Study of ancient caves in Europe show how high sea levels should rise when temps go up 3 or 4 degree C.
You can figure about 20 to 60 feet (7 to 20 meters).
A study published in Nature looks at what water levels might look like in a +3 world.
The article is summed up in Phys.org.... Scientists discover evidence for past high-level sea rise.
Of course, you can always model the global warming on earth to see where we land with +2 or more degrees.
A scary study just out finds that ice sheets are melting from below at between 10 and 200 times faster than originally expected!
Showing posts with label sea levels. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sea levels. Show all posts
Sunday, September 1, 2019
What history suggests about +3 to +4 degrees in sea level rise!
Wednesday, July 18, 2018
Internet will be underwater sooner than you might think
Found this on the Weather Channel, where it discusses a study that discusses the impacts on rising oceans on... The Internet.
It makes sense. Population centers are, what, 80% within a few miles of oceans. All the phone and Inet cables would run along roads through population areas...
Business Insider discusses so called Sunny Day Flooding from high tied and kind tide.
As the sea levels rise there will be more flooding. Flooding will start to hit lots of underground cables (including Internet cables) that are water resistant, but not waterproof.
With all the analysis of Global Warming, most of the scenarios assume that we take some action to avoid the worst cases. Also, there had been expectations for 20-30 years that we would start to run out (or at least low) on the fossil fuels, and thereby increase costs from shortages would result in "conservation" efforts. But Fracking and horizontal drilling has changed all that. Ten years ago, noone, not even the oil baron Boone Pickens, could expect that the world would reach 100m barrels of oil per day. It was not conceivable. But we have made it. Happily burning away, even with generally more fuel-efficient vehicles.
But the Business as Usual (BAU) models that were considered the absolute worst case in climate models, seems to be where we find ourselves. The general thinking was that we probably had about another 50 years before big problems from global warming come home to roost. Well, this study figures otherwise. Within 10-15 years these problems, and the associated plethora of costs, should start showing up with a vengeance.
The water issues will be massive and devastating. Salt water intrusion will become really expensive. Imagine entire cities moving from lots of fresh water and fresh water wells, to no fresh water. Desalinization is obviously possible, but requires lots of energy, plus massive amounts of plant and infrastructure.
And, we have not even begun to talk about the devastating impacts of hurricanes when the sea levels are a couple more feet above "normal".
No pretty pictures on the waterfront here!
It makes sense. Population centers are, what, 80% within a few miles of oceans. All the phone and Inet cables would run along roads through population areas...
Business Insider discusses so called Sunny Day Flooding from high tied and kind tide.
As the sea levels rise there will be more flooding. Flooding will start to hit lots of underground cables (including Internet cables) that are water resistant, but not waterproof.
With all the analysis of Global Warming, most of the scenarios assume that we take some action to avoid the worst cases. Also, there had been expectations for 20-30 years that we would start to run out (or at least low) on the fossil fuels, and thereby increase costs from shortages would result in "conservation" efforts. But Fracking and horizontal drilling has changed all that. Ten years ago, noone, not even the oil baron Boone Pickens, could expect that the world would reach 100m barrels of oil per day. It was not conceivable. But we have made it. Happily burning away, even with generally more fuel-efficient vehicles.
But the Business as Usual (BAU) models that were considered the absolute worst case in climate models, seems to be where we find ourselves. The general thinking was that we probably had about another 50 years before big problems from global warming come home to roost. Well, this study figures otherwise. Within 10-15 years these problems, and the associated plethora of costs, should start showing up with a vengeance.
The water issues will be massive and devastating. Salt water intrusion will become really expensive. Imagine entire cities moving from lots of fresh water and fresh water wells, to no fresh water. Desalinization is obviously possible, but requires lots of energy, plus massive amounts of plant and infrastructure.
And, we have not even begun to talk about the devastating impacts of hurricanes when the sea levels are a couple more feet above "normal".
No pretty pictures on the waterfront here!
Monday, March 16, 2015
Another massive meltoff of Antarctic glacier. Really ugly likely outcomes.
The melting of Antarctica was already really bad. It just got worse. http://wapo.st/19rU1xp
Wow. Another area, like the west of antartcica, could result in massive ice melt from the ocean side up!
Each shelf/sheet could add about 10 feet to ocean rise, maybe 25% more for the northern hemisphere.
Ouch!
Friday, January 16, 2015
Study: sea levels rising quicker than previously estimated - Blue and Green Tomorrow
Study: sea levels rising quicker than previously estimated - Blue and Green Tomorrow:
This is a bit of good news which really is really bad news related to sea level rise.
The good news, if you can call it that is sea levels appear to have been rising far slower during the first century of the industrial revolution than previously measured (estimated). Apparently the tidal measures that have been around for centuries didn't represent some areas well, the poles and Florida, for example. A new study publishing in Nature analyzes and adjusts for the big gaps in prior ocean level measures. This is from a study in the journal Nature. Here.
The bad news, is that the last few decades have been more than twice what was measured/estimated.
At the new rate of 3mm per year, sea levels should rise only about one foot over the next 100 years. But this doesn't count thermal expansion of the oceans warming (thermal expansion) over time such that a couple degrees centigrade should produce yards of increased sea levels once the temperature works its way through some 2 miles of ocean (on average).
If this doesn't make you nervous, you have been munching out a little too much on Colorado brownies, and not living very close to the sea shore.
'via Blog this'
This is a bit of good news which really is really bad news related to sea level rise.
The good news, if you can call it that is sea levels appear to have been rising far slower during the first century of the industrial revolution than previously measured (estimated). Apparently the tidal measures that have been around for centuries didn't represent some areas well, the poles and Florida, for example. A new study publishing in Nature analyzes and adjusts for the big gaps in prior ocean level measures. This is from a study in the journal Nature. Here.
At the new rate of 3mm per year, sea levels should rise only about one foot over the next 100 years. But this doesn't count thermal expansion of the oceans warming (thermal expansion) over time such that a couple degrees centigrade should produce yards of increased sea levels once the temperature works its way through some 2 miles of ocean (on average).
If this doesn't make you nervous, you have been munching out a little too much on Colorado brownies, and not living very close to the sea shore.
'via Blog this'
Saturday, May 17, 2014
Scientists Warn of Rising Oceans From Polar Melt - NYTimes.com: ... Implications
Scientists Warn of Rising Oceans From Polar Melt - NYTimes.com:
Or: http://nyti.ms/1sEIHC3
Studies published in the journals Science (here) and Geophysical Research Letters (here) magazine find that the antarctic is melting, probably at a very very fast pace. The terms "beyond the point of no return" and "unstoppable" are used to describe the collapse of this glacial area in Antarctica. How long it will take is harder to predict.
This really scares the bejeebers out of everyone. Let me summarize a few reasons why this is bothersome:
* It seems that arctic (north) should be shrinking a little and the antarctic (south) should be expanding if there were no human factors influencing such. So the shrinking/melt-off in the south would/should have to overcome this tilting effect of the earth, and then some. (This "effect" is something for people far smarter than I to explain.)
* The north pole is now becoming more navigable, longer in the summer as the ice sheets melt off. China, for example is planning to navigate through a north passage for 3 months a year and avoid bringing oil from Russia through the Suez Canal, essentially cutting the trip in half (and maybe making twice 6-months worth of oil runs.
* The melt off in the north pole is not as worrisome in terms of direct ocean level rise because much of the ice is over water, so the conversion from ice in the north pole to water is not a big deal related to ocean rise (although the resulting warming of the oceans from more heat absorption and less glacial reflection definitely is).
* The antarctic is mostly over land. The melting of the Antarctic glaciers results directly into a rise in the sea levels.
* Combine that with apparent acceleration effect, as the glaciers melt, they move faster and faster, accelerating the depletion process.
* Thermal expansion. As ocean and land become exposed by the melting ice sheets, the ocean, land and air all become warmer. In the case of the oceans, water expands. If the average dept of the oceans are 2 miles, the oceans levels should rise at about 2 feet for every increase in (water) temperature of 1 degree Centigrade.
At this rate, the best case by the IPCC of 2 degrees C increase in global warming has got to be very unlikely. The worst case scenarios of business as usual (BAU) of 3 to 4 degrees or more seem to be the most likely... The 4 degree increase would result in about 9 feet (or 3 yards) increase in sea levels.
That means that by the end of the century, water-front cities will have new waterfront. Venus and New York will be new shapes and sizes. The Florida Keys will be less than half their current size.
Some of us would argue that Business as Usual is not working so well, especially if you care much about your grand kids and great grand kids.
Keywords: Antarctica, Arctic, business as usual, glaciers, Global Warming, IPCC, North Pole, sea levels, thermal expansion,
'via Blog this'
Or: http://nyti.ms/1sEIHC3
Studies published in the journals Science (here) and Geophysical Research Letters (here) magazine find that the antarctic is melting, probably at a very very fast pace. The terms "beyond the point of no return" and "unstoppable" are used to describe the collapse of this glacial area in Antarctica. How long it will take is harder to predict.
This really scares the bejeebers out of everyone. Let me summarize a few reasons why this is bothersome:
* It seems that arctic (north) should be shrinking a little and the antarctic (south) should be expanding if there were no human factors influencing such. So the shrinking/melt-off in the south would/should have to overcome this tilting effect of the earth, and then some. (This "effect" is something for people far smarter than I to explain.)
* The north pole is now becoming more navigable, longer in the summer as the ice sheets melt off. China, for example is planning to navigate through a north passage for 3 months a year and avoid bringing oil from Russia through the Suez Canal, essentially cutting the trip in half (and maybe making twice 6-months worth of oil runs.
* The melt off in the north pole is not as worrisome in terms of direct ocean level rise because much of the ice is over water, so the conversion from ice in the north pole to water is not a big deal related to ocean rise (although the resulting warming of the oceans from more heat absorption and less glacial reflection definitely is).
* The antarctic is mostly over land. The melting of the Antarctic glaciers results directly into a rise in the sea levels.
* Combine that with apparent acceleration effect, as the glaciers melt, they move faster and faster, accelerating the depletion process.
* Thermal expansion. As ocean and land become exposed by the melting ice sheets, the ocean, land and air all become warmer. In the case of the oceans, water expands. If the average dept of the oceans are 2 miles, the oceans levels should rise at about 2 feet for every increase in (water) temperature of 1 degree Centigrade.
At this rate, the best case by the IPCC of 2 degrees C increase in global warming has got to be very unlikely. The worst case scenarios of business as usual (BAU) of 3 to 4 degrees or more seem to be the most likely... The 4 degree increase would result in about 9 feet (or 3 yards) increase in sea levels.
That means that by the end of the century, water-front cities will have new waterfront. Venus and New York will be new shapes and sizes. The Florida Keys will be less than half their current size.
Some of us would argue that Business as Usual is not working so well, especially if you care much about your grand kids and great grand kids.
Keywords: Antarctica, Arctic, business as usual, glaciers, Global Warming, IPCC, North Pole, sea levels, thermal expansion,
'via Blog this'
Friday, April 4, 2014
13 of 14 warmest years on record occurred in 21st century – UN | Environment
13 of 14 warmest years on record occurred in 21st century – UN | Environment | theguardian.com:
Ouch. As you look at the clock, you will see that we are only 14 years into the 21st Century. Yet we have 13 of the hottest 14 years in recorded history.
You do have to take the whole of the earth into account, obviously, not just the USA, where we were ?fortunate? enough to have a exceptionally cold and blizzardy Winter. (Polar Vortex is now in our daily vernacular.)
If you are interested in the science go here to look at the 11 or 12 major indicators (based on several data sources each) that would indicate global warming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
If you want a composite graphic that shows the robustness of the evidence, go here. There are several data sources overlaid in each graphic. Note that the stratosphere is decreasing (cooler), that is consistent with a depletion of the ozone layer.
The recent UN report talks about the trends in costs associated with climate effects, like typhoons. A draft report talks about $1.45T costs associated with climate change over the next decade. (See here http://www.livescience.com/43891-global-warming-economic-damage.html.)
The costs are expected to reach $70 to $100B per year for adaptation by 2050. (See here: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/03/31/will-the-uns-new-report-shift-the-global-warming-debate)
NASA has lots of interesting graphics, including time-series that will show the world temperature changes over the last couple hundred years. (Or just recently if you want since 1970).(The science visualization study at NASA is awesome, no mater what your interests: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/Gallery/index.html or if you want to draw your own graphs based on the underlying data, go here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/3/2/1880-2014).
As we come up on Earth Day (EarthDay.org or EarthDay in Wikipedia) the impacts of business as usual (BAS) really revolves around whether you think something should be done to be much more sustainable NOW!, in decades or in centuries to come.
The degree of urgency really depends on how much you believe in global warming, and how fast you think that warming may take place.
Look at the graphs and make your own call on this.
'via Blog this'
Ouch. As you look at the clock, you will see that we are only 14 years into the 21st Century. Yet we have 13 of the hottest 14 years in recorded history.
You do have to take the whole of the earth into account, obviously, not just the USA, where we were ?fortunate? enough to have a exceptionally cold and blizzardy Winter. (Polar Vortex is now in our daily vernacular.)
If you are interested in the science go here to look at the 11 or 12 major indicators (based on several data sources each) that would indicate global warming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
If you want a composite graphic that shows the robustness of the evidence, go here. There are several data sources overlaid in each graphic. Note that the stratosphere is decreasing (cooler), that is consistent with a depletion of the ozone layer.
The recent UN report talks about the trends in costs associated with climate effects, like typhoons. A draft report talks about $1.45T costs associated with climate change over the next decade. (See here http://www.livescience.com/43891-global-warming-economic-damage.html.)
The costs are expected to reach $70 to $100B per year for adaptation by 2050. (See here: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/03/31/will-the-uns-new-report-shift-the-global-warming-debate)
NASA has lots of interesting graphics, including time-series that will show the world temperature changes over the last couple hundred years. (Or just recently if you want since 1970).(The science visualization study at NASA is awesome, no mater what your interests: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/Gallery/index.html or if you want to draw your own graphs based on the underlying data, go here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/3/2/1880-2014).
As we come up on Earth Day (EarthDay.org or EarthDay in Wikipedia) the impacts of business as usual (BAS) really revolves around whether you think something should be done to be much more sustainable NOW!, in decades or in centuries to come.
The degree of urgency really depends on how much you believe in global warming, and how fast you think that warming may take place.
Look at the graphs and make your own call on this.
'via Blog this'
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)