Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 21 Jun 2018, 13:30:55

That is correct, but does not disprove SLR.

It’s quite simple really, the ice sheets are retreating, the water is going somewhere, thus SLR.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 10940
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: When will the mass dieoff begin? Pt. 3

Unread postby kiwichick » Thu 21 Jun 2018, 14:03:00

3.5 mm x 9 years = 31.5 mm.......Not cms
User avatar
kiwichick
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Sat 02 Aug 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Southland New Zealand

Re: When will the mass dieoff begin? Pt. 3

Unread postby kiwichick » Thu 21 Jun 2018, 14:22:36

25 mm = 1 inch

2.5 cm also = 1 inch

However doubling the rate every decade ( as per Hansen ) rapidly changes the situation ..... 3.5 - 4 mm currently
doubled = 7 - 8mm per year 2020's
doubled again = 14 - 16 mm per year 2030's
" " = 28 - 32 mm per year 2040's
" " = 56 - 64 mm per year 2050's
" " = 112 - 128 mm per year 2060's
" " = 124 - 256 mm per year 2070's
" " = 248 - 512 mm per year 2080's
" " = 496 - 1024 mm per year 2090's (19 - 40 inches per year)
" " = 992 - 2048 mm per year 2100's ( 39 - 81 inches per year)

so doubling each decade gives SLR of half a Metre to 1 metre each year by the 2090's
User avatar
kiwichick
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Sat 02 Aug 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Southland New Zealand

Re: When will the mass dieoff begin? Pt. 3

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 21 Jun 2018, 14:32:44

Thank you Kiwi
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 10940
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: When will the mass dieoff begin? Pt. 3

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 21 Jun 2018, 15:12:53

kiwichick wrote:25 mm = 1 inch

2.5 cm also = 1 inch

However doubling the rate every decade ( as per Hansen ) rapidly changes the situation ..... 3.5 - 4 mm currently
doubled = 7 - 8mm per year 2020's
doubled again = 14 - 16 mm per year 2030's
" " = 28 - 32 mm per year 2040's
" " = 56 - 64 mm per year 2050's
" " = 112 - 128 mm per year 2060's
" " = 124 - 256 mm per year 2070's
" " = 248 - 512 mm per year 2080's
" " = 496 - 1024 mm per year 2090's (19 - 40 inches per year)
" " = 992 - 2048 mm per year 2100's ( 39 - 81 inches per year)

so doubling each decade gives SLR of half a Metre to 1 metre each year by the 2090's


Yup. This is in line with the new mathematical model published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that I linked to above. The PNAS paper fit a curve to the actual observed trend of accelerating sea level increases, and predicted a sea level rise of ca. 65 cm by the year 2100, with most of it occurring later in the century.

PNAS: sea level rise is accelerating

Cheers!
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21485
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: When will the mass dieoff begin? Pt. 3

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 21 Jun 2018, 16:19:47

kiwichick wrote:25 mm = 1 inch

2.5 cm also = 1 inch

However doubling the rate every decade ( as per Hansen ) rapidly changes the situation ..... 3.5 - 4 mm currently
doubled = 7 - 8mm per year 2020's
doubled again = 14 - 16 mm per year 2030's
" " = 28 - 32 mm per year 2040's
" " = 56 - 64 mm per year 2050's
" " = 112 - 128 mm per year 2060's
" " = 124 - 256 mm per year 2070's
" " = 248 - 512 mm per year 2080's
" " = 496 - 1024 mm per year 2090's (19 - 40 inches per year)
" " = 992 - 2048 mm per year 2100's ( 39 - 81 inches per year)

so doubling each decade gives SLR of half a Metre to 1 metre each year by the 2090's


Your math is fine, however even in the worst case scenario there is a limit to how fast the huge glacier sheet can melt. If you look at the geological record from the end of the most recent major glaciation there was a steady sea level rise punctuated with "meltwater pulse" events when things like Glacial Lake Agassiz burst its natural dam and entered the world ocean in a period of weeks. The Cubed/Squared law tells us that as the volume shrinks by the cube function the area covered by the ice sheets sinks as the squared function in an unbreakable relationship. At the peak of glaciation the North American and Scandinavian/Siberian ice sheets covered a quarter of the land surface of the planet. As those massive sheets retreated they were effectively limited by edge melting, just like a mountain glacier, because the vast inland mass is self supporting up to a point. Certainly some surface melting takes place at peak summer season and that meltwater can burrow through the ice sheet to the bottom and join the bottom flow, but this effect is very time limited each local summer.

Image

Now if you observe the graph of the major ice sheets retreating in North America and to a limited extent in Patagonia South America and the Himalaya region of Asia you get a graph of sea level rise of 110 meters over the 12,000 years of rapid glacial retreat. 110,000 mm/12,000 years is an average rate of 9.18mm/year. During those Meltwater Pulse event periods when lots of glacial lakes were breaking free the maximum rate calculated from the geological remains was 25 meters in 400 years or 25,000/400=62.5 mm/year.

Given how small Antarctica and Greenland are compared to the vast area covered by the ice sheets 20,000 ybp and the case that the majority of that ice is in the East Antarctic Ice Sheet that is resistant to rapid collapse how realistic is it to believe that the doubling rate will continue up beyond the geological record rate of 62.5 mm/year?

In addition scientists have calculated that the collapse of the two vulnerable regional ice sheets, Greenland and West Antarctica, would release 7+/- meters and 5+/- meters respectively while the remaining 60+/- meters will come from the East Antarctic Ice Sheet. So if we flip the climate switch and we hit that 63 mm/year rate while those two regions are both collapsing into meltwater it would still take 190 years for sea level to rise 12+/- meters.

I don't know anyone personally who would be at risk from a sea level rise of 63mm/year which is less than 3 inches for we Americans and adds up to a little over 2 feet/630mm a decade. Sure over a generational time frame of 25 years that adds up to 50 feet, but if that is the world you are living in and you insist on building on land that will be flooded when your first grandchild is likely to be born that is a choice you are making, not a situation being forced upon you.

As has been pointed out by several members several times while old buildings and structures do exist the majority of private structures in Asia and north America and Africa and South America are less than 50 years old. Say the climate flips as I theorize it will and the Greenland ice sheet starts collapsing at 100 mm/year to give a big fudge factor to those maximum geological rate calculations. What does that mean for people living bear a sea coast in North America where I live and have some familiarity? Well that adds up to a meter a decade or 2.5 meters in that generation time frame I picked earlier for illustration purposes. okay now two generations is the average age of a private structure in the USA when it is torn down for replacement or destroyed by some event like a fire or tornado. If you are living less than 5 meters above the high tide line on the sea coast when the rapid melting begins then by the time your brand new house is 50 it will be partially submerged at high tide, or more likely destroyed or forced removal. However if you are locating your new house at say 15 meters above the high tide line, you built it when you turned 25 and you live in it for 50 years before you need to move to an assisted living facility what happens? Well odds are pretty good at some point a disaster of some sort may have destroyed the house but lets ignore that and go with it was well built and lasted. Okay so your home was 15 meters above the high tide line and now 50 years later it is only 5 meters above the high tide line. It is now mildly vulnerable depending on geography to storm surge from massive hurricanes. Other than that the coast has moved closer and you might be living in a house with a great view of the ocean instead of having your view blocked by the houses closer to the shore.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14866
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 21 Jun 2018, 20:49:43

Tanada,

10 meters gets a big hunk of NYC, Boston, Baltimore, DC, Norfolk, Savanah, Charkeston, and Miami.

Not saying you are wrong at all, in fact I think it’s a great analysis. Just saying huge hunks of these cities are gonna go. It’s not a matter of individual houses, it’s the commercial buildings, sewage, highways, subways, tunnels, bridges, rail, ports, electrical distribution, etc. It’s a lot.

So here’s my question for contemplation - let’s say that today we all agreed, from me to the President and all between, that SLR would be 10 meters in 50 years. Just a mind experiment. What would it cost to mitigate against that? Given our state of depleted energy reserves do we even have enough fossil fuel left for the under taking?

I was doing some work in NYC where I had to look at 100 year flood plains, quite an eye opener. When I was working on the new rail tunnel into NYC, something with a 100+ year life span, they raised the portals 10 feet as a hedge against SLR.

Even our house in Philly is only 35’ above sea level. A 10 meter rise will make that untenable. Not that I’m worried, im too old to worry about SLR on a personal basis.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 10940
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 21 Jun 2018, 21:06:44

Good points, Newf. Just two meters or so takes out pretty much all of an entire province of China (Jiangsu pop. 80 million) and much of Shanghai (largest city in the world, population 24 million).

There are also lots of major agricultural regions that will be (or are already in the process of being) wiped out, and they of course cannot be easily moved or rebuilt inland, particularly the deltas of various major rivers, from the Nile to the Mekong and Ganges-Brahmaputra...

Even if it were just a matter of infrastructure, as we should well know on this site, we are heading into an era of restricted resources. Moving millions of people miles inland is going to put even more strain on a system that will already be stretched beyond the breaking point.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17589
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Fri 22 Jun 2018, 03:49:09

I note that T did not give a link for his graph. When I went looking for it, this is some of the accompanying text I found:

The black curve is based on minimizing the sum of squares error weighted distance between this curve and the plotted data. It was constructed by adjusting a number of specified tie points, typically placed every 1 kyr but at times adjusted for sparse or rapidly varying data.

A small number of extreme outliers were dropped. Some authors propose the existence of significant short-term fluctuations in sea level such that the sea level curve might oscillate up and down about this ~1 kyr mean state...


So the black line is 'smoothed' and my hide periods of much more rapid sea level rise over short periods (alternating with much slower).

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... _Level.png
Image

From the same source:
...at least one episode of rapid deglaciation, known as meltwater pulse 1A, is agreed upon, and is indicated on the plot...


more on that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltwater_pulse_1A , from which also:
Other named, postglacial meltwater pulses are known most commonly as meltwater pulse 1A0 (meltwater pulse 19ka), meltwater pulse 1B, meltwater pulse 1C, meltwater pulse 1D, and meltwater pulse 2


Further from this link:

Between 20,000 and 9,000 calendar years ago, this study documented eight well-defined periods of increased iceberg Ice calving and discharge from various parts of the Antarctic Ice Sheet.

The highest period of discharge of icebergs recorded in both cores is known as AID6 (Antarctic Iceberg Discharge event 6). AID6 has a relatively abrupt onset at about 15,000 calendar years ago. The peak interval of greatest iceberg discharge and flux from the Antarctic Ice sheet for AID6 is between about 14,800 and 14,400 calendar years ago. The peak discharge is followed by gradual decline in flux until 13,900 calendar years ago, when it abruptly ends.

The peak period of iceberg discharge for AID6 is synchronous with the onset of the Bølling interstadial in the Northern Hemisphere meltwater pulse 1A. Weber and others estimated that the flux of icebergs from Antarctica during AID6 contributed a substantial (at least 50%) to the global mean sea-level rise that occurred during meltwater pulse 1A.[24][25]

These icebergs came from the widespread retreat of the Antarctic Ice Sheet at this time, including from the Mac Robertson Land region of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet; the Ross Sea sector of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet; and the Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheet.


Here's another graph from there:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post ... s_(MWP.jpg
Image

Also note (from first link):

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... _Level.png
Image

(If someone could get these images to show here, it would be much appreciated! :) )

Periods of very rapid sea level rise also jibes with the latest research on how ice sheets collapse--their major glaciers reach a tipping point after which the continuously calve into the sea till they are completely gone. I and others have posted videos of Richard Alley explaining this many times on here, but perhaps it's time to re-post one more time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCunWFmvUfo
Last edited by Tanada on Fri 22 Jun 2018, 06:35:56, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Inserted image links
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17589
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby baha » Fri 22 Jun 2018, 06:19:46

Here is the second link. I can't get the other to work...

Holocene_Sea_Level.png
Holocene_Sea_Level.png (22.12 KiB) Viewed 11633 times


Of course the black line is an average. It indicates the trend. No natural process is a smooth curve. It jumps and stops and oscillates around the balance point.

I've said before, 90% of the sea level rise expected by 2100 could happen in one event. 8) I hope it's soon so I can watch.
A Solar fuel spill is otherwise known as a sunny day!
The energy density of a tank of FF's doesn't matter if it's empty.
I will see your google and raise you an infinity!

https://monitoringpublic.solaredge.com/solaredge-web/p/kiosk?guid=19844186-d749-40d6-b848-191e899b37db
User avatar
baha
Solar Advocate
Solar Advocate
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: Thu 12 Jul 2007, 02:00:00
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 22 Jun 2018, 06:40:50

Dohboi I tried fixing your image links without success, hopefully this is the other image you were trying to display?
Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
File for dohboi
Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png (19.14 KiB) Viewed 11620 times
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14866
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 22 Jun 2018, 06:52:06

As for the smoothed graph well duh, every curved graph you have ever seen is a smoothed graph including the CO2 cycle we are all familiar with. Yes there are fits and starts with periods of surge and then periods of little change. You can even see it on your last graph showing the Holocene, up until about 7,000 ybp the average rate of increase was that 9.3 mm rate I pointed to in my earlier post. then from 7,000 ybp to 4,000 ybp the rate slowed substantially to something like 1 mm/year followed by a thousand year pause, then another 1,000 years of 1 mm/year rise and another pause lasting most of the last 2,000 years. During the heights of the little Ice Age from 1350-1850 world sea levels actually fell slightly as mountain glaciers got thicker and longer during that 500 years.

Dr. Alley himself points out that the exit fjord in Antarctica where the collapse will drain at some point is narrow. He goes on to point out that this will lead to a melange of icebergs effectively plugging the fjord and limiting the rate at which the vast interior WAIS can drain. It will all still drain, but the process will require at least decades, not weeks as some alarmists like to predict.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14866
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 22 Jun 2018, 07:01:39

Newfie wrote:Tanada,

10 meters gets a big hunk of NYC, Boston, Baltimore, DC, Norfolk, Savanah, Charkeston, and Miami.

Not saying you are wrong at all, in fact I think it’s a great analysis. Just saying huge hunks of these cities are gonna go. It’s not a matter of individual houses, it’s the commercial buildings, sewage, highways, subways, tunnels, bridges, rail, ports, electrical distribution, etc. It’s a lot.

So here’s my question for contemplation - let’s say that today we all agreed, from me to the President and all between, that SLR would be 10 meters in 50 years. Just a mind experiment. What would it cost to mitigate against that? Given our state of depleted energy reserves do we even have enough fossil fuel left for the under taking?

I was doing some work in NYC where I had to look at 100 year flood plains, quite an eye opener. When I was working on the new rail tunnel into NYC, something with a 100+ year life span, they raised the portals 10 feet as a hedge against SLR.

Even our house in Philly is only 35’ above sea level. A 10 meter rise will make that untenable. Not that I’m worried, im too old to worry about SLR on a personal basis.


The snarky side of my personality say "So what?"

The kinder gentler side says big cities face the choice of moving up slope or building flood walls like the picture KJ likes to post of post global warming NYC. Half of the city of New Orleans is already sitting 3-5 meters below the high tide line, but they surrounded it with dykes to keep the water out. By the same token The Netherlands has about a third of its country below current sea level also kept dry with dykes and pumping. The real truth is, cities get to choose if they are built on solid bedrock like NYC, but if they are on soft porous stone like Miami then after they build the dykes they will have to pump 24/7/365 to keep the water out just like New Orleans.

Is it worth the expense? I think not, but then again I do not live there so it is not my property being talked about. I do know I am opposed to federal funds, i.e. my tax money, going to NYC or Philadelphia (or Miami and especially New Orleans) because I think building dykes and pumping stations is a fools errand and extremely expensive to start with.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14866
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby diemos » Fri 22 Jun 2018, 10:00:03

Default human thinking includes a concept that goes something like, "The way things are now is the way things have always been and the way things always will be." Which is why the concept of things changing always gets a knee jerk rejection.

The reality is that there was a time when Miami did not exist and there will be a time in the future that Miami does not exist.

But humans will inevitably, because of their nature, go to great lengths before that to reject that reality and do whatever they have the resources to do to insure the Miami continues to exist. Until the resources run out and they move inland to dry land. And from then on they will believe that Miami has always been an abandoned underwater ruin and always will be.
User avatar
diemos
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby Newfie » Fri 22 Jun 2018, 16:10:18

FWIW Tanada I also do not like money spent on these foolish projects.

But also I don’t want to see NYC et al being moved inland. I’d prefer to just let them die.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 10940
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby dissident » Fri 22 Jun 2018, 17:06:07

diemos wrote:Default human thinking includes a concept that goes something like, "The way things are now is the way things have always been and the way things always will be." Which is why the concept of things changing always gets a knee jerk rejection.

The reality is that there was a time when Miami did not exist and there will be a time in the future that Miami does not exist.

But humans will inevitably, because of their nature, go to great lengths before that to reject that reality and do whatever they have the resources to do to insure the Miami continues to exist. Until the resources run out and they move inland to dry land. And from then on they will believe that Miami has always been an abandoned underwater ruin and always will be.


That sums up the whole "skeptic" position fully. A knee jerk response not based on any actual understanding of the processes involved.

The graphic above is absurdly irrelevant since it reflects the high albedo post-glacial melt with much slower temperature increases. What looks like melt happening on the time scale of thousands of years is not some intrinsic characteristic of glaciers. Current glaciers are being exposed to much more rapid warming. The current warming is driven by CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions and not orbital variation.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5276
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby kiwichick » Sat 23 Jun 2018, 09:25:08

+ 1 diss.....the rate we are adding GHG's to the system is probably unprecedented in the planets history

therefore SLR could also be faster than ever seen before

at least one estimate puts 10 % of global population at or below 10 metres above current sea level

750 million people on the move
User avatar
kiwichick
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Sat 02 Aug 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Southland New Zealand

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby Subjectivist » Mon 25 Jun 2018, 06:53:03

Newfie wrote:FWIW Tanada I also do not like money spent on these foolish projects.

But also I don’t want to see NYC et al being moved inland. I’d prefer to just let them die.


I am pretty sure the people of those cities will bject to jst dropping dead as the waters rise. Doesn't it make more sense to move them early in a non disruptie manner?
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4311
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 25 Jun 2018, 07:19:34

Sadly, this again represents another human-linked climate feedback. All that moving and building will generate more CO2 which will prompt yet more sea level rise which will prompt more CO2 producing inland moves...etc, etc, etc...
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17589
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Mon 25 Jun 2018, 14:37:18

Right. Tell Donald Trump you want him to move Trump Tower to New Jersey, on his dime, before the sub-basement floods.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5290
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests