Sea rise could be catastrophic

[Janus]

BBC News

Earth could be headed for catastrophic sea level rise in the next few centuries if greenhouse gases continue to rise at present rates, experts say.

A study in the US journal Science suggests a threshold triggering a rise in sea level of several metres could be reached before the end of the century.

Scientists used an ancient period of warming to predict future changes.

Greenland could be as warm by 2100 as it was 130,000 years ago, when melting ice raised sea levels by 3-4m.

The implication is that Greenland would - eventually - melt by as much in response to present warming.

The findings come from two studies published in Science by Dr Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona in Tucson and colleagues.

Their computer models show that, in addition to widespread melting of the Greenland ice sheet, this rate of warming could also lead to the collapse of about half the West Antarctic ice sheet in 500 years.

Past lessons

Dr Overpeck's team used computer models to simulate the climate 130,000 years ago. Because Earth was tilted slightly more than today on its axis, more solar radiation hit the northern latitudes, driving warming there.

The researchers found that melting of the Greenland ice sheet could have raised sea levels by 2-3.5m. But they also concluded that the rest could have come from the West Antarctic ice sheet.

It was not as warm here, but much of the ice sheet remains below sea level. This, they believe, allowed warming ocean waters along with rising sea levels to destabilise it.

"The simulated climate warming agreed well with the observed climate warming," Dr Overpeck told the BBC News website, "So we had a firm estimate of how much warmth was necessary to cause that much sea level rise."

The researchers then compared this with simulations of future warming to learn how much sea level rise would be expected in future.

They estimate peak rates of sea level rise exceeding 1m per century.

'Danger zone'

"These processes of rapid ice sheet retreat are already happening. It just takes a while to get metres of sea level rise. But our study says that if we warm the Earth by more than two times of pre-industrial carbon dioxide equivalent levels, we could be entering the danger zone," said Dr Overpeck.

"The ice sheet retreat and sea level rise on the order of what happened 130,000 years ago is inevitable and irreversible."

Geoscientist Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University, who is not an author on the new paper, told Science: "Palaeoclimate always has a large amount of uncertainty, [but] we should take this as a serious warning sign. You could lock in a dangerous warming during this century."

Other work in the journal Science shows "earthquakes" caused by sudden movement of Greenland's glaciers are rising.

Some of Greenland's glaciers, which are as large as Manhattan and as tall as the Empire State Building, can move 10m in less than a minute, according to Harvard University scientists. This jolt is sufficient to generate seismic waves.

Not only has the frequency of these events increased, but they appear to occur more frequently in late summer than other parts of the year.

When water accumulates at a glacier's base, it acts as a lubricant causing large blocks to lurch down valleys.

"Greenland's glaciers deliver large quantities of fresh water to the oceans, so the implications for climate change are serious. We believe further warming of the climate is likely to accelerate the behaviour we've documented, said co-author Meredith Nettles at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, US.

[Janus]

BBC News

The poorest people in the world in Asia and Africa will be worst hit by climate change, a UK government report says.
It says droughts and floods fuelled partly by carbon emissions from countries such as the UK will hurt the same people targeted by overseas aid.

The report was obtained by BBC News under the Freedom of Information Act.

It says emissions are making natural disasters worse and warns that rising sea levels could undo more than half the development work in Bangladesh.

The internal report at the Department for International Development reveals the depth of concern shared by officials about climate change.

Rising seas

It warns that the cost of rising greenhouse gas emissions will fall predominantly on the poorest people who will be unable to cope.

Global warming, it forecasts, threatens to reduce India's farm output by as much as a quarter.

And half of the $1bn (£0.58bn) in aid given by rich nations to Bangladesh is at risk as sea levels rise.
In Africa, it says the number of people at risk from coastal flooding could rise from one million to 70 million by 2080.

It points out that natural disasters already cost donors $6bn annually, says BBC environment correspondent Roger Harrabin, and as 73% are climate-related, this bill is set to soar.

In a separate development, a study in the US journal Science suggests Earth could be headed for catastrophic increases in sea levels in the next few centuries.

If greenhouse gases continue to rise at present rates, it said, Greenland could be as warm by 2100 as it was 130,000 years ago, when melting ice raised sea levels by 3-4m.

[ack]

I've heard this before.

[Janus]

I've heard this before.
Yeah, this theory has been around for a while. It's just that now a prestigious journal has published an article about it and the new agencies are starting to comment more and more about global warming.

[Goatse]

I'll just go to the highlands...

Meh, wasn't this supposed to happen in 1970 or something? And they've predicted it again in 2030? I don't know the exact dates... but when it becomes inevitable that the catastrophe will happen, world leaders will no longer be able to ignore it and will take drastic action... and if we're too stupid to save ourselves, I guess it's nature's way of getting rid of the morons...

[redstar2000]

No doubt there is considerable merit to this study.

But "catastrophic"???

Perhaps many coastal cities will be entirely abandoned...as if humans haven't abandoned unsustainable cities before.

Others may be protected with massive levees...much larger and stronger than ones that exist now.

The poor will bear "most" of the burden...what's new about that?

They bear most of the burden now...that's what happens normally in a world dominated by imperialism.

It's going to be a warmer and wetter world for the next few centuries.

Get used to it.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Janus]

But "catastrophic"???
To a certain degree. It's not going to be the apocalypse or anything.


Perhaps many coastal cities will be entirely abandoned...as if humans haven't abandoned unsustainable cities before.
Or much of the entire SE coast.


Others may be protected with massive levees...much larger and stronger than ones that exist now.
That seems to be unfeasible for many places. For example most of Florida will be entirely flooded if the sea level increases 5 feet or more.


Get used to it.
I definitely will. Maybe I'll have beachfront property. :lol: What about you redstar?

[piet11111]

2-3.5 meters ?

thats nothing us dutchies are able to cope with worse :)

[pandora]

THis article highlights the situation of the global ice caps. Many are not in the comments looking at the depth and severtiy of the problem, Global Warming means this:

The ice caps are melting because the Earth's temperture is rising due to reduction of the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere coupled with increase of greenhouse gasses in the lower atmostphere resulting in global climate change for this planet similar to that prior to the ice age when the largest life form, dinasours were made extinct. We could easily be the new dinosaur. Although not as large our population has made us large in part because we are not caring for ourselves in a sustainable way with our local environments.

This is where the resistance of the petit bougeious is thickest among the managerial class in terms of dependency on luxuries beyond those of means that the planet can support.

THIS IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT:
Rising temperatures have caused not only the rise of oceans, and melting of the ice caps, but reduction of sea life. Also over fishing through trowling has devasted the sea bed. We are speaking of a major source of not only food but oxygen, and a needed filtration system for our planet. Coral reefs are symbolic of the rising devastation of our oceans. Also other forms of contaimination: air from coal plants creating acid rain has devastated forests needed for oxygen, poor people burning the wood of the hill sides has decimated forests needed for oxygen on the equator, nuclear contaimination from reactor cores has made large areas of our food supply poisonous, etc.

Our inability to find a proper form of energy is destroying us (with cancer) and our planet. Forget the crap about right lifestyle, I have found cancerous ulcers on the insides of fish. Who were completely one with their environment.

I agree with the concepts of a Communist Society it is necessary to stop the devastation and create a sustainable system, although I think with the state of the world after capitalism is what we need to discuss first and foremost environmental actions in addition to straight communist values to stop such catastrophes as the rising of the oceans due to the melting of the perennial ice off the polar ice caps, and overcoming the thousands of little wars which pollute our atmosphere.

Also, we need to reduce our energy consumption and switch off fossil fuels as much as possible. Far from alienating members of the movement, this may in fact broaden our base, as more and more human beings suffer the affects of global capitalism on the environment in the form of catastrophes and the lack of assistance to meet their needs warranting political change.

Right now the current world agencies are hard pressed to find the donations necessary after each global predictment caused by deforestation, rising ocean temperatures, and lose of polar ice caps, and ozone depletion catastrophe within the capitalist system to starve off growing resentment among not only those affected, but those observing the spectacle wondering if they will be next.

If we are to have factories we need to understand if they will be locally owned and operated, these are things we can discuss. Also, how resources will be controlled on the local level, and greater acknowledgement of Native rights in addition to resource preservation.

Without the dream, we will not be motivated, I understand that we need great change, and many people are dissatisfied with the current system, however, many people in the Global North will be hard pressed to give up some of the luxuries to which they have become accoustomed through the miracle of the global market.

Movement with reduction of use of fossil fuels will need to lessen, and people will be asked to use alternative means until greater technology is available. The current adminstrations have held back innovation in the need for control, but even without that, as Global North profiteers of the capitalist system, we in the global North will need to lower our consumption.

I have so many more things in my room than families I care for in Nicaragua own in their entire homes. We need to take a deep hard look at this climate of wastefulness, and lack of emotional love and satisfaction. This will be part of a Communist society. I do not wish for the asterity of the Soviet system, but a more sustainable vision in looking towards a Communist system

another sister. :wub:

[state's fiend]

Hmmmm ... A lot of rich people live along the coast in their decadent beachfront mansions. Hmmmm. Marx was right after all.

[redstar2000]

I recall reading a science fiction story many years ago which may be relevant here.

Rising sea levels "suddenly" (in geological terms) re-created the great inland sea that once dominated much of North America.

The mid-western grain belt completely disappeared under water that, in parts, extended into southern Canada. Memphis and Denver became "world class" seaports.

Most interestingly, this huge body of water drastically modified the whole climate of North America...orange trees could flourish in Colorado and Illinois.

It was a "shocking catastrophe" and took nearly a century to fully recover from...and yet people ended up loving their new ocean, especially after the sediment disappeared and the waters cleared.

When the world changes, so do people.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[piet11111]

i consider the global warming a political arrow in the hands of tree huggers.
a vulcano can spew out more greenhouse gasses in 1 eruption then the whole of mankind in a year.

the capitalists see a great opportunity to buy cleaner means of production that is subsidised by the government and to raise their prices and gain acces to the rather exclusive market of poeple that only buy "green" products.

why bother with energy efficient lightbulbs do you think the powerplant is going to decrease its energy output ?
its the perfect scam you pay more for less and you actually want it that way.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 01:09 AM

Others may be protected with massive levees...much larger and stronger than ones that exist now.

The poor will bear "most" of the burden...what's new about that?


Pfft, what do you know about poor levees and bearing the workers burden of bourgeois government? :P

It seems likely that global warming is happening. I personally think it is mostly a result of human disregard for the environment (bourgeois wastefulness) and not the Earth's "natural cycle". Such an elaborate change in the ecosystem would take a very long time if it was just the Earth "playing tricks on us" - humans are at least acting as a catalyst.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by clownpenisanarchy+Mar 27 2006, 04:50 AM--> (clownpenisanarchy @ Mar 27 2006, 04:50 AM)
[email protected] 25 2006, 01:09 AM

Others may be protected with massive levees...much larger and stronger than ones that exist now.

The poor will bear "most" of the burden...what's new about that?


Pfft, what do you know about poor levees and bearing the workers burden of bourgeois government? :P

It seems likely that global warming is happening. I personally think it is mostly a result of human disregard for the environment (bourgeois wastefulness) and not the Earth's "natural cycle". Such an elaborate change in the ecosystem would take a very long time if it was just the Earth "playing tricks on us" - humans are at least acting as a catalyst. [/b]
actually there are many geologists that say that climate changes happend faster then previously assumed.
then again other scientists disagree.

for instance if this global warming causes the gulf stream to reverse that could trigger a mini ice age in europe within from a geological point of view a blink of an eye.

[pandora]

A lot of these "comments" from scientists sound like hogwash when I can see the haze of pollution with my own eyes. We are not adapt at our global environment, the only way that industry will change is if the people force the government to clamp down on industry through a Socialized or Communist system.

Unfortunately, in the past the need to keep up with a global system that was predominantly Capitalist caused nations trying Marxist systems to continue or increase unrealistic levels of production, which was one of the things the former government had been overthrown to disengage mostly towards harm to workers.

We must address overproductivity, and global waste, I see people overuse products everywhere, a hundred years ago resource use was so much less, you kept a set of dishes in your family for generations, this is little more than a fad now.

One of the results of Hyper-Capitalism such as in the United States is Hyper-Consumption. Consumption as a substitute for lacking society and physical affection from others, this has been proven again and again. Many women in particular are "shopaholics" who spend money they do not have on needless items which are created in the most wasteful means possible in our environment, only to leave these items in a closet somewhere until they are used or thrown out. in a land fill or off the Atlantic Coast into a cest pool which has risen 7 degrees above normal temperature and resulted in all sorts of anomolies.

We must address this consumption if we are to address what a Communist future will look like. Also, when I address local ownership, I mean by local communities, not local individuals.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by New Orleans Times Picayune
Vulnerability blamed for sticker shock

A sinking landscape, rising sea levels and an increase in the frequency of tropical storms are the reason for a sudden jump -- from $3.5 billion to $9.5 billion -- in the estimated price tag for protecting southeast Louisiana from flooding in a major hurricane, scientists and engineers said this week.

The Bush administration has pledged to rebuild the system bigger and stronger, and asked Congress to spend about $3.5 billion to repair and rebuild levees around New Orleans. But this week, Gulf Coast Rebuilding Coordinator Donald Powell informed state officials that the Army Corps of Engineers had determined it could take another $6 billion to protect the region, raising questions about where the money would come from and whether some coastal communities might be left unprotected.

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/ind...75767237990.xml (http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-5/1143875767237990.xml)

Living on a warmer, wetter planet is going to be costly.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Janus]

Originally posted by AP Press
A man stands on a railroad track as a train rumbles closer. "Global warming?" he says. "Some say irreversible consequences are 30 years away. Thirty years. That won't affect me." He steps off the tracks — just in time. But behind him is a little blonde-haired girl left in front of the roaring train.

The screen goes black. A message appears: "There's still time."

It's just an ad, part of a campaign from the advocacy group Environmental Defense, which hopes to convince Americans they can do something about global warming, that there's still time.

But many scientists are not so sure that the oncoming train of global warming can be avoided. Temperatures are going to rise for decades to come because the chief gas that causes global warming lingers in the atmosphere for about a century.

"We certainly aren't going to stop that 18-wheeler that's rolling down the hill. In the short-term, I'm not sure that anyone can stop it," said John Walsh, director of the Center for Global Change and Arctic System Research at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks.

There are limits, experts say, to how much individuals can do. The best we can hope for is to prevent the worst — world-altering disasters like catastrophic climate change and a drastic rise in sea levels, say 10 leading climate scientists interviewed by The Associated Press. They pull out ominous phrases like "point of no return."

The big disasters are believed to be just decades away. Stopping or delaying them would require bold changes by both individuals and government.

"The big payoff is going to be for our children," said Tim Barnett, a senior scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California. "Together, if we take a concentrated action as a people, we might be able to slow it down enough to avoid these surprises."

But he and other scientists say it's too late to stop people from feeling the heat. Nearly two dozen computer models now agree that by 2100, the average yearly global temperature will be 3 to 6 degrees Fahrenheit higher than now, according to Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Even if today the world suddenly stops producing greenhouse gases, temperatures will rise 1 degree by 2050, according to NCAR.

A British conference on "avoiding dangerous climate change" last year concluded that a rise of just 3 degrees would likely lead to some catastrophic events, especially the melting of the Greenland's polar ice. A study in the journal Science last month said the melting, which is happening faster than originally thought, could trigger a 1- to 3-foot rise in global ocean levels.

Stephen Schneider of Stanford University put the odds of a massive Greenland melt at 50-50.

But Environmental Defense chief scientist Bill Chameides is more hopeful: "There's a certain amount of warming that's inevitable, but that doesn't mean that we can't avoid the really dangerous things that are happening."

Those dangerous things include: multi-century melts of polar ice sheets and an accompanying major sea level rise, abrupt climate change from a dramatic slowing of the ocean current systems, and the permanent loss of glacier-fed ancient water supplies for China, India and parts of South America.

Despite what scientists say, 70 percent of Americans believe it's possible to reduce the effects of global warming and 59 percent think their individual actions can help, according to a poll commissioned by Environmental Defense as part of its public service campaign.

Climate scientists find themselves in the delicate position of trying to balance calculations that lead to scientific despair with an optimistic public's hope.

"You don't give up," said Schneider, co-director of Stanford's Center for Environmental Science Policy. "If you have high blood pressure, do you sit there till you die or do you take Lasix (blood pressure medicine)?"

It takes decades to stabilize emissions of greenhouse gases — which are spewed by power plants, cars and factories — and another half-century after that to slow revved-up ocean warming, so "you're stuck with say 100 years of warming," said Barnett.

"I believe we are past the point of no return," he said. "What does the point of no return mean? To me, it means we've reached a point where we are seeing the impacts of global warming ... The question is: How much worse is it going to get? That is a case in which we can control our destiny — if we act now."

Both Barnett and Walsh said the question they get most from the public is: What can I do personally about global warming? They tell people to drive less and drive fuel-miserly cars, be more efficient about heating their homes.

But those efforts "are not going to change us from an irreversible course to a reversible one," said Walsh. "What you really want to say is: 'You can't go on like this. We can't go on like this.'"

Robert Correll, a top scientist in charge of an eight-country research program into Arctic problems caused by global warming, recognizes the contradictions, especially since developing nations such as China, India and those in Africa will play bigger roles in greenhouse gas pollution in the future.

The individual effort, Correll said, "is damn important, but you're not going to make much difference." That requires group or governmental action, he said.

Individual action, while crucial, "gets you 10, 20, 50 percent of the way," Schneider said.

Many of the scientists who have long been vocal skeptics of global warming now acknowledge that the Earth is getting hotter and that some of it is caused by people. Even so, this minority of scientists, such as John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, contend that the warming is "not on this dangerous trajectory."

But Environmental Defense is spending about $1.5 million over three years on the public service ads, including the child in front of the train, to drive home to the public that warming is on a dangerous track and that individuals can and should do something about it. The ads, released in late March and arranged with the Ad Council, which produced iconic anti-littering and anti-drunk driving campaigns, are being run for free nationwide, said Fred Krupp, Environmental Defense's executive director.

"We expect at least $100 million worth of time and space over the next two years, so it is a big deal," Krupp said. "When we are successful in making an issue that every American feels responsible to act on, that in itself can reduce emissions."

Krupp said scientists don't take into account the American will: "Don't underestimate the willpower of Americans when they take on a problem."

But computer model runs at the atmospheric center's Boulder, Colo., campus show Environmental Defense's train image might be too close to the truth.

"It's a train that's going downhill; that is something that people don't understand," Meehl said. "For anything to happen, it's going to have to take the public really being concerned about this problem."

[Wilfred]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 01:26 am
2-3.5 meters ?

thats nothing us dutchies are able to cope with worse :)
No, we're not. That is just for a temporary raise of the waterlevel. The fresh water bubble under the dunes would go away and that would not be good for agriculture.

as for your other quote, "a vulcano can spew out more greenhouse gasses in 1 eruption then the whole of mankind in a year." No, this hasn't happened in recent history. And no, Pinatubo didn't.