The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
If sea levels do actually rise, it'll be a huge export market for Dutch companies.
I mean, look at a place like Bangladesh. Their problem is not that the country is flat and next to the sea, but that they can't get their shit together. The Dutch have built levees for hundreds of years: it only takes dicipline. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
The Netherlands is a country that's rich enough to protect themselves for a considerable long time from sea level rise (normal or accelerating) and soil subsidence. My worry lies with those countries too poor to do that.
How would the world look if Greenland melts? (grinsted)
In the figure on the right you can see the effect of a 7 m increase in sea level would have on the Copenhagen coastline. 7 m is roughly what you would expect if the entire Greenland ice sheet melted.
But 7 meters is also a lot. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
Jonathan Bamber, an ice sheet expert at the University of Bristol, told the conference that previous studies had misjudged the so-called Greenland tipping point, at which the ice sheet is certain to melt completely. "We're talking about the point at which it is 100% doomed. It seems quite an important number to get right." Such catastrophic melting would produce enough water to raise world sea levels by more than 6m. "We found that the threshold is about double what was previously published," Bamber told the Copenhagen Climate Congress, a special three-day summit aimed at updating the latest climate science ahead of global political negotiations in December over a successor to the Kyoto treaty. It would take an average global temperature rise of 6C to push Greenland into irreversible melting, the new study found. Previous estimates, including those in the recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said the critical threshold was about 3C - which many climate scientists expect to be reached in the coming decades. "The threshold temperature has been substantially underestimated in previous studies. Our results have profound implications for predictions of sea level rise from Greenland over the coming century," the scientists said.
Jonathan Bamber, an ice sheet expert at the University of Bristol, told the conference that previous studies had misjudged the so-called Greenland tipping point, at which the ice sheet is certain to melt completely. "We're talking about the point at which it is 100% doomed. It seems quite an important number to get right." Such catastrophic melting would produce enough water to raise world sea levels by more than 6m.
"We found that the threshold is about double what was previously published," Bamber told the Copenhagen Climate Congress, a special three-day summit aimed at updating the latest climate science ahead of global political negotiations in December over a successor to the Kyoto treaty. It would take an average global temperature rise of 6C to push Greenland into irreversible melting, the new study found.
Previous estimates, including those in the recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said the critical threshold was about 3C - which many climate scientists expect to be reached in the coming decades.
"The threshold temperature has been substantially underestimated in previous studies. Our results have profound implications for predictions of sea level rise from Greenland over the coming century," the scientists said.
There is time to make sure the earth doesn't exceed that threshold. 6C - that's a lot.
Even if the Greenland ice sheet would 'irreversibly' melt that would take well over 1000 years.
The local impacts of Greenland ice sheet melting have however been underestimated for the Northern Atlantic coasts. 20 centimeters worldwide in a long-term equilibrium may translate in to two or three times that amount in Europe and ten or twenty times in the North-Eastern US and Canada in the short run.
Thermal expansion, especially the local impact of the expansion of the Arctic Ocean, also remains to be modelled with any kind of precision.
I think it also illustrates the general problem here. The most valuable real estate will be the one with sufficient rain fall (but not to much) close to the sea (but not submerged) and so on. And that is a question of just how the climate patterns will change, which we do not know. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
A more reasonable threshold would be 50% chances of losing around a third. Because that would be enough to be a disaster. Actually 10% chances would already be rather a lot. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
We can continue quibling what projected sea level rise would be but Climate Doom in the vogue of "we're all gonna die because of Greenland melting" is not very rational and mostly acts defeatist. Hence my reply. Now we´re talking.
Greenland cannot melt without a lot of Antarctica going (West Antarctica is probably a gonner before 2050, let alone in the longer run).
And that means at the very least 15m, without taking thermal expansion into account. And even more in Europe initially. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
Part of the reason why we're talking past each other is because different time frames are colliding.
If 100% irreversible melting of Greenland's ice will occur (at, say, 6C temperature increase), this will not happen in the short term, and probably not this century either. In the case of water management, one cannot plan much further today. So that's it, and the rest is all what may be, and not relevant (yet) from an adaptation point of view.
On the longer time frame, the one you seem to be using, it's interesting stuff, but also speculative and not that helpful. It's mostly done by a lot of academics quibbling, or people getting distracted by doom scenarios because tsunamis sell enough prints. That's all there is, and nothing more. 15 meters? It could be 20. So what as long as we don't know when it will happen?
Even if we reach 6C there is no certainty as to how long it will take for the ice cap to melt. But there is also no certainty that the ice cap will not have already melted by then. And then large scale ice melt from Greenland could conceivably alter the deep saline current and the Gulf Stream. This could cause ice sheets to begin accumulating in northern Europe. It might slow down the melting of Greenland, but it would hardly be an advantage to northern Europe.
There is only really one way to verify if the models are accurate and we don't want to go there. To me the prudent thing is to assume a worst case and work to avoid it. At worst we will have given people employment doing things that turned out not to have been necessary, but the world as we know it will have survived substantially. But that is not how finance operates and, as we know, finance runs the world. "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
6C is a convenient number to quote, but establishing a figure on climate sensitivity has been and still is the holy grail of climate science, and it's not settled. I'm agnostic on what it will be. To me, the number matters more for establishing proper adaptation gaols, than that it acts as a stimulus for switching to a non-carbon society.
Right now, the IPCC projection of sea level rise until 2100 range from a few cms to 1 meter - a figure which has been corroborated by younger studies. However, current sea level rise will have to accelerate a lot to find itself in the higher end of that bracket. Even so, in the medium long term (decades to 1 century), the Netherlands has little to worry.
And that's only if
Some rather major bodies of ice lying on the sea floor are already considered doomed in the next few years in Antarctica.
As for 2 metres, no it needs absolutely no underestimate of the recoverable fossil fuels. On the contrary, the already discovered reserves are about twice as big as needed to get +2-3°C on the current models, and so far they have always proved to underestimate the ice melting. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
The rate of sea-level rise has increased in the period from 1993 to the present (Figure 1), largely due to the growing contribution of ice loss from Greenland (Box 1) and Antarctica. However, models of the behaviour of these polar ice sheets are still in their infancy, so projections of sea-level rise to 2100 based on such "process models" are highly uncertain. An alternative approach is to base projections on the observed relationship between global average temperature rise and sea-level rise over the past 120 years, assuming that this observed relationship will continue into the future. New estimates based on this approach suggest a sealevel rise of around a metre or more by 2100
The above recently doubling of the estimate to around 1 meter by 2100 is based on a linear extrapolation from previous data. Hansen argued a couple of years ago that the linearity assumption should be questioned, and that if rapid collapse of the arctic and antarctic glaciers were to occur, quick rises of sea level beyond the 1 meter range could result. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526141.600-huge-sea-level-rises-are-coming--unless-we-act-no w.html?page=1
Many civic projects related to flood control are financed and designed with 100 year time frames, so large uncertainty in this area is difficult from both the technical and the political viewpoints...
I mean, look at a place like Bangladesh. Their problem is not that the country is flat and next to the sea, but that they can't get their shit together. The Dutch have built levees for hundreds of years: it only takes dicipline.
Levees are an overestimated solution, and a rather figmental one for Bangladesh. Minor levees might work in the Ganges/Brahmaputra delta, but the thing is just a tad more impressive than the Rhine/Meuse delta, and packs a bit more punch in the monsoon season, or when it gets hit by a cyclone. And in day to day life you get all kinds of problems with salinisation, with people starting to live on newly deposited sediments all the time. Plus, you want those deposits, especially in the face of a potentially rising Indian Ocean.
Even the Dutch are spending more attention to 'living with water' as you can see from our spangling adaptation strategy.
Disaster preparedness is a broad field! Having a good information structure and some local shelters tend to save a lot of lives right away. As it has done in Bangladesh, where hundreds of thousands used to die every few decades not too long ago, but the average cyclone now doesn't even get to one thousand.
Discipline and carefully accumulated capital from centuries of profiting off the backs of poor wretches like the Bangladeshi.
Oh come on... Enough with the fashionable western self hate already.
Levees are an overestimated solution, and a rather figmental one for Bangladesh. Minor levees might work in the Ganges/Brahmaputra delta, but the thing is just a tad more impressive than the Rhine/Meuse delta, and packs a bit more punch in the monsoon season, or when it gets hit by a cyclone.
The reason they're not doing is not because it can't be done or they can't afford it, but because they can't get their shit together. Just like New Orleans. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Of course, this is a depiction of Sinterklaas arriving with goods from the colonies the ingenuity of the dutch engineers. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
The coast of the Netherlands is as long as the coast of Bangladesh.
It's just a statement of fact with a lot more reality behind it than your silly Calvinist notion that the Bangladeshi could construct a comprehensive levee system to keep the sea out if only they were as disciplined as the good old Dutch.
The coastline of the Netherlands is 451 kilometres, the coastline of Bangladesh is 710 kilometres. The Rhine/Meuse delta makes up about a third of the Dutch coastline, whereas the Ganges/Brahmaputra delta makes up most of the Bangladeshi coastline, and stretches into the neigbouring state of West Bengal in India. The peak discharge of the Rhine and Meuse combined is 16,000 cumecs, the combined peak discharge of the Ganges and Brahmaputra is 106,000 cumecs (the Missisippi has 56,000). Those are averages. The Netherlands had a per capita income of $6000 in 1950, when it was just rebounding from WWII, going up to $26000 in 1997, when the Delta Works were completed (estimates using y 2000 dollars). Bangladesh has a per capita income right now of somewhere around $450 using the same measure.
Claiming that the West is rich because of colonialism flies in the face of the facts, given that the colonies were money losers and that lots of western nations never had colonies
The difference between the genius of the British constitution which protects and governs North America, and that of the mercantile company which oppresses and domineers in the East Indies, cannot perhaps be better illustrated than by the different state of those countries.
In other words, the Bengal famine of 1770 was a consequence of the policies of the East India Company, and not because the Bengalis couldn't get their shit together.
Also the fact that subtropical and tropical climates and a comparatively straight coastline (or absence of coast) do not facilitate the kinds of urbanised, agrarian societies that have historically been able to subjugate empires and engage in large-scale engineering works.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
But Bangladesh has a far greater population as well. Total real GDP is the thing (PPP if there is lots of manual labour involved I guess), not GDP per capita. And as I mentioned, the Bangladeshis have a far greater incentive of getting it done.
Claiming that the West is rich because of colonialism flies in the face of the facts, given that the colonies were money losers and that lots of western nations never had colonies. But I guess the wealth of Sweden is built on the backs of the poor sods of St. Barth...
Sweden built its initial 19th century wealth on selling timber and iron, necessary ingredients for ships and cannons.
You do not have to rob people to get rich, selling weapons or other stuff to robbers also works. Does not change that you would not have it if there had been not robbery. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
But to return from Godwin territory, do you seriously question that the countries in Europe that traded with the colonial powers did not benefit from the latters access to cheap resources? Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
No matter what, the effect is marginal compared to all the things that actually did make Sweden (and other western countries) rich. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
We can argue about how and where to assign blame until we go blue in the face, but that does not detract from the fact that Sweden had a privileged position relative to Bangladesh. If for no other reason then because it had enough rifles and gunpowder to stop other European powers from bashing it over the head, dismantling its political structure and stealing its stuff.
Similarly, we can argue about the economic benefits (or not) of having colonies in general, or specific colonies in particular. But this does not detract from the fact that whatever hypothetical net burden upon European countries the colonies might have been, it does not compare - not even within an order of magnitude - to the burden imposed on the colonies by having their social, political and economic system deliberately demolished.
If you recall, wages were low in Sweden as well, and having a greater labour pool to compete with might not have been a positive thing.
Anyway, it was to even the balance of trade that the opium trade began, to stem the outflow of bullion. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
And history just keeps repeating itself... Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 31 2 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 22 3 comments
by Cat - Jan 25 55 comments
by Oui - Jan 9 21 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 13 28 comments
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Feb 212 comments
by Oui - Feb 13 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 312 comments
by gmoke - Jan 29
by Oui - Jan 2731 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 263 comments
by Cat - Jan 2555 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 223 comments
by Oui - Jan 2110 comments
by Oui - Jan 21
by Oui - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 1841 comments
by Oui - Jan 1591 comments
by Oui - Jan 145 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1328 comments
by Oui - Jan 1221 comments
by Oui - Jan 1120 comments
by Oui - Jan 1034 comments