Climate Change - choice between 13" and 16.5" seal level rise?

[ERD50]

If I am interpreting the data correctly from the latest IPCC (intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report, it appears that:

If we continue to burn fossil fuel as we have, we will see a 10-23" rise in sea level (16.5" is the middle of that range).

If we move to a non-fossil fuel based system, we will see an 8-18" rise in sea level (13" is the middle of that range).

There is a lot of overlap in those ranges. So it seems we need to be prepared to adapt to some major changes in the world. And if we decide to take major steps to reduce greenhouse gases, we still need to be prepared to adapt to some major changes in the world.

The impression that I think the media gives, is that if we just put up some solar panels, some windmills, drive a hybrid and use ethanol, everything is gonna be just fine. But it looks to me like it is almost as bad, no matter what we do.

So should we be spending money to reduce greenhouse gases, or to adapt to rising sea levels?

-ERD50

# Scenario A1T - * A1T - Emphasis on non-fossil energy sources.
* Sea level rise likely range [20 to 45 cm] (8 to 18 inches)


# Scenario A1FI - * A1FI - An emphasis on fossil-fuels.
* Sea level rise likely range [26 to 59 cm] (10 to 23 inches)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Emissions_Scenarios

 

[bssc]

I guess, Phoenix real estate, at 1400 feet, will go up in value as all the displaced Californians move here.

 

[Texas Proud]

ERD....

That is one of my points when I try and talk about global warming... and what will happen even if we do what is asked...

And.... if it is SO BAD, then why do they say 'let it get to 400 or 450 ppm'... but some say 350 ppm... I believe we are in the 275 range....

Lets shoot for 200!!! But, I suspect that the earth will continue to warm even if we went down to the 200 as it seems like it is more of a 'normal' climate change than a man made climate change...

I keep laughing at the 'end of the world' scare tactics coming from the group that wants to stop everything..

 

[greg]

So should we be spending money to reduce greenhouse gases, or to adapt to rising sea levels?

Lake Superior is currently at the lowest level in 90 years. My rough guess is that it is about 2-3 feet lower than last summer and maybe 4 feet lower than two years ago--again, roughly. This isn't something that we can all just sort of passively watch and hope things get better over time--to my mind--as we busily go about ignoring it.

After high school, I sailed on Great Lakes ore freighters intermittently. We used to load ore bound for Gary, Ind or Cleveland, Ohio. And the Mate who loaded the boat (plus Capt and others ) got a bonus at the end of the season for transporting more ore. Loading the boat an extra couple of inches each time had a big impact on bonuses.

Now, the lake appears about 3-4 feet lower than a couple years ago. It means that these ore boats that normally haul 60,000 to 80,000 tones of ore each trip now haul much less (my guess is about 1/4 to 1/3 less) in order to navigate thru the rivers, locks and harbors. Big loss of money for everyone and perhaps, over time, a significant increase in the price of cars and washing machines and such items made from steel.

I think there are huge costs coming if we don't start to act soon, even if we just look at small water level changes in the environment. I also think that much of the cure for global and national warming (if we do it right) will actually be better and cheaper than many imagine. Electricity might really get much cheaper if we can start to rally around solar energy, windmill technology, etc.

I think larger totalities need to be examined. I think unclean coal burning power plants have enormous consequences not just to the air quality levels related to global warming but also to health care issues related to subsequent smog. We can't just look at some small sliver of life and say "Coal is real cheap and keeping costs down is very important, so lets keep burning it." We need to examine issues such as "Does this resultant smog create more lung problems, asthma, and cancer--just overloading our health care system to the point of dis-function.

I think that much of what we do about global warming in the future will not only create a cleaner environment, but it will also be economically smarter and cheaper than much of our past thinking.

 

[kcowan]

I agree that a focus on solutions is more urgent than trying to prevent the inevitable. Salt water rising and fresh water dropping. These are global cycles that have repeated over the Millennia and are only slightly aggravated by the actions of human civilization.

The Vikings used to farm on Greenland and Vineland (now Newfoundland) until the growth of ice made it impractical. So they abandoned their settlements. There is ample evidence of sealife in what are now deserts.

While we have limited power to change these cycles, we can act to mitigate (and/or capitalize on) their effects.

 

[haha]

Lake Superior is currently at the lowest level in 90 years. My rough guess is that it is about 2-3 feet lower than last summer and maybe 4 feet lower than two years ago--again, roughly.

Greg, what is the mechananism by which the water level in Lake S. is dropped?

Ha

 

[Martha]

Greg, what is the mechananism by which the water level in Lake S. is dropped?

Ha

Greg is eating cabbage soup right now (yum) and can't come to the computer. So I'll give it a shot. Years of drought and increased winter evaporation due to later ice cover and less ice cover.

Greg just asked me to post this info:

On a thousand-footer … one inch of draft is about 250 to 267 tons.
According to the port authority, last year, we required 42 more ships to load at our port to handle the comparable or same amount of tonnage. Last year every ship loaded on average 681 tons lighter than it did the previous year.

 

[ERD50]

I do agree with Greg - it is important to implement additional non-polluting sources of energy. It may be more important for our overall environmental quality than for global warming specifically. And it may well turn out that these are not so much more expensive than fossil fuel, maybe even cheaper.

I'm just saying that we should not pretend that those actions will 'solve' the global warming issues.

A good example is the new coal plant designs that sequester the greenhouse gases. Sounds good, but they use 30% more coal, which means more strip mining and all the environmental impact from that. Overall, it might not be an improvement. Burning and mining less coal is probably a good goal.

I tend to believe that this will take care of itself over time. A tax on pollution to help represent the true cost of fossil fuels would help drive innovation for alternatives. Right now, solar and wind are marginally cost effective, and improving, so it would not take much to tip the scales in favor of widespread solar/wind adoption.

I'm actually pretty optimistic. I think it will help if the politicians can avoid giving subsidies to specific technologies, just tax the pollution and let the free market find solutions. They will.

But we still will have 13 to 16.5" of sea level rise to deal with.

-ERD50

 

[FinallyRetired]

Since I believe that hydrocarbons play at best a minor role in global warming, a one-foot rise in ocean levels is probably what we'll see whether or not we do anything about CO2. The bigger problem is the potential of a rapid swing to a colder earth that will inevitably occur after the warm peak. A warmer earth is much easier to survive than an ice age earth. But I doubt if I will have to worry about either extreme during my lifetime.

 

[Mwsinron]

Id bet on the rise. We will adapt lose some coastline etc. Another 100 years or so they will just make cities that ride on the ocean.

 

[UncleHoney]

Some interesting information about Great Lakes water levels.

http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/greatlakes/hh/

 

[Zathras]

As far as the IPCC report goes, the next century is not the end of the race. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for decades. So anything we do now will have a delayed effect. This is why things will continue to get worse (if CO2 is a culprit in global warming) even if we stop. However, if we don't stop they will get worse even faster and for a longer period of time (again, if CO2 is a culprit in GW).

 

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

Since I believe that hydrocarbons play at best a minor role in global warming, a one-foot rise in ocean levels is probably what we'll see whether or not we do anything about CO2.

I have the same opinion, SoonToRetire.

The wobble of the earth's rotation has an enormous effect on climate and there is nothing we can do about that.

There is something effective that could be done to moderate global warming however, and I notice that the UN has discovered the idea. We could put a large umbrella at the L1 Lagrangian Point between the earth and sun. The biggest problem would be how to counter the solar wind that would try to displace it.

In any case, I have no problem with the idea of trying to reduce carbon emissions, provided everyone understands that there is no free lunch. The economy will take a big hit, people won't like restrictions on driving and power use, and jobs will be lost. In the West, that is. China and the Third World will keep pumping crap into the air and water more and more no matter what the hippies in government force us to do.

Cheers,

Gypsy

 

[ERD50]

Some interesting information about Great Lakes water levels.

http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/greatlakes/hh/

Interesting data from 1918 to present. http://tinyurl.com/2u58pm

Looks like the low levels in Lake Superior occurred in the 1920's, and the high levels in the 1950's and 1980's.

MIN 599.6 (1926)
MAX 602.8 (1986)

Current levels are near the lows in that chart. 599.9 vs 601.6 long-term average.

Kind of hard to link that to Greg's assertion that global warming is causing the low levels he is seeing today.

-ERD50

 

[Texas Proud]

Did not read the article... more 'work' to do tomorrow....

BUT, I would say that using the water for irrigation and drinking is having an effect...

This is very very hazy in my mind, but I believe that the Colorado river USED to make it to the Pacific... now it dries up somewhere in Mexico (at least SOME river does)... it is because of all the water that is being used upriver...

There is a lake somewhere in Russia (or one of those countries over there).. that has receeded over 20 MILES over the years... again, water use...

so, to help in greenhouse gasses and water use... we need to kill off one of every three or four people... lets start with the lowest IQ score and work up...

 

[haha]

The Colorado River has its mouth in the Sea of Cortez, the gulf between Baja California and the Mexican Mainland. I believe you are right that it is at times only a trickle.

Ha

 

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

so, to help in greenhouse gasses and water use... we need to kill off one of every three or four people...

That's what it will take. No joke.

 

[Peaceful_Warrior]

100 years from now, everything east of the San Andreas fault will fall into the Atlantic Ocean.

I guess, Phoenix real estate, at 1400 feet, will go up in value as all the displaced Californians move here.

 

[donheff]

Since I believe that hydrocarbons play at best a minor role in global warming, a one-foot rise in ocean levels is probably what we'll see whether or not we do anything about CO2. The bigger problem is the potential of a rapid swing to a colder earth that will inevitably occur after the warm peak. A warmer earth is much easier to survive than an ice age earth. But I doubt if I will have to worry about either extreme during my lifetime.

I have long thought the same although the building scientific evidence is trending more toward a potentially substantial role. Regardless of the role of humans it appears temps are rising. So it seems prudent to start seriously planning for adaptations to climate change. And the national security advantages of energy independence are still a huge incentive to cut oil consumption.

 

[ERD50]

so, to help in greenhouse gasses and water use... we need to kill off one of every three or four people...

That's what it will take. No joke.

Or reduce water usage by 1/4 to 1/3 - that certainly is doable - not falling-off-a-log-easy, but doable.

Two places to start: Grow crops where they get sufficient water instead of irrigating them in order to maintain historic water 'rights'. Install gray water systems in new buildings and any retros (using the output of washing machines to flush toilets).

-ken

 

[greg]

Kind of hard to link that to Greg's assertion that global warming is causing the low levels he is seeing today.

You're right on this particular specific maybe, but I think, in general, global warming will cause all sorts of seen and unforseen problems. We can't trace out a pure cause-effect connection between any two real world events.

 

[kcowan]

You're right on this particular specific maybe, but I think, in general, global warming will cause all sorts of seen and unforseen problems. We can't trace out a pure cause-effect connection between any two real world events.

Not too hard. Global warming means less snow pack in the mountains. Its melting feeds the Great Lakes. Think of it as delayed rainfall.

(OTOH the Great Lakes also have a cyclic nature that is not tied to AGW.)

(BTW in our part of the world-PNW, the mountain snowpack is 40% above average, threatening serious flooding later in May.)

 

[TromboneAl]

Just for reference, here's the current seal level: