I was wondering why we got a free surf board with the purchase our house here in Tempe, Az.
Eventually it should be just like Malibu without the mudslides, wind driven fires, and Suzanne Sommers.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 21, 2007 06:30 AMI read your article quickly this morning, but I gather the 0.78 meter rise is a "safe" estimate within the models and excluded factors which have not been rendered reliably quantifiable (like glacial melt volumes and temperature effects)?
This is where I get tangled up in reading anyone's analysis. I guess I have seen enough data "weighted" by "tweaking" to wonder how trustworthy the assumptions built into any conclusion really are.
Plain english please. I just woke up.
Posted by gtash at January 21, 2007 06:38 AMHere's a question: what impact could rising sea levels be expected to have on inland watersheds. I grew up within "splashing distance" of the Great Lakes, so this is of great interest to me.
Now, based on my memory, the Great Lakes rest about 6-700 feet above mean sea level. The largest, Superior, rests about 20 feet higher than the rest, thus creating a drainage into the more southerly Lakes. Seeing as how the Great Lakes are tied intimately to major shipping routes like the St. Lawrence river in Quebec, is it possible that changes in mean sea level can impact these water sources as well? Can the Lakes be expected to change? Obviously, water can't flow upward, but I'm honestly curious about how this trend of warming and water level rise may effect the Lakes where they join with the St. Lawrence Seaway?
Posted by Spc. Freeman at January 21, 2007 07:53 AMThe 0.78 meters at the end of the post is a moderate guess for the total (thermal expansion + glacier melt) sea level rise using the assumption that the ratio of contributions from the two sources over the 20th century also applies to the 21st.
There are lots of issues attendant to the cryosphere contribution, I'll write more about that soon.
Posted by Christina at January 21, 2007 09:19 AMChristina,
This is a great post that I will have to re-read a couple of times to fully digest the significant amount of information neatly packaged into a single post with a length that is, say, one tenth the length of my average posts. I really like the links to the various terms and your attempt to illustrate what we understand and what we don't.
Posted by eriposte at January 21, 2007 09:50 AMFrom the 1/22 Investor's Business Daily Issues and Insights column, "Global Warming: The Heat is On," excerpt:
The lack of discussion about what Kyoto would cost is really shocking. It’s a lot, yet the focus has beenon the bad science and scare tactics
of leftist propaganda like Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Let’s start with one stunning “inconvenient truth” — that no one really knows how to
“cut back” greenhouse gases without significantly
damaging the economy. That’s right: Lowering our output of greenhouse gases would mean a lowering of our GDP.
The annual loss for the U.S. alone, according to the U.N., could be as much as 1.96% of GDP. Today’s economy, about $13.3 trillion,
would thus shrivel by about $260 billion a year, or more than $11 trillion by 2050. Other estimates go as high as 5% a year of GDP, or
$670 billion. That’s a total U.S. cost of nearly $30 trillion by 2050.
No matter what you’ve heard, global warming remains a theory. Yet Kyoto proponents treat it as fact, thus beyond dispute. They want to close off debate, as if we lived in some kind of totalitarian dictatorship. Sorry, but this is science. And in science, debate ends only when
there’s no longer convincing evidence to the contrary. And we’re a long way from that when it comes to warming.
As we keep saying, the science on warming remains very murky. But even if we take Kyoto proponents at their word, the expected 1-to-2 degree rise in temperature by 2100 would be cut by just 0.04 degrees if we accepted their terms. Major polluters such as China, India and Russia remain exempt. So even that 0.04 is in doubt.
Is such a tiny improvement, costing trillions of dollars and thousands Is such a tiny improvement, costing trillions of dollars and thousands
of lives, really worth it? We don’t think so.
...politics isn't science, and Americans should beware of confusing the two.
Environmental politics IS about protecting the economy. Considering the long-term costs of Katrina-like disasters on a mass scale; tabulating economic losses rendering by diasporas away from coastal area; protecting against losses incurred by funding poorly-conceived wars over one of the last major bastions of untapped oil?
Fuck the GDP. The long-term costs of ignoring the problem will decimate our economy far more effectively than any shallow, pathetic protest against alternative energey programs. Besides, I don't know if this has occurred to you, but wouldn't being free of Arab oil solve a lot of problems for us right now?
I always had Republicans pegged for being self-centered, closed-minded, and more concerned with matters of the pocketbook than of the human condition. You've just proven me right.
Posted by Spc. Freeman at January 21, 2007 10:18 AMNo matter what you’ve heard, global warming remains a theory.
Shorter Muck: "I claim this post in the name of scientific ignorance! I know nothing of the scientific method or scientific research! Yea for me!"
Sorry Muck, but based on Dr. Hulbe's CV I think I'm going to have to side with her on the issue...unless of course you want to offer up your qualifications on the issue.
Next time, Muck, try addressing some of the actual points in the post....if you even read it. I'd be interested to hear what part of Dr. Hulbe's analysis is wrong.
That’s a total U.S. cost of nearly $30 trillion by 2050.
1. The cost of not doing anything about it will far exceed the cost of doing something about it.
2. The analysis does not, in anyway, try to address the emerging economy that will boom in dealing with climate change, which includes cleaning up after ourselves up.
3. It will cost us? Yes it will, and where does that money go that we use cleaning up after ourselves?
Kyoto, is an imperfect beginning. There is a lot of work to be done. No, you aren't going to stop it and the key word now is mitigation.
Posted by Simp at January 21, 2007 10:52 AMBut even if we take Kyoto proponents at their word, the expected 1-to-2 degree rise in temperature by 2100 would be cut by just 0.04 degrees if we accepted their terms. Major polluters such as China, India and Russia remain exempt. So even that 0.04 is in doubt.
Seems like a whole bunch of effort, lives lost, financial hardship, etc. for a "questionable" impact of .04 degrees.
I did read Professor Hubris' blog entry. More of the same political fearmongering. Big deal.
But I'm willing to take her word for it. The only way to stop it, as Al Gore suggested, would be to stop burning fossil fuels.
OK. Lets start building nuclear power plants like the Chinese, Japanese, French and Indians are doing. And the side benefit is that we would be able to decrease and eventually eliminate our need for imported energy. Whether or not we impact the temperature by .04 degrees or not, it's still a good idea.
Posted by muckdog at January 21, 2007 11:17 AMAbsolutely great article, Christina. Thank you for explaining this so well for us.
And in regards to mucky's fear of the damage to the economy, I'd really like to see him explain how excessive waste of energy (because of our inefficient energy usage) and the trillions the world invests to keep the oil pipelines open via war are not hurting the economy. Add in the costs of insuring our coastlines (just look at what happened in New Orleans) against the ravages and the (inflated) economic costs mucky fears don't look quite so bad.
Since mucky lives in Sacramento, I wonder that he doesn't worry more about raising sea levels himself as the delta is a ripe target for those encroaching waters. I guess it's much easier to pretend it isn't happening.
Posted by Mary at January 21, 2007 11:27 AMI think I see what you are saying:
The last paragraph indicates the 21st century model is based on the rate of change charted in the 20th and projected into the future. The preceding paragraphs indicate there is a thermal inertia is involved so if we quit emitting CO2 cold-turkey, there would still be a warming effect into the future; and glacial melt is hard to know the precise effect of since ice masses (and their respective contribution to global thermal inertia) respond over longer climatic periods. So you estimate based on the best "trend" you can discern from the data.
Does the rate of increase in CO2 allow for or incorporate the late 20th century acceleration of emissions from rapidly developing countries along the same trend curve as early industrial America, or does it hold them in a straightline with their last recorded rates of the 20th Century?
Posted by gtash at January 21, 2007 11:31 AMI would suggest that we need to start thinking about how to deal with the climate change commitment we've already made (in addition to what lies ahead). That is, in my opinion, one of the most compelling messages of sea level rise. There is no reason to be scared or to try to scare anybody. Just reason to start talking about mitigation and adaptation.
We're going to pay for adaptation to sea level rise sooner or later. In the US, city planners in coastal communities know this but from what I've read, they don't have the resources to do much. Elsewhere, more attention is being paid. I'm not an economist but it seems reasonable to suppose that we'll pay less if we start working now rather than putting it off (at least, that's the way it goes with home repairs...). We also have options regarding the magnitude and rate of the rise, if we choose to exercise them.
Posted by Christina at January 21, 2007 11:46 AMgtash: Does the rate of increase in CO2 allow for or incorporate the late 20th century acceleration of emissions from rapidly developing countries along the same trend curve as early industrial America, or does it hold them in a straightline with their last recorded rates of the 20th Century?
Great question. Future-climate modeling studies use suites of greenhouse gas emisisons scenarios. The scenarios consider different future trends in demographic development, socio-economic development, and technological change.
The 21st century numbers I presented were from Meehl et al's (Science, 2005, v 307, p 1769-1772) experiments using a "moderate" scenario in the IPCC's "A1" storyline and scenario family. In this scenario, economic development is rapid and successful and global distinctions in average per-capita income fade over time. Global population grows to nine billion by 2050 and declines to about seven billion by 2100. Different scenairos within the family consider different energy source mixes. Meehl et al. used balanced mix (fossil and renewable) scenario. You can read more about it in the "A1" link.
I just love the links, thank you.
George Will this morning agreed with Muck that with China and friends emergence comes a demand for energy that a energy wise US cannot offset - so what's the point in trying? Is this argument now the face of a country that was led by a president who insisted we go out and shop rather than challenge our imaginations, fund science & research and be proactive?
As the melts occur is water not drawn to our equators? And as a larger proportion of mankind resides closer rather than farther away from the equators will we not be squeezing the populations from then both directions? And is the new distribution of weights able to change the earth's rotations... This is way to interesting.
Posted by mainsailset at January 21, 2007 03:30 PMA scientific expert's considered opinion on warming induced sea level rise = "political fearmongering".
A fool and an ass.
Posted by euzoius at January 21, 2007 03:50 PMAs the melts occur is water not drawn to our equators?
I'm not a geodesist but I think the effect would be very small. The difference between the semi-major (equatorial) and semi-minor (polar) radii of the Earth ellispoid is only 0.3%.
Posted by Christina at January 21, 2007 04:28 PMI like your comparison to home repairs in the comments.
so lets build some levees (that work) already for Manhattan!
yeah like that'll happen.
"political fearmongering" ...what a hoot! ah for the days when bizarro world was only found in an episode of Seinfeld.
Posted by Heidi at January 23, 2007 02:35 AM