Climate Change Causes Sea Level Rise to Accelerate 50 Percent in Past 20 years

[Deleted]

I found this interesting, in a hyperbolic sort of way:

http://www.newsweek.com/climate-chan...elerate-629463

Sea level rise is real, and it’s getting worse.

A study published in the journal Nature Climate Change shows that global sea level rise jumped by 50 percent from 1993 to 2014, the most recent year for which data are available. In 2014, sea levels rose 3.3 millimeters—more than an eighth of an inch—while in 1993 they ticked up 2.2 millimeters.

The paper found that melting of the Greenland ice sheet is the major new contributor. In 1993, it accounted for only 5 percent of the rise, but in 2014 it was responsible for one-quarter of the increase. The paper looked at satellite measurements and tide gauges, which measure sea levels around the world.

So....

1 inch = 25.4 mm
5 feet = 60 inches = 1524mm

1524mm / 3.3mm = 461.8 years. (or 692 years if it goes back down to 2.2)

In other words, it will take almost a 1/2 century at the current rate for sea levels to even raise 5 feet.

Now, some "scientists" are under the impression that we will see a 6 ft rise by 2100.

So - how is that we go, basically overnight, from an average of 3.3mm per year to 91.4mm per year in just 83 years? Do they expect all glaciers will almost completely melt? Or maybe it will come from the Earth going through it's natural cycles of heating/cooling?

Hmm...

[Doctor Funkenstein]

Fake news. Natural warning. God willed it. Humans are innocent. All true... all true.

[Elegiac]

The issue is not the 'resting level' of the sea. The issue is the resulting storm surges.

[Endus]

I found this interesting, in a hyperbolic sort of way:

http://www.newsweek.com/climate-chan...elerate-629463



So....

1 inch = 25.4 mm
5 feet = 60 inches = 1524mm

1524mm / 3.3mm = 461.8 years. (or 692 years if it goes back down to 2.2)

In other words, it will take almost a 1/2 century at the current rate for sea levels to even raise 5 feet.

Now, some "scientists" are under the impression that we will see a 6 ft rise by 2100.

So - how is that we go, basically overnight, from an average of 3.3mm per year to 91.4mm per year in just 83 years? Do they expect all glaciers will almost completely melt? Or maybe it will come from the Earth going through it's natural cycles of heating/cooling?

Hmm...

A few critical points;

First:

We're already past the tipping point in terms of CO2 emissions; unless we find a way to scrub it out of the atmosphere (all proposals with any chance of having an effect are priced in, literally, tens of trillions of dollars or more) or reduce sunlight hitting the Earth (big orbital mirrors or something, again, MASSIVE investment cost, and huge secondary effects on plant growth to boot), without something like that, warming will continue, and it will tend to accelerate, since there are exacerbating factors that pile on;
- Reduced ice caps mean that the poles are less "white" and thus less reflective, and absorb more solar energy, increasing warming (particularly in the oceans).
- Melting permafrost generally releases trapped methane pockets; methane is a FAR stronger greenhouse gas in the short term than CO2, though it only lasts in the atmosphere for a decade or two after release
Etc. So it's a snowball effect, and the accelerating sea level rise reflects that, basically. It should continue to accelerate, so it won't be at 3.3mm/year in 2090, it'll be higher.

Second:

There's two measures to be aware of, when evaluating sea level rise; the basic sea level (which is what you're talking about) and the storm surge level. Storms are low-pressure areas, and between pushing the ocean ahead of them with winds and the low pressure tending to "suck" the ocean up, you can get significant temporary increases in sea level rise. The case study I'm using in my thesis work had a storm in 1999 that saw nearly 4 meters of storm surge;



If you see the pole on the right (apologies for the quality; took this with my camera while I was there), the line you can see on it is the high water mark during that storm. The water level you see there is a normal high tide level. That line's about shoulder-high if you're standing next to it. That isn't a possible extreme; that's where the water actually was in 1999, during that storm, due to storm surge. It caused a lot of flooding, obviously. And that's not the highest wave point, either; that's the resting water level, wave action is on top of that.

Coastal cities are already mostly built right on the limits they could have expected with storm surges in the past. Even 6 inches of additional sea level, especially combined with stronger storms, and you get significant flooding of the city when the storm hits at high tide, which is a matter of time.

If you've never done this kind of flood mapping, you'd be shocked by how quickly this scales up, in terms of impacts.

[Hammerfest]

"Climate change" is called "global warming" during the summer. Get with it, guys.

[Endus]

"Climate change" is called "global warming" during the summer. Get with it, guys.

Climate change is largely driven by global warming. They aren't the same thing. Nobody's stopped using "global warming" as a term.

[Noomz]

I found this interesting, in a hyperbolic sort of way:

http://www.newsweek.com/climate-chan...elerate-629463



So....

1 inch = 25.4 mm
5 feet = 60 inches = 1524mm

1524mm / 3.3mm = 461.8 years. (or 692 years if it goes back down to 2.2)

In other words, it will take almost a 1/2 century at the current rate for sea levels to even raise 5 feet.

Now, some "scientists" are under the impression that we will see a 6 ft rise by 2100.

So - how is that we go, basically overnight, from an average of 3.3mm per year to 91.4mm per year in just 83 years? Do they expect all glaciers will almost completely melt? Or maybe it will come from the Earth going through it's natural cycles of heating/cooling?

Hmm...

What sea? There's no sea in the US senate! Pfa! Humbug I say!

[Kraenen]

See this is all because the social construct of climate change is being believed in by more and more people. If we stopped believing in it, none of this would happen.

[Hammerfest]

Climate change is largely driven by global warming. They aren't the same thing. Nobody's stopped using "global warming" as a term.

Whatever you say, Mignola.

[hakujinbakasama]

So this is an honest open question because I've never seen it brought up.

We have various areas in the world which have undergone complete "drought" conditions to the point where they have become completely arid. Additionally, when you remove things like large sections of rain-forest and the ilk (which absorbs a large amount of water) where does the previously consume water go? Since we know that you cannot create or destroy matter... where's all that water?

[KrazyK923]

is just fake news duh guys the planet wont ever die god said so

[Shinra1]

So this is an honest open question because I've never seen it brought up.

We have various areas in the world which have undergone complete "drought" conditions to the point where they have become completely arid. Additionally, when you remove things like large sections of rain-forest and the ilk (which absorbs a large amount of water) where does the previously consume water go? Since we know that you cannot create or destroy matter... where's all that water?

Careful this sounds like a conspiracy theory.

[PC2]

The issue is not the 'resting level' of the sea. The issue is the resulting storm surges.

Only if you're dumb enough to invest in a low elevation storm surge zone.

[Elegiac]

Only if you're dumb enough to invest in a low elevation storm surge zone.

You're aware most coastal cities (i.e. most cities that matter) are built in these areas, yes?

[PC2]

You're aware most coastal cities (i.e. most cities that matter) are built in these areas, yes?

Cool, those cities can adapt over the next century. If they want to.

[Elegiac]

Cool, those cities can adapt over the next century. If they want to.

That is the entire point. It's going to take a lot of effort and a lot of money to adapt to those changes, and there is going to be a lot of needless social and political upheaval in the meantime due to resource shortages.

[Endus]

Cool, those cities can adapt over the next century. If they want to.

And the main point to be had there is that adaptation is an expensive and long-term project, and needs to be proactive to be effective, not reactive.

You can't wait till the flooding in 2100 to start to do something. You need to make changes now to prevent or mitigate the flooding between now and then, and beyond. And that adaptation process will be ongoing. And expensive. Just significantly less expensive than the damages caused by potential flooding.

[Nasuuna]

Probably a little overblown in terms of effect, but we still need to get to work on cutting pollution further.

I'd be interested in what kind of technology can literally suck co2 out of the atmosphere

[Kraenen]

That is the entire point. It's going to take a lot of effort and a lot of money to adapt to those changes, and there is going to be a lot of needless social and political upheaval in the meantime due to resource shortages.

Who cares about social and political upheaval? Think about the innovation that could take place. Those people were just afraid of change anyway; we don't have to play by their rules.

[Deleted]

SNIP

Thank you for your insight. Good information to consider.