If you’re interested here is one of their latest papers. It is open source. It discusses why although the full response timescale can be misleading to the effect it can have on humanity.
GIGO and Beep have already done a good job of explaining why this is, once again, wrong. May I suggest another term that you can add in the process of improving your climatology vocabulary: transient climate response. The TCR metric recognizes that although equilibrium climate sensitivity denotes a temperature equilibrium that may not be reached for many centuries, it’s also a target that is approached asymptotically and many of the major effects occur much earlier, potentially including temperature rise, the acceleration of feedbacks, and exponential sea level rise in much shorter periods than the stabilization timeframe.
In essence there are three kinds of climate response scenarios operating over three different timescales:
[ul]
[li]Transient climate response, measured on decadal scales[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Equilibrium climate sensitivity, measured as a stabilization endpoint and taking on the order of centuries to stabilize[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Equilibrium climate sensitivity with the assumption of slow feedbacks, measured as an endpoint and taking millennia to stabilize, and constituting a change to the earth’s climate of geologically catastrophic magnitude.[/li][/ul]
The question remains … how much longer until we can expect to see catastrophic sea level rise?
Catastrophic is a subjective word so I’m not going to try to address that but rather try to answer the question factually and you can decide for yourself if it is catastrophic or not (although there are plenty of papers on economic costs of rising seas level so if you’re interested I’d be happy to post some). Horton et al. [1] have it as ranging from 0.4 to 0.6 m (low end if we keep to <2c) and upwards of 0.7 to 1.2m by 2100 AD. Current consensus on rate of sea level rise is 3.3mm/yr [2], obviously if that rate sustains itself we would have >2.5 m by 2100 AD. It is; however, expected that rate will not sustain itself, but the point is we will see much of the increase in the former part of the century rather than the latter.
[1] Horton, B. P., Rahmstorf, S., Engelhart, S. E., & Kemp, A. C. (2014). Expert assessment of sea-level rise by AD 2100 and AD 2300. Quaternary Science Reviews, 84, 1-6.
[2] Cazenave, A., Dieng, H. B., Meyssignac, B., Von Schuckmann, K., Decharme, B., & Berthier, E. (2014). The rate of sea-level rise. Nature Climate Change, 4(5), 358-361.
Here’s a picture of the worst case scenario.
Eyeballing it, I’d say maybe 200,000 sq miles of the US. Maybe 50 million people displaced.
3.3 mm/yr x 83 yrs = 270 mm … similarly I get 2.5 m by 2800 AD … I think humans will easily adapt to that …
:sigh:
As was explained many, many times in the past that is mostly the calculations of ocean rise based on thermal expansion and a non-accelerated loss of cap ice. The IPCC was not much willing to add the ice loss value because the research then was not robust enough.
The latest research points to the acceleration of that cap ice as ongoing and that it will increase, meaning that the low estimates were very optimistic:
Of course then adding the now observed cap ice loss the estimates of the rise of the oceans increase.
All of these scenarios ignore that, when the warming becomes too obvious to ignore, countries will band together and reduce the warming by injecting coolants into the stratosphere.
Airplanes already spend about 24 million tons of jet fuel per month. A mere 1 million tons of SO[sub]2[/sub] injected monthly would have a huge coolant effect—much less than that might be enough since it should stimulate the formation of high-albedo clouds. SO[sub]2[/sub] is much cheaper than jet fuel. Perhaps even better coolants could be engineered.
Of course such cooling is no panacea, would do nothing about ocean acidification, and should be undertaken in addition to (not instead of) CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions reductions. Still, whenever I see the “scare” figures for temperature and sea level rises I wonder if the possibility of such artificial cooling is being ignored for reasons of “political correctness.”
Does anyone really think humanity will not use every last drop of oil, coal and other fossil fuels we can get our hands on? We need to work on carbon sequestration and global cooling because I don’t think “use less energy” is a realistic option, and “use renewable energy” is the same thing but in different words.
Fossil fuels will continue to be used until they are gone (or close enough that the difference doesn’t matter). But “doing nothing” is also not an option. So why is everyone talking about using electric cars and wind turbines instead of shooting a Krakatoa’s worth of ash into the atmosphere or planting billions of trees or finding a permanent way make more and larger clouds?
The choices are often presented as either, pessimistically, “live primitively or die” or else, optimistically, “buy a Tesla or die”. But, there’s like this whole other realm of mitigation options that seems to be ignored by both sides.
Not really, and that point is disposed by noticing that regarding geo engineering* to cool down the planet might be a thing to consider, but… The same scientists that will have to check and look if geo engineering will work are the ones that are being dismissed, demonised or even prosecuted by the unreasonable side.
- Main drawbacks are that once again, no move is being done to be able to pay for that solution as one side still insists that there is no problem to worry about, and then there is the issue that others have looked already and the costs are more than what is the most logical thing to do.
Is there any evidence this has happened so far? :dubious:
I think we can reasonably argue (obviously we can) about the rate of climate change, but for fucks sake, we still have huge portions of our government (and populace) denying it even exists.
I forgot that the paper was referencing the non-accelerated rate and then made a math error.
Do you think we can readily adapt to 0.7 to 1.2 m increase as shown in the other paper, which is the more complete calculation?
Virtually everyone who has seriously looked at the problem thinks that we will not. Remember where this carbon comes from, and from what time period. If we do release it all into the atmosphere, we will recreate the carbon balance and the climate of the dinosaurs, and we’ll do it in a few hundred years. We’d not likely survive such a catastophe, and we sure as hell wouldn’t be able to mitigate our way out of it.
Carbon sequestration on the necessary scale is not likely to be reliable, feasible, or economical if it’s even possible at all. And “use renewable energy” doesn’t have any conspiratorial hidden meaning – it means what it says. Just because we discovered in the middle of the 18th century that we can get energy by burning shit doesn’t mean it’s the way forward in the 21st.
You mean the kinds of fine particulates that can mitigate warming, like these?
Fine particulate matter is associated with a broad spectrum of acute and chronic illness, such as lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cardiovascular diseases. Worldwide, it is estimated to cause about 25% of lung cancer deaths, 8% of COPD deaths, and about 15% of ischaemic heart disease and stroke. Particulate matter pollution is an environmental health problem that affects people worldwide … air pollution caused an estimated 6.5 million deaths in 2012.
The point is that all such schemes are likely to have side effects, potentially unknown and unintended, and potentially severe. The earth’s atmosphere isn’t an experimental lab that you can spray a few billion tons of crap into to see what happens. The problem with all such schemes is that they’re either dangerous crackpot ideas and/or are unlikely to have much of the intended effect.
Wow … numbers of high statistical probability … not sure I’m used to dealing with such on these boards …
The changes wrought by this will occur incrementally … we’ll see a spring tide when the Earth and Moon are at their periapses … and a few homes will wash away … the insurance industry has already began the adaptation by simply “red-lining” the property so that they will never write an insurance policy there ever again … in a decade or so we’ll see the next spring/periapses tide event and more house will wash away and have the properties set as ineligible for insurance … people will be migrating but in little chunks … far smaller than the number of people who didn’t return to New Orleans after the 2005 flood there …
Tropical cyclones are the wild card here … a 1 meter sea level rise is meaningless when the 5 meter storm surge washes ashore at Miami, FL … this is going to happen someplace along the Atlantic seaboard … and people will rebuild, and for the exact same reasons they built there in the first place … again consider New Orleans, she fills up with water about every 50 years, we pump it all out and rebuild because the economic prosperity the other 49 years is great enough to justify continued human habitation there …
Just how expensive is it to build 3 meter sea walls? … one of our local coastal communities here on the West Coast is gathering the measly $2.5m to build a 10 meter berm large enough to provide refuge for 1,000 people … if the Dutch can build these sea walls with the available technology 750 years ago … I see no reason we can’t do the same with these new and modern advanced technology things we call “machines” … the Dutch had horse-and-wagon … today we have dump trucks and loaders …
Is the problem sea level rise … or is the problem building cities at or below current sea level?
The sad part is for every nuclear power plant we build, we not going to take fossil fuel plants off-line … we’ll just simply use more energy … the good news is we’ll run out of cheap and easy-to-get-to fossil fuels first … then we’ll have to use the not-so-cheap and not-so-easy-to-get-to fossil fuels … maybe the renewable sources of energy will become the better value …
Build your factory in Oregon, in 2029 you’ll be able to advertise your product as carbon-neutral … manufactured with hydro/wind power …
The Amazon and the Congo forests could be logged and the wood used in a way that does not release CO2. The areas logged could be seeded with vegetation that absorbs CO2.
Well, seeing that you avoided the cites I made it is clear that yo do not deal with the, much often.
But the problem is that that increment does lead to a tipping point. In a case like New Orleans or almost the whole of Florida things like the cost of rebuilding after a hurricane that causes bigger floods and wider destruction are increasing.
The Katrina disaster did result in less people and jobs on New Orleans, meaning that next time the addition of a higher ocean level will lead to more destruction and less people willing to hang around. Meaning that there will be less justification to spend money on sea walls.
The case of Florida is worse because the ocean rise is already affecting the water supply, and barriers are almost impossible because the ground is not made for them.
Well, both.
Various studies disagree with your assessment of the impact from sea level rise [1,2,3] (I can provide a few hundred more if needed). Also, this is a problem that expand beyond just Florida and New Orleans or the USA in general. As you can see in [1] this is a global issue and can significantly hurt entire regions of the world.
And this is just talking about sea level rise. This ignores changes in global crop development and political instability from poor food security from decreased local food production [4,5]. If you think the refugee situation has been a problem wait until climate refugees starts becoming a significant issue. This ignores ocean acidification [6,7]. This ignores all of the other problems associated with climate change.
So even if solving sea level rise was just a simple matter of building walls, which it isn’t and lets recall did not hold in New Orleans, climate change promises to cause many more problems. The only logical course of action is to do something to reduce the damage.
[1] Nicholls, R. J., & Cazenave, A. (2010). Sea-level rise and its impact on coastal zones. science, 328(5985), 1517-1520.
[2] Hallegatte, S., Ranger, N., Mestre, O., Dumas, P., Corfee-Morlot, J., Herweijer, C., & Wood, R. M. (2011). Assessing climate change impacts, sea level rise and storm surge risk in port cities: a case study on Copenhagen. Climatic change, 104(1), 113-137.
[3] Nicholls, R. J., Hoozemans, F. M., & Marchand, M. (1999). Increasing flood risk and wetland losses due to global sea-level rise: regional and global analyses. Global Environmental Change, 9, S69-S87.
[4] Parry, M. L., Rosenzweig, C., Iglesias, A., Livermore, M., & Fischer, G. (2004). Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environmental Change, 14(1), 53-67.
[5] Rosenzweig, C., & Parry, M. L. (1994). Potential impact of climate change on world food supply. Nature, 367(6459), 133-138.
[6] Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Mumby, P. J., Hooten, A. J., Steneck, R. S., Greenfield, P., Gomez, E., … & Knowlton, N. (2007). Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. science, 318(5857), 1737-1742.
[7] Hoegh-Guldberg, O., & Bruno, J. F. (2010). The impact of climate change on the world’s marine ecosystems. Science, 328(5985), 1523-1528.