"What brings about the great shifts in the world of literature? Often
it is when someone seizes upon a simple, overlooked form, discounted as
art in the higher sense, and makes it mutate. Thus, at one point,
emerged the modern novel from anecdote and letter, thus arose drama in a
new age from high jinx on planks placed on barrels in a marketplace,
thus songs in the vernacular dethroned learned Latin poetry, thus too
did La Fontaine take animal fables and Hans Christian Andersen fairy
tales from the nursery to Parnassian heights. Each time this occurs, our
idea of literature changes.
In itself, it ought not to be a sensation that a singer/songwriter
now stands recipient of the literary Nobel Prize. In a distant past, all
poetry was sung or tunefully recited, poets were rhapsodes, bards,
troubadours; ‘lyrics’ comes from ‘lyre’. But what Bob Dylan did was not
to return to the Greeks or the Provençals. Instead, he dedicated himself
body and soul to 20th century American popular music, the kind played
on radio stations and gramophone records for ordinary people, white and
black: protest songs, country, blues, early rock, gospel, mainstream
music. He listened day and night, testing the stuff on his instruments,
trying to learn. But when he started to write similar songs, they came
out differently. In his hands, the material changed. From what he
discovered in heirloom and scrap, in banal rhyme and quick wit, in
curses and pious prayers, sweet nothings and crude jokes, he panned
poetry gold, whether on purpose or by accident is irrelevant; all
creativity begins in imitation.
Even after fifty years of uninterrupted exposure, we are yet to
absorb music’s equivalent of the fable’s Flying Dutchman. He makes good
rhymes, said a critic, explaining greatness. And it is true. His rhyming
is an alchemical substance that dissolves contexts to create new ones,
scarcely containable by the human brain. It was a shock. With the public
expecting poppy folk songs, there stood a young man with a guitar,
fusing the languages of the street and the bible into a compound that
would have made the end of the world seem a superfluous replay. At the
same time, he sang of love with a power of conviction everyone wants to
own. All of a sudden, much of the bookish poetry in our world felt
anaemic, and the routine song lyrics his colleagues continued to write
were like old-fashioned gunpowder following the invention of dynamite.
Soon, people stopped comparing him to Woody Guthrie and Hank Williams
and turned instead to Blake, Rimbaud, Whitman, Shakespeare.
In the most unlikely setting of all – the commercial gramophone
record – he gave back to the language of poetry its elevated style, lost
since the Romantics. Not to sing of eternities, but to speak of what
was happening around us. As if the oracle of Delphi were reading the
evening news.
Recognising that revolution by awarding Bob Dylan the Nobel Prize was
a decision that seemed daring only beforehand and already seems
obvious. But does he get the prize for upsetting the system of
literature? Not really. There is a simpler explanation, one that we
share with all those who stand with beating hearts in front of the stage
at one of the venues on his never-ending tour, waiting for that magical
voice. Chamfort made the observation that when a master such as La
Fontaine appears, the hierarchy of genres – the estimation of what is
great and small, high and low in literature – is nullified. “What matter
the rank of a work when its beauty is of the highest rank?” he wrote.
That is the straight answer to the question of how Bob Dylan belongs in
literature: as the beauty of his songs is of the highest rank.
By means of his oeuvre, Bob Dylan has changed our idea of what poetry
can be and how it can work. He is a singer worthy of a place beside the
Greeks’ ἀοιδόι, beside Ovid, beside the Romantic visionaries, beside
the kings and queens of the Blues, beside the forgotten masters of
brilliant standards. If people in the literary world groan, one must
remind them that the gods don’t write, they dance and they sing. The
good wishes of the Swedish Academy follow Mr. Dylan on his way to coming
bandstands."
What does "this century" mean, other than being vague enough to be used by Oil-Qaeda funded corporate media as a cover up of the fact that the effects of global warming are happening today?
"This century" ends in 83 years on December 31, 2099.
If 83 years sounds like a science fiction time frame way off in the future, note that 83 years ago ("the past century?") was 1933.
That was not way back into the age of the dinosaurs, no, it was just over a decade after WW I, and it was just short of a decade prior to WW II.
It is the same propaganda technique when the corporate media uses "your grandchildren will be impacted by global warming if we don't do something in the coming years."
There are millions of people alive today who were born back then or some few years after, just as some people born "today" or near today, will have a lifespan that reaches out 83 years from now.
And, it will continue to happen for a science-fiction sounding amount of time into the future.
Remember, the industrial revolution, which was enhanced by burning fossil fuels, began circa 1750.
That would calculate to "3.2 centuries ago" by this 83 year scale [(2016−1750)÷83 = 3.2].
II. Take Sea Level Change As An Example
The photo at the top of the post is a photo of what is already happening in Florida "nowadays."
Consider also the weather forecast for today, further north on the East Coast:
COASTAL FLOOD ADVISORY REMAINS IN EFFECT FROM 7 PM THIS EVENING TO 1 AM EDT SUNDAY...
Fig. 2
* LOCATION ... COASTAL AREAS OF NEW JERSEY AND DELAWARE AND AREAS ALONG DELAWARE BAY.
* COASTAL FLOODING ... MINOR FLOODING IS ANTICIPATED AROUND THE TIME OF THIS EVENING'S HIGH TIDE.
* TIMING ... HIGH TIDE ON THE NEW JERSEY AND DELAWARE OCEAN FRONT OCCURS BETWEEN 830 PM AND 930 PM THIS EVENING. HIGH TIDE ON THE BACK BAYS, ALONG DELAWARE BAY AND ALONG RARITAN BAY OCCURS LATER THAN THE HIGH TIDE ON THE OCEAN FRONT.
* SURGE ... 0.5 TO 1.0 FOOT ABOVE THE ASTRONOMICAL TIDE.
* WAVES...WAVE HEIGHTS ON THE OCEAN WATERS OFF THE COAST WILL BE 3 TO 4 FEET THIS EVENING. WAVE HEIGHTS ON DELAWARE BAY WILL BE 1 TO 2 FEET.
* IMPACTS ... LOCALIZED ROADWAY FLOODING IS POSSIBLE. SOME ROADS MAY BE CLOSED DUE TO HIGH WATER.
PRECAUTIONARY / PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS ...
Fig. 3
A COASTAL FLOOD ADVISORY MEANS THAT MINOR TIDAL FLOODING IS EXPECTED. MINOR TIDAL FLOODING OFTEN RESULTS IN SOME ROAD CLOSURES. USUALLY, THE MOST VULNERABLE ROADWAYS WILL FLOOD.
DO NOT LEAVE YOUR VEHICLE AT A LOCATION THAT IS PRONE TO TIDAL FLOODING. DO NOT DRIVE YOUR VEHICLE THROUGH FLOOD WATERS. THE WATER MAY BE DEEPER THAN YOU THINK IT IS. YOU WILL BE PUTTING YOURSELF IN DANGER AND YOUR VEHICLE MAY BE DAMAGED, LEADING TO COSTLY REPAIRS.
FOR A LIST OF THE IMPACT OF DIFFERENT TIDE HEIGHTS IN YOUR COUNTY PLEASE GO TO WWW.WEATHER.GOV/PHI/TIDES.
(AccuWeather, CAPS in original). Builds built above the high tide mark in "this century" are now flooding at high tide.
This is happening right now in "this century" at the time we call "today."
"Last month" (April 2016) type impacts are more rarely talked about:
Last month in Greenland, more than a tenth of the ice sheet’s surface was melting in the unseasonably warm spring sun, smashing 2010’s record for a thaw so early in the year. In the Antarctic, warm water licking at the base of the continent’s western ice sheet is, in effect, dissolving the cork that holds back the flow of glaciers into the sea; ice is now seeping like wine from a toppled bottle.
(Yale, Abrupt Sea Level Change). That also is happening in "this century", and in several before it.
It is also difficult to see some of the western versions of "this century" SLR in the U.S.A. according to "this century" watchers:
Sea level signals in turbulent coastal regions, such as the U.S. West Coast, are notoriously difficult to measure from space-based radar, due to the presence of land in the radar returns, sudden changes in the atmospheric water content due to storms, and rapidly changing tidal heights over shallow continental shelves. These and other atmospheric variations combine to throw off satellite readings.
(NASA, Sea Level). That sea level change is a tricky bugger to watch, especially when one doesn't want to see it (Honolulu, Louisiana).
III. Global Mental Dimming In "This Century"
The scary movie people talk about the "methane monster" like it was "Big-Foot" because of cultural populism:
"People are placing too much emphasis on methane,” says Raymond Pierrehumbert, a climate scientist at the University of Oxford and one of the paper’s authors. “And really, people should prove that we can actually get the CO2 emissions down first, before worrying about whether we are doing enough to get methane emissions down.”
(Why we’re still so incredibly confused about methane’s role). Waiting for something to happen that has been happening is a sign of being unaware.
https://external-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQCxAGpqaFe0_-Gf&w=300&h=219&url=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.huffingtonpost.com%2Fasset%2F300_219%2F572b89921300001a01380aec.jpg
Right or wrong, the viewpoint that "global dimming" is a major player in global warming dynamics is fading in one sense (the wrong sense):
The latest updates on solar radiation changes observed since the new millennium show no globally coherent trends anymore (see above and Fig. 2).
While brightening persists to some extent in Europe and the United States, there are indications for a renewed dimming in China associated with the tremendous emission increases there after 2000, as well as unabated dimming in India (Streets et al. 2009; Wild et al. 2009).
We cannot exclude the possibility that we are currently again in a transition phase and may return to a renewed overall dimming for some years to come. On the one hand, air pollution mitigation potential is approaching saturation in many of the industrialized nations (Ruckstuhl et al. 2008; Streets et al. 2009), thus confining further human-induced brightening in these areas, while on the other hand air pollution increase and associated dimming may continue for a while in developing and emerging nations. The recent renewed increase in global sulfur emissions (particularly originating from Asia) (Streets et al. 2009), the evidence for renewed declines in visibility (Wang et al. 2009) and in satellite-derived SSR (Hinkelman et al. 2009; Hatzianastassiou et al. 2011), and the lack of warming in the early 2000s may be interpreted as additional indicators for such a development. However, such renewed dimming and associated impacts would likely have a limited persistence, since emerging nations will be forced to implement air quality measures in face of increasingly pressing health problems.
Thus, with the foreseeable inevitability and undisputable necessity for clean air regulations and aerosol reductions also in emerging nations, potential dampening of global warming by a renewed dimming could only be temporary, and greenhouse gases will ultimately become the sole major anthropogenic forcing factor of climate change.
“Enlightenment [on this planet] is a destructive process. It has nothing to do with becoming better or being happier. Enlightenment is the crumbling away of untruth. It’s seeing through the facade of pretense. It’s the complete eradication of everything we imagined to be true.” - Adyashanti
Narsaq’s largest employer, a shrimp factory, closed a few years ago after the crustaceans fled north to cooler water. Where once there were eight commercial fishing vessels, there is now one.
As a result, the population here, one of southern Greenland’s major towns, has been halved to 1,500 in just a decade. Suicides are up.
So, if vegetation in your area begins to change, don't be alarmed, other species may move in:
In a paper published June 7 in the journal Global Ecology and Biogeography, researchers present evidence that over the past century, vegetation has been gradually moving toward the poles and up mountain slopes, where temperatures are cooler, as well as toward the equator, where rainfall is greater.
Moreover, an estimated one-tenth to one-half of the land mass on Earth will be highly vulnerable to climate-related vegetation shifts by the end of this century ... according to the study.
The results came from a meta-analysis of hundreds of field studies and a spatial analysis of observed 20th century climate and projected 21st century vegetation.
The meta-analysis identified field studies that examined long-term vegetation shifts in which climate ... was the dominant influence. The researchers found 15 cases of biome shifts since the 18th century that are attributable to changes in temperature and precipitation.
Fig. 1 Vast amounts of water held by ice sheet gravity
In this post I want to talk about a new source of sea level change (SLC) that takes place without any additional ice sheet melt.
I want to write about the SLC which takes place as gravity-held water along the coasts of ice sheet covered land masses is released as the ice sheet's force of gravity decreases.
I am talking about the amount of sea water that is already there in the sea when the ice sheet melts or calves.
I am talking about sea water that is not the same as the water contained in the ice sheet, which will melt later to become additional sea water.
Notice the difference as shown on the right side of Fig. 1, where the ice sheet is the white mass on top of the dark grey land mass, and where the sea water held by gravity is a blue wedge shape touching the dark grey coastline of the dark grey land mass.
In the search for a reason that SLC software underestimates observed values, I want to attempt to calculate the amount of sea level fall (SLF) of water (deep blue color hugging the coast of Antarctica in Fig. 1) which, during SLC, is relocated to a sea level rise (SLR) area of the oceans (shown as the cyan, orange, and red colors in Fig. 1; Greenland SLF / SLC is shown in Fig. 3).
In other words, when water drops in one place, it rises in another place because the volume of sea water is not changed in this scenario, it is just rearranged.
Fig. 3
We can use the formula for the volume of a prism shape, then divide by 2 (halve it) to derive the volume of a wedge-shaped triangle, which is mathematically equal to the volume of water in the wedge.
On the right side of Fig. 2 are some of the actual dimensions: 1) 20 meters as the height of the water (marked "h1" on Fig. 1 and Fig. 2); 2) next, marked as "h2" is the length of the prism (the length of the coastline the gravity-held water is pulled up against), and 3) the base marked as "b" is the full length of the prism base, (in today's application it is 2,000 km, which we eventially divide by 2; it is the distance from h1 to the "hinge line" which is h2).
The prism volume formula works like this:
V = (1/2 (b h1)) h2
where:
b = 4,000 km (4,000,000 m)
h1 = 20 m (Mitrovica suggest figure in video below)
h2 = length of relevant coastline
thus:
V = (1/2 (4,000,000 m * 20 m)) h2
V = (1/2 (80,000,000 m)) h2
V = (80,000,000 m / 2) h2
V = 40,000,000 m * h2
V = 40,000 km * h2 to apply the calculation to Greenland:
Greenland coastline (h2) = 44,087 km
(link to source of coastline length)
thus:
V = 40,000 km * 44,087 km
V = 1,763,480,000 km3
to adapt it to the water wedge,
divide by 2 (wedge is 1/2 of prism)
thus:
V = 1,763,480,000 km3 / 2
V = 881,740,000 km3 of sea water relocated from Greenland to apply the calculation to Antarctica:
Antarctica coastline (h2) = 17,968 km
V = 40,000 km * 17,968 km
V = 718,720,000 km3 / 2
V = 359,360,000 km3 of sea water relocated from Antarctica to sum both of them:
V = 881,740,000 km3 + 359,360,000 km3
V = 1,241,100,000 km3 total sea water relocated from both
That is the cubic volume of water that will be released and relocated as a result of loss of ice sheet gravity due to ice melt sufficient to cause 1m of global average SLR by each location.
Which is calculated to cause 20 meters of SLF around Greenland and/or Antarctica, then, when relocated will cause 1 meter of SLR globally for each of them, 2m total (The Gravity of Sea Level Change, 2).
I have been wondering if the SLC projection models take this into consideration, seeing as how they have consistently underestimated SLR:
"Why doesn't it add up?
Together, thermal expansion and melting snow and ice contributed 2.8 ± 0.7 mm per year to sea level rise between 1993 and 2003 (Bindoff et al., 2007). However, that total was lower than the actual observed global mean sea level rise for period by about 10%. What is causing the rest of sea level rise? This discrepancy is often referred to as the sea level enigma, and scientists have offered a number of possible explanations." - Weather Underground
"Expect more water to lap at your shores. That’s the take-home message from two studies out this week that look at the latest data on sea level rise due to climate change. The first shows that current projections for the end of the century may seriously underestimate the rise in global sea levels. The other, on the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, looks at just how much of the water stored up there has been moving into the oceans." Projections of sea level rise are vast underestimates
Gravity is an import factor that should be included in models so as to add some useful and essential figures.
Watch the video below, if you haven't already, to acquire some additional SLC prowess.
The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.
A discussion of, among other things, SLC as impacted by ice sheet mass and gravity:
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.
