It is generally thought that "thermal expansion was the main driver of global sea level rise for 75 - 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution" (Causes of Sea Level Rise: What the Science Tells Us).
A post at Dredd Blog recently took a trip back to that era via a software model that has a "wayback machine" module in it.
Stumbling over and then analyzing some ancient records may have led to a discovery that may also lead to some modification of the concepts of the evolution of Industrial Revolution caused sea level change (SLC), whether in the form of sea level rise (SLR) or sea level fall (SLF) (The Evolution of Models - 18).
That Dredd Blog post points out that the year 1750 is associated with the beginning of "The Industrial Revolution."
The year 1750 + "75 - 100 years" is 1825 - 1850.
Contrary to current SLC science, the graph at Fig. 2 of the Dredd Blog post (Fig. 1 above in this post), indicates that sea level change was taking place circa 1774 at the ancient "tide gauge station" in Sweden.
The year 1774 is only 24 years after the date that the Industrial Revolution is generally said to have begun.
That graph at Fig. 1 above may be a fingerprint telling us that the Greenland ice sheet was melting by circa 1774, because thermal expansion by definition does not cause SLF, it causes only SLR.
That lifeblood is the current source of energy used by the entities conducting sea trade between and among nations, in the form of import and export of all manner of things.
How This Happened (The Repeating Cycle)
1) An improvident decision is made, to make or keep fossil fuels as the lifeblood of civilization (The Peak of Sanity - 3).
2) Causing increased amounts of fossil fuel use within civilization.
3) Thus, increasing the dumping of green house gases (GHG) into the atmosphere.
4) So, global air, land, and sea temperatures increase.
5) As land glaciers & polar ice sheets decrease at increasing rates.
6) In the form of more water & ice bergs entering the sea (a.k.a the mass of ice sheets).
12) if that resulting civilization does not conform, by passing The Test, then extinction of the larger species will continue until all of them become extinct.
The graphic, Fig. 1, depicts three generalized phases of ice sheet melt, as well as the resulting impact which the meltwater, or ice bergs flowing into the sea, have on sea level.
The color cyan represents the ice sheet mass, the color brown represents the land mass above and below sea level, and the color blue represents the ocean.
Fig. 2 depicts gravitational force which the ice mass, m1, exerts on the sea water, m2, around it.
The distance, d, between the centers of those two masses stays the same for the purpose of this process, but in general the greater the distance between the two masses, the weaker the force of gravity is.
As the ice melts or calves into the sea, m1 (ice mass) decreases, so the gravitational force exerted on the sea water, m2, weakens to the degree that the ice sheet's mass effectively disappears into the sea.
The sea level near the continent, therefore, falls to the degree that the ice sheet melts or calves into the sea, thereby causing m1 to decrease.
A. Phase I
In Phase 1, area "C" represents the Peak Sea Level near the continent upon which the ice sheet rests (e.g. Greenland or Antarctica).
The higher sea level near the continent is caused by the gravity associated with the ice sheet's mass, which exerts a force, a pull if you will, on the ocean water.
Area "B" is at the maximum distance, d, upon which the ice mass, m1, can exert gravitational influence on the sea water.
Area "A" is: the sea level that is unaffected by the gravitational pull of the ice sheet, but nevertheless is impacted by the increased quantity of water that has ended up in the sea as the ice sheet melts or calves off the continent.
B. Phase 2
In Phase 2, area "C" represents the Lowered Sea Level near the continent upon which the ice sheet rests (Greenland or Antarctica).
The lower sea level near the continent is caused by the decreased gravity associated with the ice sheet mass, which eventually exerts no more force or pull on the ocean.
In this phase the continent is still deformed from the past ice sheet's weight that had deformed the land before the ice sheet melted (a small amount of ice and/or meltwater is still in the deformed area because it can't slide up hill over the edge).
Area "B" is the at the maximum distance, d, upon which the ice mass, m1, once exerted gravitational influence on the sea water, m2.
Area "A" is: a) where the sea water ends up after being released from the gravitational pull of the ice sheet, as the ice sheet melts and its gravity therefore weakens; and b) where axial relocation and rotational forces of the Earth finally focus the sea level rise.
C. Phase 3
In Phase 3, area "C" represents the Lowest Sea Level near the continent upon which the ice sheet once rested (Greenland or Antarctica).
The lowest sea level near the continent is caused by the additional apparent sea level fall, now due primarily to the uplifting of the continent where the deformity had been.
Any ice or meltwater residue, which remained in the deformity, has now also been emptied into the sea.
Area "B" is where the lowered sea level now ends, and where the sea level begins to incrementally rise, because the melted ice sheet is now sea water.
Area "A" is: a) where the sea level rise ends up, after it has been released from the gravitational pull of the ice sheet; and b) where axial relocation and rotational forces of the Earth focus the sea level rise incrementally, until it reaches its maximum level.
D. Lunar Gravity Induced SLC
Even though the gravitational power of the Moon is far greater than the gravitational power
of an ice sheet, the impact on sea level is still a normal, everyday event along sea shores.
The graphic, Fig. 3, from Wikipedia, shows how the moon's gravity constantly causes mobile SLC on the oceans of the Earth.
Ice sheet gravity is the same force described by the same law of gravity (Fig. 2), but with weaker force.
The Moon causes high tide, however, the magnitude of that high tide, the high tide mark put on the beach, is altered by ice sheet gravity near the continent, and also altered away from the continent (area "A") by ice sheet melt-water that increases the water volume and level of the sea.
You might consider that several disciplines are involved, when comprehending both lunar and global warming induced SLC dynamics.
I am in reference to disciplines such as astronomy, astrophysics, oceanography, and climatology.
Climate scientists, oceanographers, and others, can benefit from interdisciplinary conferences, and the like, which can involve relevant scientific material that they might not otherwise consider (Weekend Rebel Science Excursion - 47).
III. How SLC Looks on a Map of The Earth
The video at the bottom of this post features Professor Jerry Mitrovica, Harvard University, talking about interdisciplinary perspectives, or the lack thereof, as a source of improper factor exclusion.
For example, astronomers ordinarily consider the effect of gravity on SLC, but climate scientists ordinarily consider melting ice sheets as the cause of SLC.
When the two disciplines merge in a global warming induced climate change scenario, each discipline benefits by comparing notes on the interdisciplinary issues.
The graphic Fig. 4 was presented in one such interdisciplinary conference where the video at the bottom of this post was made.
Fig. 5 SLC @ Antarctica (see video)
The same is true for Fig. 5.
They both show ice sheet gravity induced SLC.
Neither case is caused by the Moon's gravity.
Ice sheet gravity is every bit as critical to understanding global warming induced SLC, as lunar gravity is to understanding tidal SLC.
Both instances of the power of gravity are important to consider, because civilization cannot prepare for SLC without considering both sea level fall and sea level rise.
IV. Conclusion
Since international intercourse, in the form of sea based export and import trade and commerce, in all manner of goods, is a fundamental infrastructure of current civilization, we must consider the gravity of SLC on sea ports.
The links furnished in Section I of this post are good places to begin to comprehend the unexpected magnitude of the subject of endangered sea ports.
There are severe implications associated with facing the gravity of SLC.
The next post in this series is here.
Professor Jerry Mitrovica, Harvard University:
Lately, several Dredd Blog System posts have been concerned with the 1m / 3ft quantity of SLR.
That amount is generally considered to be a catastrophic event in today's configuration of civilization, because of the extensive use of ports, and the large populations along coasts (Will This Float Your Boat - 10).
It is specifically considered to be catastrophic along the East Coast from Cape Cod down to Cape Hatteras, because there has already been an SLR of about half that amount in that area (The 1% May Face The Wrath of Sea Level Rise First).
Additionally, there have been observations of surges in SLR there:
Coastal sea levels along continental margins often show significant year-to-year upward and downward fluctuations. These fluctuations are superimposed on a longer term upward trend associated with the rise in global mean sea level, with global mean sea level rising at roughly 3 mm per year during the recent 20 years of accurate satellite measures. For society, it is the regional changes along any particular coastal zone that are most important. Our analysis of multi-decadal tide gauge records along the North American east coast identified an extreme sea-level rise event during 2009–2010. Within this relatively brief two-year period, coastal sea level north of New York City jumped by up to 128 mm [5.05inches]. This magnitude of inter-annual sea level rise is unprecedented in the tide gauge records, with statistical methods suggesting that it was a 1-in-850 year event.
(Will This Float Your Boat - 5, quoting NOAA). Historically, possibly because there was no civilization or coastal population like there is today, a 1m / 3ft SLR is considered relatively minor:
However, meltwater pulse 1C (8,200-7,600 years ago) left traces at numerous locations in the United States, northwestern Europe, and China. It occurred soon after the 8200 year cold event, which resulted from the final catastrophic drainage of glacial Lakes Agassiz and Ojibway around 8400 years ago. The torrent of around 100,000 cubic kilometers unleashed within a few years or less amounted to barely a meter rise in global sea level, if evenly spread across the world's oceans (note 1). Yet the stratigraphic record preserves vestiges of this relatively minor pulse.
(NASA GISS, emphasis added; cf. here). We can say that before the United States existed, surges of SLR of 1m / 3ft have taken place here, even leaving evidence of their existence in the geological record.
III. Surge "Climate" Is With Us Right Now
As noted above, SLR surges are taking place now on the North East Coast, and SLR surges have taken place there in the geographical area now called the U.S.A.
It has happened in the not very distant past (geologically speaking).
Yes, as the NASA GISS quote above points out, SLR surges have taken place "recently."
That "recently" is about 8,000 years ago, after the beginnings of human civilization ("The Anthropocene") had already taken place (e.g. Göbekli Tepe).
That surge was of course not linked to anthropogenic global warming induced climate change as surges in temperatures are now:
Anthropogenically driven climate changes, which are expected to impact human and natural systems, are often expressed in terms of global-mean temperature. The rate of climate change over multi-decadal scales is also important, with faster rates of change resulting in less time for human and natural systems to adapt. We find that present trends in greenhouse-gas and aerosol emissions are now moving the Earth system into a regime in terms of multi-decadal rates of change that are unprecedented for at least the past 1,000 years. The rate of global-mean temperature increase in the CMIP5 (ref. 3) archive over 40-year periods increases to 0.25 ± 0.05 °C (1σ) per decade by 2020, an average greater than peak rates of change during the previous one to two millennia. Regional rates of change in Europe, North America and the Arctic are higher than the global average. Research on the impacts of such near-term rates of change is urgently needed.
(Nature Climate Change, emphasis added). The East Coast of the U.S. is in the scope or sights of abrupt SLR surges ("... meltwater pulse 1C ... left traces at numerous locations in the United States" - ibid, NASA GISS, Section II, above).
Surges now are being caused by the same events that have caused them in the past:
Due to meltwater, lakes form atop the ice sheet in the summer – scientists call them “supraglacial lakes” — and they can grow to be quite large. And in July 2006, one large lake, over 2 square miles in area, suddenly vanished. It lost most of its water in under two hours – researchers calculated that the rate of drainage “exceeded the average flow rate over Niagara Falls.” ... "Water-driven fracture propagation beneath supraglacial lakes rapidly transports large volumes of surface meltwater to the base of the Greenland Ice Sheet. These drainage events drive transient ice-sheet acceleration and establish conduits for additional surface-to-bed meltwater transport for the remainder of the melt season. Although it is well established that cracks must remain water-filled to propagate to the bed the precise mechanisms that initiate hydro-fracture events beneath lakes are unknown. Here we show that, for a lake on the western Greenland Ice Sheet,
The vanishing lakes mystery solved?
drainage events are preceded by a 6–12 hour period of ice-sheet uplift and/or enhanced basal slip. Our observations from a dense Global Positioning System (GPS) network allow us to determine the distribution of meltwater at the ice-sheet bed before, during, and after three rapid drainages in 2011–2013, each of which generates tensile stresses that promote hydro-fracture beneath the lake. We hypothesize that these precursors are associated with the introduction of meltwater to the bed through neighbouring moulin systems (vertical conduits connecting the surface and base of the ice sheet). Our results imply that as lakes form in less crevassed, interior regions of the ice sheet, where water at the bed is currently less pervasive, the creation of new surface-to-bed conduits caused by lake-draining hydro-fractures may be limited."
Ice melt produced lakes that grew large and suddenly emptied.
We see, then, that the same conditions exist now.
Again: existing conditions now are just like those back then which caused a surge of 1m / 3f of SLR. "within a few years or less."
IV. What Is Different Between Then and Now?
Back then, a 1m / 3ft SLR was considered to be a "relatively minor pulse" for that time, but the same surge now would be a serious catastrophe (Greenland & Antarctica Invade The United States). Nevertheless, the current warming climate conditions are expected to accelerate absent a proper response from current civilization.
The large coastal populations now, as well as the dependency on international trade via sea ports, means that the difference, in terms of loss of life and infrastructure, couldn't be more pronounced.
V. Conclusion
The beginning of a sudden SLR, which would reach a level of 1m / 3ft, could take place at any time, because the conditions for an SLR surge already exist right now.
It would reach catastrophic levels "within a few years or less" if it follows the pattern of events that took place about 7,000-8,000 years ago.
The laws of physics have not changed in that relatively short span of time. The myth about it taking centuries, or decade upon decade, should be discarded (Why Sea Level Rise May Be The Greatest Threat To Civilization - 3). We really do not have plenty of time, all we have is daily exposure to a roll of the dice, and a possibility of failing The Test (The Tenets of Ecocosmology).
A surge @ Totten Glacier area is a new problem:
In the Dredd Blog System, which includes Ecocosmology Blog, there have been several posts concerning the impact of Greenland on the Northeast U.S. from Cape Cod, MA south to Cape Hatteras, NC (e.g.The Question Is: How Much Acceleration Is Involved In SLR - 5?).
The gist of the subject matter is that catastrophic sea level rise (SLR) is much, much closer, in time and in geography, than is being reported in mainstream media.
To spark our interest, and bind ourselves to a sober view of this phenomenon which is called "The Biggest Story in the World" (according to a worldwide circulation news source), first consider the following quote from the video below:
2:43 - "One meter [of SLR] would be a global catastrophic event, 3 meters would remap the world as we know it?"
2:50 - "Yes, absolutely."
(emphasis added). This allows us to focus our attention on 1m / 3ft. of SLR, because it would be "a global catastrophic event."
The delicacy of the issue can be seen (Fig. 2) by realizing that only 1.14% of the global ice volume needs to melt to get us there (3 ft ÷ 263.5 ft. = 0.011385 = 1.14%).
The overall invader needs to use only 1.14% of its forces to accomplish the invasion.
B. Invasion Forces from Antarctica
If a certain percentage of one glacier (the Totten Glacier) in East Antarctica melts, or otherwise slides into the sea, the same will happen:
How little it will take can also easily be seen by a statement from a scientist who is studying those locations closely and regularly:
"One of them, Totten glacier, holds the equivalent of seven metres of global sea level."
Thus, the percentage of global ice that has to melt to get us to "a global catastrophic event" in that area is now one half of what it was.
In Section II.A above, that global percentage is expressed as 1.14%, so (1.14% ÷ 2) = 0.57% (less than 1% until D-Day SLR day).
That is to say, when 0.57% more of global ice melts and its ice or water reaches the sea, the invasion of the U.S. East Coast will be accomplished.
B. Considering Only the Totten Glacier Invasion Force
In Section II.B above, it was pointed out that "3 ft. / 1 m. of SLR" would be attained if only 14.3% of one glacier (Totten Glacier) in Antarctica reaches the sea.
Since we are already half-way there, the remaining percentage is (14.3% ÷ 2 ) 7.15%.
C. Considering Only the Ice Streams of Greenland
In Section II.C above, it was pointed out that "3 ft. / 1 m. of SLR" would be attained on the East Coast of the U.S. if only 14% of Greenland ice streams reach the sea.
D. Considering The Combined Invasion Forces
Since we were looking at those ice melt events individually, as separate, singular occurrences, consider the reality that all of these SLR causing ice melt events are happening at the same time.
Now!
That is, all the mentioned ice streams in Greenland, as well as the Totten Glacier in Antarctica, are already melting at the same time.
Add to that, the fact that many, many other glaciers in both Greenland and Antarctica, that were not mentioned, are also part of the invasion forces of melting ice induced SLR.
IV. Why?
The reason this is happening is because current civilization is not complying with the Tenets of Ecocosmology.
Therefore current civilization is failing The Test (ibid).
Our civilization is lost in space, living on a planet that is not understood sufficiently (You Are Here).
Whether intentional or not, the discussions of sea level rise (SLR) are problematic (Agnotology).
On Internet sites, in newspapers, and in magazines, SLR discussions tend to be either inaccurate, unclear, and overly complicated, or a combination of all three.
It becomes more accurate, clearer, and more simplified, when our focus is sharpened by isolating the fundamental dynamics involved.
That can easily be done by:
1) knowing the SLR potential
2) knowing key active melt zones
3) focusing on acceleration of melt
4) knowing how much SLR is catastrophic
The first item is shown in Fig. 1 above.
The second item is also shown in Fig. 1 (Greenland & Antarctica).
The third item for those two locations has been expressed by noting that from 2009 through 2013 the melt in those two locations doubled to 500 km3 yr. (according to Cryosat-2 satellite data).
Greenland's share of that acceleration was 75% of that melt (375 km3 yr.), and Antarctica's share was 25% of that melt (125 km3 yr.).
Thus, all we need to know is when the ongoing melt in Greenland and/or Antarctica will result in a 3 ft. global SLR (which is a function of acceleration of SLR).
Those who are crafting risk management plans have detected some problems with our ability to know when future acceleration will be catastrophic:
"As ports are operational hubs for the logistics supply chain, it is appropriate for ports to undertake an assessment in partnership with key logistics providers and /or local governments. While climate change may impact ports locally, it is often disruptions to the supply chain and local infrastructure that compound disruptions at the actual port, emphasising the need to work collaboratively on a broader climate risk and adaptation strategy [think global SLR impact].
However, several barriers to climate adaptation have been recognised (Becker 2011, IAPH 2011, UKCIP 2007), including inconsistency between organisational planning timeframes (5 – 15 years) compared with climate projections of 30 – 90 years; as well as the uncertainty of local climate projections leading to decision-makers delaying action until there is perceived to be more certainty. To help address these concerns, this report proposes a hybrid “risk / vulnerability” approach to understanding and adapting to climate change. That is, consideration of current day vulnerabilities to extreme weather events, integrated with an assessment of future climate risks." (Climate Resilient Ports, emphasis added).
"First proposed more than 20 years ago, the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project has been studied and delayed more times over the past two decades than anyone can count. So it’s no surprise that the big news at the Georgia Ports Authority (GPA) this year has been the approval of the massive project to deepen the Savannah River and harbor to expand the Port of Savannah’s capacity.
The Savannah Harbor Expansion Project (SHEP) finally got the go-ahead in October – 15 years after it first received a congressional OK in 1999 – when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Georgia Department of Transportation and the GPA signed a Project Partnership Agreement (PPA). After years of studies, delays and lawsuits that both stalled the project and pushed projected costs sky high, construction was scheduled to begin by the end of 2014 on what has been called the most critical infrastructure development project in Georgia in decades." (Georgia Trend, emphasis added).
This illustrates two major problems: 1) the problem that arises when science is done for scientists, rather than for the public safety and benefit; and 2) the problem of the speed of climate change induced SLR acceleration, compared with the speed of officialdom "adapting to" any kind of appropriate change.
One does not have to be a climate scientist or oceanographer to look at contour maps in order to be able to see where SLR will show up further inland, literally moving coasts and boundaries around the world:
"Sliced by population rather than city, and looking at today rather than the future, the report found that about 10 percent of the affected cities’ populations, or a total of about 40 million people, and $3 trillion of property, are already susceptible to these devastating, once-in-a-century floods (and of that $3 trillion, 60 percent is found in just three countries: the U.S., Japan, and the Netherlands). By 2070, says the report, the combined effects of population growth, migration to cities, and rising seas will boost those numbers to 120 million people and $35 trillion.”
Scientific groups, for some time now, have realized that "determinations of when" have been consistently underestimated and/or overlooked:
Changes in the area and volume of the two polar ice sheets in Antarctica ... and Greenland are intricately linked to changes in global climate, and could result in sea-level changes that could severely affect the densely populated coastal regions on Earth. Melting of the West Antarctica part of the Antarctic ice sheet alone could cause a sea-level rise of approximately 6 meters (m). The potential sea-level rise after melting of the entire Antarctic ice sheet is estimated to be about 73 m. In spite of its importance, the mass balance (the net volumetric gain or loss) of the Antarctic ice sheet is poorly known; it is not known whether the ice sheet is growing or shrinking. As a result, measurement of changes in the Antarctic ice sheet has been given a very high priority in recommendations by the Polar Research Board of the National Research Council, by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), and by the National Science Foundation’s Office of Polar Programs.
(USGS 2005, emphasis added). Therefore, they are leaning toward changing that defect.
What was "poorly known," as recently as ten years ago, is now becoming known to "a more reasonable degree" (as pointed out by the earlier discussion of Cryosat-2 data).
What we see, then, is that civilization had spent untold trillions in order to make endless war, go to the moon, asteroids, comets, and other planets, but we had not all arrived on Earth yet (You Are Here).
We did not know about the great danger of Antarctic ice melt, which would bring down current civilization (240.53 ft. of SLR, see Fig. 1).
Nevertheless, it is becoming much more clear, day by day, that we are failing The Test (The Tenets of Ecocosmology).
Oscillation in Greenland melt rates:
One series of posts at Dredd Blog gives an indication of some difficulties that repeatedly arise.
Difficulties that arise any time anyone seriously and honestly wants to be accurate about future Sea Level Rise (SLR) on planet Earth, and the impact that SLR will have on civilization.
Yes, when one wants to be accurate enough to present a reliable projection of SLR that even Goldilocks could "live with," which is, not too high and not too low, but "just right."
That Dredd Blog series is Will This Float Your Boat, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, which shows that Goldilocks is not going to be very happy with the results, no matter how those projections might eventually end up.
What I want to do here, then, since this blog has far fewer posts compared to Dredd Blog, is to condense the dynamics involved into a simple description of some of the techniques being used to calculate future SLR.
The exercise is not to discover "what technique would Goldilocks subscribe to," because, we are concerning ourselves with projections of futureSLR.
Remember that Goldilocks only worked with the exact present, not with the less certain future, so, she could make ultimate conclusions that were ultimately accurate.
We can't.
But, we can be scientific and comprehensive, which generally requires us to be empty of fear, underestimation, and overestimation, to a reasonable degree.
II. Question: What Is At Stake First?
We can ask the ultimate question for the future, which is, "how much SLR will it take to bring down current civilization?"
Which begs the question: "what do you mean 'civilization'?"
That question has been asked and answered previously in 2009:
World civilization means the nations of the world interconnected by trade, travel, treaties, and international commerce.
So, when climate change scientists talk about dangers to the existence of civilization they do not mean that the population of human beings as a species is going to become extinct.
In other words, the human species would live on even if civilization ended.
For example, Greenland alone has enough ice that if that ice was to melt it
That alone would destroy the ocean-port cities of the civilized world, and thereby destroy world civilization by destroying its primary commerce.
But if you add Antarctica to the equation, much more than just the coastal ports would be lost, because the ocean level would rise beyond belief.
Scientists have not been worried about Antarctica before 2006 when it was shown that some of its western ice sheet was getting a bit shaky.
The eastern ice sheet, however, was considered to be "inviolate", meaning "not to worry", nothing will ever happen to it.
But like many things climate scientists considered to be "inviolate", the eastern ice sheet of Antarctica is now going somewhere ...
(What Do You Mean - World Civilization?). Civilization, in the sense that it is something being damaged by SLR, is a realm of trade in high volumes of goods and services.
Goods and services that are constantly being negotiated 24/7 between and among nations around the globe.
A three-foot SLR, IMO, will curtail that commerce abruptly.
That is because the seaports, where international commerce takes place and where goods are shipped and received incessantly, will be impaired by SLR.
Civilization, as we know it, will go through changes to the point that we will not easily recognize it as the civilization it once was, once SLR gets done with it.
Stop-gap measures (such as air freighting everything, or anchoring cargo ships off shore, then ferrying smaller amounts to shore with a flotilla of smaller vessels), won't be sufficient enough to keep prices, delivery schedules, and the like, "economically civilized" as it is now.
III. One Method of Graphing Future SLR
The technique used to generate a graph below, (Fig. 3), begins by using the USGS data (Fig. 1 above) indicating the maximum SLR possible from ice melt at various locations around the globe.
Second, we calculate the current melt rate of ice taken by a satellite, Cryosat-2, specifically designed and put in orbit for that purpose:
Measurements from ESA’s CryoSat mission have been used to map the height of the huge ice sheets that blanket Greenland and Antarctica and show how they are changing. New results reveal combined ice volume loss at an unprecedented rate of 500 cubic kilometres a year.
...
The resulting maps reveal that Greenland alone is reducing in volume by about 375 cubic kilometres a year.
...
The researchers say the ice sheets’ annual contribution to sea-level rise has doubled since 2009. [Table 1 type contribution - i.e. thermal sea level rise (additional) is not included in that doubling]
Glaciologist Angelika Humbert, another of the study’s authors, added, “Since 2009, the volume loss in Greenland has increased by a factor of about two and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet by a factor of three."
(ESA Cryosat, emphasis added). Next, we use a formula to reduce the 2009-2013 exact measurements, done by that satellite, into a useful acceleration percentage:
L = [ (f / s)(1 / y) ] - 1 :
Where:
L = acceleration of ice-volume-loss per year
f = final volume of loss-per-yr (~500 km3)
s = starting volume of loss-per-yr (~250 km3)
y = number of years (~5)
L = [(500/250)(1/5)] - 1
L = (2.2) - 1
L = 1.148698355 - 1
L = .148698355 L = 14.87% annualice loss increase 1/1/09 - 12/31/13
Test (2009-2013):
2009) 250 x 1.148698355 = 287.17458875
2010) 287.17458875. x 1.148698355 = 329.876977695
2011) 329.876977695 x 1.148698355 = 378.929141631
2012) 378.929141631 x 1.148698355 = 435.275281653
2013) 435.275281653 x 1.148698355 = 500.000000006
Ok, that checks out.
Next, the 14.87% acceleration rate for that time frame is used pro rata on the various locations, using each SLR value provided in Table 1 above (USGS data) as the applicable SLR in a given area on which that acceleration takes place.
That is, we can extrapolate and apply that acceleration rate to SLR values, at each location, based on their percentage of global SLR (e.g. Greenland has a 21.49 ft. maximum SLR, while W. Antarctica has a 26.44 ft. maximum SLR).
One caveat here is that this acceleration rate, which actually doubled the ice volume loss in 5 years, could be a surge.
That is, it may not be a continuing acceleration rate, so we must watch that rate from time to time, then make adjustments accordingly if the rate fluctuates.
IV. The Melt Zones
Another factor, involved in graphing future SLR, is that Greenland and Antarctica have zones where various rates of melt, or no melt, are taking place at different times, or at the same time.
The gist of it is that melt of various sorts is ongoing both sequentially and concurrently.
The coastal zones began, or will begin, to melt first in each location.
Later, peak melt is reached, then it gradually subsides, until all the ice in that zone has melted into water, which then flows into the ocean (causing SLR).
Meanwhile, another zone further inland begins to melt, peak, subside, and so on and so forth.
The difficulty is to know when the melt begins, peaks, and subsides completely, which is why we call the software (which generates the values we use to make the graphs) a "model."
On the bright side, beginning with known values makes the models work better, even in those mysterious "when" zones of future melt, and subsequent SLR.
V. A Graph To Test The Model
The graph, Fig. 3, is a model projection which extends out to the year 2200, which, as you can see, has some lines that end abruptly.
Fig. 3 (click to enlarge)
That happens when the USGS figures for maximum SLR, in a particular location, have been reached.
For example, Greenland's line will stop when 21.49 feet of SLR has taken place, and areas with lesser SLR values will stop sooner, eventually leaving only the line for Antarctica (because it does not all melt in the graph's time frame).
This is not as shocking, at first blush, as one might think if a quick computation is made.
A computation based on a recent scientific observation that for every 1°C of global temperature rise, there is a ∼2.3 meter SLR (Strauss PNAS, PDF, cf Potsdam Institute).
A 4°C rise in temperature is expected before 2100 (ibid), which equates to a 9.2 meter SLR (4 * 2.3 = 9.2).
The 9.2 meter SLR equates to a 30.1837 ft. SLR (9.2 m = 30.1837 ft.).
The Fig 3 graph above, generated by the model's projection algorithm, indicates a 21.0734 ft. SLR by 2100 (software model's print out for that year: "2100, .... , 21.0734").
That is 9.1103 ft. (30.2%) below the 30.1837 ft. maximum potential SLR implicated by a 4°C rise in temperature.
Which is not inconsistent, because some delay between temperature rise and SLR is to be expected.
But the timing of the delay (how much when), is not easy to calculate because of all the variants.
Nevertheless, we do know, by Cryosat-2 measurements, that 500 cu. km3 of ice is currently melting each year.
It was only 250 cu. km3 in 2009, so the melt amount doubled between 2009-2013, which is a 14.87% acceleration rate as shown above in Section III.
So, the projected melt in the model that produced Fig 3. seems to be reasonably within maximum SLR expectations.
During the 85 years of that quantity of ice loss between now and 2100, a significant acceleration of temperature also means an acceleration of ice melt.
VI. Implications
The three foot level I talked about, in Section II above, is shown on the graph (Fig. 3) as taking place in 2033, a little less than two decades from this year (2015).
But, SLR does not stop there does it?
VII. Conclusion
That, if accurate, clearly shows why global warming induced climate change has been called, by the President and the Pentagon, the number one threat to national security.
In this post I will emphasize the importance of competent nomenclature as a foundation of coherent communication.
Our civilization is now endangered because of defective communication which damages understanding and nullifies intelligence.
First off, let's look at some recent disasters, and some that happened further back in time, to see exactly why nomenclature and coherent communication is vital.
Not many know that the sinking of the Titanic is an example of a disaster caused by bad nomenclature:
The saga of the Titanic now takes a new turn, with the benefit of the viewpoint of a family member of one of the officers who was on the Titanic:
Two different [steering] systems were in operation at the time, Rudder Orders (used for steam ships) and Tiller Orders (used for sailing ships).
Crucially, Mrs Patten said, the two steering systems were the complete opposite of one another, so a command to turn 'hard a-starboard' meant turn the wheel right under one system and left under the other."
She said when the helmsman, who had been trained in sail, received the direction, he turned the vessel [to the right] towards the iceberg with tragic results.
Mrs Patten has worked the story of the catastrophe into her latest novel, Good As Gold.
She said that while Charles Lightoller was not on watch at the time of the collision, a dramatic final meeting of the four senior officers took place in the first officer's cabin shortly before Titanic went down.
There, Lightoller heard not only about the fatal mistake, but also what happened next up on the bridge.
While the helmsman had made a straightforward error, what followed was a deliberate decision, she claimed.
Lightoller was the only survivor to know that after the iceberg was hit, Bruce Ismay, chairman of Titanic's owner, the White Star Line, persuaded Captain Smith to continue sailing [causing the ship to sink quickly].
The truth of what happened on that historic night was deliberately buried, she said.
(BBC News). That recent revelation, hidden for a century, can be used to look at the current political structure of the USA.
(Titanic Mistakes Using The W Compass). The directive 'hard a-starboard' meant two different things, it meant either 'left' or 'right' as it were.
That defective nomenclature caused many deaths, and it is not limited to ships on the waters:
Unlike the control yokes of a Boeing jetliner, the side sticks on an Airbus are "asynchronous"—that is, they move independently. "If the person in the right seat is pulling back on the joystick, the person in the left seat doesn't feel it," says Dr. David Esser, a professor of aeronautical science at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. "Their stick doesn't move just because the other one does, unlike the old-fashioned mechanical systems like you find in small planes, where if you turn one, the [other] one turns the same way."
Robert has no idea that, despite their conversation about descending, Bonin has continued to pull back on the side stick.
The men are utterly failing to engage in an important process known as crew resource management, or CRM. They are failing, essentially, to cooperate. It is not clear to either one of them who is responsible for what, and who is doing what. This is a natural result of having two co-pilots flying the plane. "When you have a captain and a first officer in the cockpit, it's clear who's in charge," Nutter explains. "The captain has command authority. He's legally responsible for the safety of the flight. When you put two first officers up front, it changes things. You don't have the sort of traditional discipline imposed on the flight deck when you have a captain." (What Really Happened Aboard Air France 447)
(Titanic Mistakes Using The W Compass - 2). Over at Dredd Blog there is a post showing how coherent remedial response to global climate change is similarly plagued:
"... I want to focus on those beliefs that "God is doing the climate change if there is any, because human civilization is not capable of doing anything that could change the climate" (Ergo AnthropogenicDeigenic climate change).
Let's use the religious beliefs of two human public figures, Pope Francis and Senator Inhofe, to get the criticism in gear.
Pope Francis is of the faith that anthropogenic climate change is the reality, and that endangering and harming humanity by damaging the Earth is sin (Message of Science & Religion - Western - 2).
(Weekend Rebel Science Excursion - 39). The consensus of scientists is that the problem is anthropogenic climate change, while some religious tenets agree with that, others do not.
It amounts to a theory of deigenic climate change (God is doing it) or anthropomorphic climate change (human civilization is doing it).
There are two steering systems to correct those two different conclusions, one humanly operated, the other not.
1) prayer by the deigenic climate change believers, or
2) technological changes to implement a new energy system that is free from fossil fuels by those who adhere to the science about anthropomorphic climate change.
Governments must get a grip on a situation which IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has ignored. A strategy of mitigation and adaptation is doomed to fail. It will be impossible to adapt to the worst consequences of global warming, as IPCC suggests.
The Arctic must be cooled, ASAP, to prevent the sea ice disappearing with disastrous global consequences. Rapid warming in the Arctic, as sea ice retreats, has already disrupted the jet stream. The resulting escalation in weather extremes is causing a food crisis which must be addressed before the existing conflicts in Asia and Africa spread more widely.
Dangerous global warming and ocean acidification must be prevented by reducing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, especially by improved agricultural practice, thereby addressing the food crisis at the same time.
This is an unprecedented opportunity for international collaboration for common purpose.
(AMEG Declaration). Following are some other links and stuff you may find interesting:
