11-38 inches, or even 4 feet, in 80+ years is a bit … underwhelming, at least if you want to motivate people to sacrifice much to prevent it. Sorry Vanuatu, you guys are just going to have to move.
Is there a scientific consensus that expects a complete loss of the Greenland ice sheet, or is that scare-mongering?
There’s also the oceanic heat to think about as well. I’m not sure how long it would take the ocean to release its excess heat (or whatever the best term to describe it is) after taking out atmospheric carbon.
I’m trying to remember off the top of my head, but is the majority of the heat from climate change stored in the ocean or is it a minority, non-negligible amount?
In case you feel more sympathetic towards events a little closer to home, Florida has 4500 square miles of land within 4.5 feet of sea level. Many of the Gulf and southern Atlantic states are as bad or worse. And it’s not just a matter of land that becomes inundated from passive sea level rise, it’s also the combination of higher water and stronger storm surges that pose a threat. And all of that combined is only a small part of the list of issues I mentioned in #26. It’s all laid out in the various reports I mentioned – perhaps most notably IPCC WG2 on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, and the special report on extreme weather.
There’s certainly a consensus that it’s realistic and inevitable at sufficiently elevated CO2 levels, but because so much depends on the success of mitigation efforts, it’s hard to know if and when that will happen. There’s certainly enough sequestered carbon in fossil fuel deposits to melt the earth’s major ice sheets and create what climatologist James Hansen has referred to as “slow feedbacks” that, once in motion, commit the planet to some 250% greater climate sensitivity and an irreversible geological-scale transformation in climate.
It hasn’t happened yet by any means, but Arctic summer ice levels repeatedly hit record lows, and in the Antarctic, which is slower to respond to climate changes, net mass ice loss from the ice sheets is incontrovertible and a gigantic piece of ice shelf some 5000 square km in extent is likely to soon break off the Larsen C ice shelf in the western peninsula. Previously, in 1995, there was a 1500 sq km calving from Larsen A, and in 2002, 3250 sq km from Larsen B.
It simply means that man will not become an extinct species.
Yea i guess that is kind of good in a way.
The rest is debatable i suppose.
Civilization has some very good parts, but it also has a lot of really awful parts
and we seem to do a better job of create new and more awful than the other way around, we never seem to learn to fix that.
Actually, if you were correct, then Malthus would had been on the money decades ago.
It is because he was not correct and I’m aware of how changes can be faster than one expect (in this case the change to better technologies, less polluting energy and political will for the change) is the reason why I’m more optimistic in the long run. Even if I see that a lot of what deniers want to do will last a few years more. Still, a lot of unrest is likely to take place until we finally control our emissions and prepare properly for the changes ahead.
It will be an unrest that was not obligatory, but that is the path that a good number of people want to follow right now.
I would say that the ocean is a considerable store of heat energy, being that it is a major mechanism that moves heat energy around the planet.
I would guess, that if you removed the source of the excess heat energy being put into water, that the water would cool down faster than it warmed up?
Lakes and shore waters seem to heat up a lot slower than they cool down, but i don’t know thermodynamics well, so i could guess completely wrong.
Not quite sure i follow?
He’s the Stop making babies or we will starve to death guy?
Don’t know a lot about him.
I know he is kind of goofy because we make and throw away enough food that no one should starve, sadly the food thrown away isn’t in the place where there isn’t any food at all.
Where does he tie in though?
It ties with your line about “we seem to do a better job of create new and more awful than the other way around, we never seem to learn to fix that.”
Others pointed to Malthus early, and your line reminded me that indeed, how we made Malthus wrong is an example of how we can do a better job and be less awful and that we can fix things.
The problem I see coming from you is that you are ignoring how we are getting better on many fronts. It is what tells me that we can be cautiously optimistic of also preserving out civilization and also make the environment better. The weakest link IMHO is mostly political and the ignorance of the politicians that are fighting against change right now.
Have you ever thought of sharing this awesome knowledge with the scientific community, say, by publishing this stuff in a peer-reviewed journal?
Oh.
So to sum up: You don’t know anything about climate science or realistic scenarios for impacts or mitigation of climate change. And you’re rationalizing your apathy about the consequences by arguing that the collapse of human civilization wouldn’t really matter that much as long as we could feel pretty confident of the survival of humans as a species.
Seems legit.
The other day I had this vision on Earth’s future where previously inhabitable territories had become mankind’s new havens, which offered those lucky ones an opportunity to pursue their Alaskan, Siberian, Greenlandian or Antarctican dream.
Hyperbole … thank you …
So, I’ve combined two separate posts to point out that your links tend to be quite long, that “special report” PDF is 594 pages long … I have a copy of The Bible here that’s only 500 pages … so if your citation is the entire IPCC report, then you’ll be waiting a long while before anyone can confirm the information … so if you want to be taken seriously, please include chapter and verse …
Florida and Bangladesh are at considerable risk … I’ll agree to that … but the Gulf and Atlantic coast of the USA are subject to land subsidence … which is not climate related … Washington DC is sinking into the fetid swamp she was built upon, for example …
This I agree with … and I agree we are foolish to continue dumping CO[sub]2[/sub] into our atmosphere until we have a far better idea about the consequences … and I’m not aware of any situation where dumping pollution anywhere in any form has lead to any net positive … however I don’t think the word “feedback” means what you think it means … there’s nothing about higher temperatures that will cause more CO[sub]2[/sub] to be created in our atmosphere … there’s doesn’t seem to be any feedback mechanism here that violates thermodynamic equilibrium …
Melting sea ice doesn’t contribute to sea level changes … and melting land ice will contribute to sea level rise immediately … so my question once again, when will we begin to see these actual sea level changes due to the ice sheets melting?
I’m not sure what you mean by “doesn’t seem to be any feedback mechanism here that violates thermodynamic equilibrium.” Hansen et al. [1] describe the mechanism for feedback effects quite well in the paper cited (and linked for your convenience below).
[1] Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P., Beerling, D., Berner, R., Masson-Delmotte, V., … & Zachos, J. C. (2008). Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?. arXiv preprint arXiv:0804.1126.
Id guess right about the time Greenland and Antarctica go into the defrost cycle?
It wasn’t “hyperbole”, it was a way of posing a question about what the hell “adaptation” really means. Once again, you are misquoting what I said.
So either I don’t give you enough information or I give you too much. Make up your mind. You would also note, if you bothered to look, that all of these reports contain various forms of summaries. The Special Report on Extreme Weather for instance includes (1) a brief Summary for Policymakers, (2) a fact sheet, (3) a Q & A, and even (4) a slide presentation. I don’t know how much easier it could possibly be to access the information at so many different levels. If all of that escaped your notice you’re not trying very hard.
The fact that there are non-climate aggravating factors in some cases just makes the problem that much worse. What’s your point?
I know exactly what a climate feedback is, thanks very much. You don’t. Albedo feedback due to ice cover retreat is one of the most important climate feedbacks and one of the most important facts in climatology, so it’s remarkable that you didn’t know something so basic.
I know what sea ice does, thanks very much. I made no claim about sea ice directly contributing to sea level rise, although in the case of the Arctic, it does create a positive albedo feedback which accelerates local warming and therefore contributes to thermal expansion, which has been a significant contributor to sea level rise, although it’s now being overtaken by meltwater contribution from land ice. In the case of the Antarctic ice shelf I was describing, the calving of a 5000 sq-kilometer section of Larsen C is significant to sea level because these ice losses accelerate the seaward flow of tributary land glaciers behind them.
The question you asked has been answered multiple times in multiple forms. Sea level has been visibly rising for more than a century and the pace is accelerating, and I gave you a range of projections for 2100. You can find further information in the IPCC Working Group 1 report, either in TS 2.6 Changes in Sea Level of the Technical Summary for a brief version, or Chapter 13 of the full report for a comprehensive discussion. But if previous experience is any guide, you will find the first one too short and the second one too long and won’t read either of them.
It depends on how close you look. Over a long time period, it has been averaging ~3.4mm/year rise:
perhaps not a permanent Venusian Hellscape, but I can foresee possible temporary Venusian hellscapes
That’s a great paper, there BeepKillBeep, thank you for posting the link … that explains much of the language being used in these threads …
Emphases mine
My contention all along has been that these changes will happen over far longer time periods than what the hysteria would have us believe … why haven’t we been seeing sea level rise … well, we have … 1/8" per year is about as fast as it’s going to get even without mitigating CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions …
The oceans are the great moderator here … both the atmosphere and the oceans have to warm up together … water takes much more energy to warm 1ºC than the energy to warm the air … and melting ice far far above that … WILL all these “catastrophic” events occur … absolutely yes, we are already past whatever “tipping point” there is and we’ll be seeing Early Cenozoic temperatures and sea levels … but not in decades but rather centuries, perhaps even millennia …
Overfishing the oceans … unmitigated poisoning of our farmlands … toxic spills in our waterways … we have more important problems to fix than global warming …
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Yeah, I don’t thik this idea that we can’t walk and chew gum at the same time is a good argument.
Also that argument that “Après nous, le déluge” is not a responsible one. As others pointed, a lot of the problems that are expected by 2100 are mentioned many times because they are bound to affect people that are already born, but the big problem is that history will not end in 2100 no matter how much you want it. Worse effects are expected after that. And some of those effects sooner than that:
So we are talking now about ocean rise that is likely to be more than a meter in the lifetimes of many of the ones posting here. And higher by 2100 and worse after that. (It also means that a lot of other items like ocean acidification and oxygen loss there will get bad sooner rather than later.
You’re welcome for the paper.
I’m not sure it is a good idea to quote from the summary though. The full response of the feedback is delayed by a long time, but a potential for considerable feedback effects exist in shorter time frames.
Also, I don’t think you can quote one line and then simply ignore the remainder of the conclusions.