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.
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...
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 22 3 comments
by Cat - Jan 25 33 comments
by Oui - Jan 9 21 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 13 28 comments
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 15 90 comments
by gmoke - Jan 7 13 comments
by gmoke - Jan 29
by Oui - Jan 2731 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 263 comments
by Cat - Jan 2533 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 223 comments
by Oui - Jan 2110 comments
by Oui - Jan 21
by Oui - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 1839 comments
by Oui - Jan 1590 comments
by Oui - Jan 144 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1328 comments
by Oui - Jan 1219 comments
by Oui - Jan 1120 comments
by Oui - Jan 1031 comments
by Oui - Jan 921 comments
by NBBooks - Jan 810 comments
by Oui - Jan 717 comments
by gmoke - Jan 713 comments