazy like that. NO is a quite important port for the US, though, which somewhat justifies defending such a site. They can always use what's left of the panhandle after the flooding has started though.
If sea level rises significantly, then it won’t be possible to hold the place at any remotely realistic price. As it is that chunk of dirt the city is on (for most of its history the city was built only on land firmly above sea level on the bank of the Mississippi) exists only because the vast delta lands around it break up incoming waves and storms. Those wetlands are already being rapidly eroded, in large part because human built levees and efforts to make the river run faster and deeper have eliminated deposits of silt to replenish them. Some effort is being made to reserve this policy, but its too little too late for the most part.


If sea level rises, then the marshes get wiped out no matter what is done, and the mouth of the Mississippi would shift about 150 miles to the east (something the river already wants to do, more levees and some diversion canals hold it off for now). New Orleans would lose its value and viability as a port, destroying whatever is left of the economy. With the city exposed directly to hurricanes even something like the Netherlands Delta Works wouldn’t be enough to protect it.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
J
Kaye Elle Emenopey
Posts: 5835
Joined: 2002-12-14 02:23pm

Post by J »

Sea Skimmer wrote: If sea level rises, then the marshes get wiped out no matter what is done, and the mouth of the Mississippi would shift about 150 miles to the east (something the river already wants to do, more levees and some diversion canals hold it off for now). New Orleans would lose its value and viability as a port, destroying whatever is left of the economy.
That's actually part of the plot of a certain Clive Cussler novel...
This post is a 100% natural organic product.
The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects


I'm not sure why people choose 'To Love is to Bury' as their wedding song...It's about a murder-suicide
- Margo Timmins


When it becomes serious, you have to lie
- Jean-Claude Juncker
User avatar
Lord MJ
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1562
Joined: 2002-07-07 07:40pm
Contact:

Post by Lord MJ »

Apparently my fellow alums at Georgia Tech don't believe in global warming...
We are really in trouble! Since the natural elements and life of earth contributes 97% of all the carbon dioxide to the atmosphere causing the global warming, then we will really have to watch our actions as humans to make sure our man-made 3% of carbon dioxide does not cause global warming.

Everytime I see pictures of record freezing temperatures around the world, I can't help but shake my head and laugh at poor old Gore and the dictator regimes still pushing their false global warming caused by mankind.


The atmosphere is 78% Nitrogen. Oxygen is a little less than 21% of the atmosphere. Argon is just less than 1%. Carbon Dioxide is .038%! Man-made CO2 is 3% of that figure.

Now, since CO2 isn't a catalytic agent, nor a toxic agent, there's just no way the engineer in me can accept that man-made CO2 is causing global warming.
Sunspot activity is down, allowing the sun to radiate more heat. It's an 11 year cycle that the Farmer's Almanac has known about for many years. I'm just hoping the Arctic ice sheets melt enough to provide a northern route from Tokyo to London. 3,000 miles shorter. Also opens up some neat oil reserves up there. Of course, Canada, Russia and Denmark may have to go to war to decide who gets what.
User avatar
aerius
Charismatic Cult Leader
Posts: 14799
Joined: 2002-08-18 07:27pm

Post by aerius »

Lord MJ wrote:Apparently my fellow alums at Georgia Tech don't believe in global warming...
Maybe they'd like to explain why temperatures were 15-20°C above normal in southern Ontario during the past week. We went from this to no snow in sight in about 3 days.
Image
aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me. :)
Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either. :P
User avatar
Rye
To Mega Therion
Posts: 12493
Joined: 2003-03-08 07:48am
Location: Uighur, please!

Post by Rye »

Lord MJ wrote:Apparently my fellow alums at Georgia Tech don't believe in global warming...
We are really in trouble! Since the natural elements and life of earth contributes 97% of all the carbon dioxide to the atmosphere causing the global warming, then we will really have to watch our actions as humans to make sure our man-made 3% of carbon dioxide does not cause global warming.

Everytime I see pictures of record freezing temperatures around the world, I can't help but shake my head and laugh at poor old Gore and the dictator regimes still pushing their false global warming caused by mankind.
Yes, I can't imagine that liberating all the carbon in the past 150 years of industrialisation from coal and oil deposits would have any impact on global climate, despite ice core evidence and climate models having completely different results (that also line up with ice core samples the further back you go) when human carbon emissions are taken into consideration?
The atmosphere is 78% Nitrogen. Oxygen is a little less than 21% of the atmosphere. Argon is just less than 1%. Carbon Dioxide is .038%! Man-made CO2 is 3% of that figure.

Now, since CO2 isn't a catalytic agent, nor a toxic agent, there's just no way the engineer in me can accept that man-made CO2 is causing global warming.
Why would keeping heat in the atmosphere require something be toxic or catalytic or even an overwhelming majority gas? If 0.038% of the atmosphere can and has contributed to climate to the extent that life is supportable, and variations in this tiny amount correspond to huge climate changes relative to what we usually live in, doesn't your "engineer" brain feel compelled to not dismiss atmospheric science?
EBC|Fucking Metal|Artist|Androgynous Sexfiend|Gozer Kvltist|
Listen to my music! http://www.soundclick.com/nihilanth
"America is, now, the most powerful and economically prosperous nation in the country." - Master of Ossus
User avatar
Sikon
Jedi Knight
Posts: 705
Joined: 2006-10-08 01:22am

Post by Sikon »

OP article wrote:[...] STATE OF THE SCIENCE: Greenhouse gas emissions and sea levels continue to rise, outpacing previous predictions in the latest research. [...]

Such ice-sheet melting, which the IPCC explicitly did not include in its predictions of sea-level rise, has already been observed and may be speeding up, according to recent research that determined that the melting of Greenland's ice cap has accelerated to six times the average flow of the Colorado River. Research has also shown that the world has consistently emitted greenhouse gases at the highest projected levels examined and sea-level rise has also outpaced projections from the IPCC's last assessment in 2001. [...]
The recent rate of sea level rise has been 3.4 millimeters per year, +/- 0.4mm. (That is around 0.13 inches per year).

Actually, the 2001 IPCC report wasn't too bad at future prediction, considering its estimates for sea level rise (which were based on a combination of both thermal expansion and ice-sheet melting). It estimated up to ~ 0.004 meter average annual sea level rise in the 1990 to 2025 period ... which compares to the amount recently observed of around 0.0034 m per year:
IPCC 2001 Report wrote:Global mean sea level is projected to rise by 0.09 to 0.88 m between the years 1990 and 2100, for the full range of SRES scenarios, but with significant regional variations. This rise is due primarily to thermal expansion of the oceans and melting of glaciers and ice caps. For the periods 1990 to 2025 and 1990 to 2050, the projected rises are 0.03 to 0.14 m and 0.05 to 0.32 m, respectively.
From 2001 report here.

The projection of the more recent IPCC 2007 report is a sea level rise of between 0.19 and 0.58 meters by the year 2100, as shown in table 6.3 here. That's within the range predicted by the earlier 2001 report, as shown in the preceding quote.

Recent data:

Image
OP article wrote:"As temperatures rise, thermal expansion will lead to sea-level rise, independent of melting ice," says chemical engineer Lenny Bernstein, another lead author of the recent IPCC report. "The indications are that this factor alone could cause serious problems [and] ice-sheet melting would greatly accelerate [it]."
Observed sea level rise is accelerating to a degree, having been around 1.8 millimeters per year for the 1961-2003 average, then around 3.1 mm/year for 1993-2003, and so on. The preceding from the IPCC estimates up to 6 mm/year average for this century.

Thermal expansion has caused roughly around half of recent sea level rise as estimated by the IPCC, while the rest comes from ice melting. Table SPM.1 here shows around 1.6 millimeters per year for the effect of thermal expansion in the 1993 to 2003 timeframe (+/- 0.5 mm/year).

The oceans massing 300 times more than the atmosphere limits the rate at which overall temperature can rise (1.4E21 kg seawater). The top few meters of the ocean change somewhat in temperature, while deeper seawater warms less, down to the ocean floor typically 4000 meters below.

For example, with an average specific heat of 4 J/g*K, it would take more than a billion megatons of thermal energy being absorbed to raise the temperature of the earth's oceans by one degree: ~ 5.6E24 joules. The ~ 1.6 mm/year thermal expansion of the oceans implies that their net increase in thermal energy is roughly around 0.002 as much per year.*

That's not surprising. With the 3.6E14 m^2 area of the oceans, the preceding corresponds to warming of seawater from a substantial portion of the net radiative forcing from global warming (around 1.6 W/m^2 overall average over land and sea combined, which is 5E7 J/m^2 per year).

* (The temperature rise corresponding to 1.6 mm/yr thermal expansion can be estimated approximately by considering the average depth of the oceans, 3.9 km, plus the thermal expansion coefficient of seawater, which is around 0.0002 per degree Celsius, even though it varies a moderate percentage with temperature, pressure, and salinity within the relevant range).

Since the thermal expansion of seawater is limited by energy input, it can increase somewhat over time, beyond 1.6 mm/year, but it can not possibly increase by orders of magnitude, not even in any plausible "worse-case" scenario. There's only so much solar energy available per year, and, most precisely, only so much radiative forcing, something which does increase over time as each new billion tons of carbon dioxide other greenhouse gases are emitted but only to a corresponding degree.

The preceding is approximate, but this is like quickly determining in a sci-fi debate that the world's current nuclear arsenal isn't a sufficiently astronomical number of megatons to shatter the planet; such can be easily seen even with simple order-of-magnitude estimates, even without detailed shock wave modeling.

With the difficulty of precise prediction, the IPCC may or may not be accurate in its prediction of 0.19 to 0.58 meters sea level rise by the year 2100, but they won't be off by orders of magnitude in an end-of-the-world style. While the IPCC reports emphasize the significance of the harm, which affects a number of coastal areas, they understand the necessity of providing estimates based on quantitative figures.

As previously mentioned, sea level rise is from two sources: thermal expansion and ice melting.

When inland ice melts and the water goes into the ocean, the effect is 1 millimeter of sea level rise per around 360 cubic kilometers of ice melted, as readily calculated from the ocean area of 3.6E14 m^2. For example, a meter of sea level rise from ice melting, if it eventually occurs, would involve ~ 3E17 kg of ice being melted. The heat of fusion alone provides a lower limit on the thermal energy involved of an astronomical 1E23 joules per meter of sea level rise.

The bulk of the total ice on earth is hundreds to thousands of kilometers inland, frequently thousands of meters deep. Around 1.2 mm/year of sea level rise occured between 1993 and 2003 from ice melting, around 400 cubic kilometers of ice being melted per year, in terms of net addition to seawater volume. In itself, that's a lot, but it corresponds to the limited portion of the total one would expect considering energy requirements. There are around 33,000,000 cubic kilometers of ice on earth.

So there has been enough thermal energy absorbed to melt around 1 / 80000th of the total ice on earth per year.

It does take a long time to raise sea level, as implied by the astronomical energy requirements, and the future rise will either be within the range of the IPCC predictions of 0.2 to 0.6 meters by 2100 or not vastly worse, with there not being any plausible mechanism changing the energy supplied by orders of magnitude.

Of course, switching away from fossil fuels is desirable and needed for multiple reasons. The harm from the coming sea level rise of the next several decades being not so extreme as TEOTWAWKI doesn't change such. It is annoying, though, when there is too great general pessimism about the future beyond that really warranted.
Image
[/url]
Image
[/url]Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot live in the cradle forever.

― Konstantin Tsiolkovsky
Post Reply