Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Except we are talking about a 100% certainty of doom for the whole icesheet.

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

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Tue Sep 8th, 2009 at 03:04:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I believe a sea level rise of 15 meters was brought up by you in this discussion out of the blue, and I questioned that. My point remains that this figure appeared out of thin air with no particular reference to anything, and no time frame.

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.

by Nomad on Wed Sep 9th, 2009 at 03:50:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not out of thin air. The premise was that Greenland had melted -it was said to be prime real estate.

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

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Wed Sep 9th, 2009 at 04:24:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No one talked about Greenland's ice melting completely prior to you bringing up 15 meters. So the premise may have been yours at first, and may not have been communicated that well. In any case, it wasn't clear to me.

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?

by Nomad on Wed Sep 9th, 2009 at 05:14:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I said nothing about Greenland melting completely or becoming prime estate. I said it was a climate winner. Any heating of that dreadful place will make it a nicer place to live, and will make petroleum and mineral exploitation less of a hassle.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Wed Sep 9th, 2009 at 12:35:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series