London 'under water by 2100' as Antarctica crumbles into the sea

[Nym90]

Obviously no one knows for sure what is going to happen, or what the cause is.

However, better safe than sorry seems a prudent strategy with regards to global warming. There are many benefits to society from reduced greenhouse gas emissions besides simply global warming. A phased in approach in which emissions are gradually cut through technological advances which improve efficiency would seem to be the best policy.

I'm far from certain it is "prudent" to wreck the total economy of the West is order to slow sea level increase.  Keep in mind, it's been generally increasing for several thousand years.

I agree, which is why I advocated a phased in approach with gradual reductions in emissions. Increases in efficiency of things such as automobile engines can be focused more towards increasing fuel economy rather than increasing horsepower, as just one example that jumps immediately to mind.

Not to mention the effect on the world economy if the sea level did go up 10 or 20 feet.

[J. J.]

Obviously no one knows for sure what is going to happen, or what the cause is.

However, better safe than sorry seems a prudent strategy with regards to global warming. There are many benefits to society from reduced greenhouse gas emissions besides simply global warming. A phased in approach in which emissions are gradually cut through technological advances which improve efficiency would seem to be the best policy.

I'm far from certain it is "prudent" to wreck the total economy of the West is order to slow sea level increase.  Keep in mind, it's been generally increasing for several thousand years.

I agree, which is why I advocated a phased in approach with gradual reductions in emissions. Increases in efficiency of things such as automobile engines can be focused more towards increasing fuel economy rather than increasing horsepower, as just one example that jumps immediately to mind.

Not to mention the effect on the world economy if the sea level did go up 10 or 20 feet.

You are, as the attorneys would say, assuming facts not in evidence.  First, it is that sea level will rise 10 to 20 feet.  I took a look at the current rate, or I should say the highest estimate of the current rate, and tripled it.  That came up with 95 years, less than 3 feet. 

Second, we don't know how much of that less than three feet is due to a., human activities, and b., due to auto emissions (or industrial emissions).

Now, I'm 100% in favor of getting those facts, and looking at the costs and benefits, but not making policy until we do.  We might be spending $20 per person on the planet to say $1 in damages.

Just for the record, I drive less than 3,600 miles per year.

[Nym90]

Obviously no one knows for sure what is going to happen, or what the cause is.

However, better safe than sorry seems a prudent strategy with regards to global warming. There are many benefits to society from reduced greenhouse gas emissions besides simply global warming. A phased in approach in which emissions are gradually cut through technological advances which improve efficiency would seem to be the best policy.

I'm far from certain it is "prudent" to wreck the total economy of the West is order to slow sea level increase.  Keep in mind, it's been generally increasing for several thousand years.

I agree, which is why I advocated a phased in approach with gradual reductions in emissions. Increases in efficiency of things such as automobile engines can be focused more towards increasing fuel economy rather than increasing horsepower, as just one example that jumps immediately to mind.

Not to mention the effect on the world economy if the sea level did go up 10 or 20 feet.

You are, as the attorneys would say, assuming facts not in evidence.  First, it is that sea level will rise 10 to 20 feet.  I took a look at the current rate, or I should say the highest estimate of the current rate, and tripled it.  That came up with 95 years, less than 3 feet. 

Second, we don't know how much of that less than three feet is due to a., human activities, and b., due to auto emissions (or industrial emissions).

Now, I'm 100% in favor of getting those facts, and looking at the costs and benefits, but not making policy until we do.  We might be spending $20 per person on the planet to say $1 in damages.

Just for the record, I drive less than 3,600 miles per year.

I didn't assume anything; I said if, and that's what I meant. Nobody knows how much it will actually rise.

One thing that many estimates seem not to take into consideration (I'm assuming that you did, but it's a concept that perhaps is not as well understood by most as it could be) is that ocean water absorbs about 90 percent of the sun's energy that strikes it, while ice and snow reflects about 90 percent of it back into space. Anyone who has ever watched snow or ice melt can see this principle for themselves; the less of it there is, the much greater the rate of melting is. There's a tipping point of sorts at which we start to go down the hill rather than having to climb up it so to speak, as ice itself is highly resistant to melting, but once melted, helps contribute to the melting of the remainder of the ice.

Definitely agreed about not knowing the cause. However, even if human activity isn't the cause, and it's merely a natural cycle, the damage is still going to be just as bad if the predictions hold true. We clearly should be monitoring closely to see if the trend is showing any signs of reversing itself.

I agree also about gathering facts and not going on the basis of hyperbole.

It's easy to overstate the problem, but it's also easy to understate it too. Nonpartisan scientific research is what decisions should be based on.

[J. J.]

Just to give you an example of hyperbole, you used the measurement of "10 to 20 feet."  The current rate, the highest of the current estimates, is 3 mm/year.  Now, even assuming that sea level increases at average of ten times that rate, 30 mm per year, by 2100, we will still see a sea level rise of less than ten feet.  Actual estimates are less than two feet.

As per the melt off, not only is it possible, but it happened, 10,000 to 8,000 years ago.  You can see the results on Chesapeake Bay, 10,000-12,000 years ago, it was a delta, like the Mississippi delta today.  Sea level was about 120 M lower.  The major difference was that there was a lot more ice locked up in glaciers at that time.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Just to give you an example of hyperbole, you used the measurement of "10 to 20 feet."  The current rate, the highest of the current estimates, is 3 mm/year.  Now, even assuming that sea level increases at average of ten times that rate, 30 mm per year, by 2100, we will still see a sea level rise of less than ten feet.  Actual estimates are less than two feet.

As per the melt off, not only is it possible, but it happened, 10,000 to 8,000 years ago.  You can see the results on Chesapeake Bay, 10,000-12,000 years ago, it was a delta, like the Mississippi delta today.  Sea level was about 120 M lower.  The major difference was that there was a lot more ice locked up in glaciers at that time.

But is it statistically significant?

[J. J.]

Just to give you an example of hyperbole, you used the measurement of "10 to 20 feet."  The current rate, the highest of the current estimates, is 3 mm/year.  Now, even assuming that sea level increases at average of ten times that rate, 30 mm per year, by 2100, we will still see a sea level rise of less than ten feet.  Actual estimates are less than two feet.

As per the melt off, not only is it possible, but it happened, 10,000 to 8,000 years ago.  You can see the results on Chesapeake Bay, 10,000-12,000 years ago, it was a delta, like the Mississippi delta today.  Sea level was about 120 M lower.  The major difference was that there was a lot more ice locked up in glaciers at that time.

But is it statistically significant?

If you are asking a serious question, over the last 8,000 years, yes:



You basically had a range of about one meter.  Those scores outside of one meter are going to be well above 99% confidence level.

In terms of geological time, probably not.

To put it into strict mathematical terms, roughly between 6,000 BC and 16,000 BC you had an increase of 120,000 mm (120 meters) or a rate of 12 mm a year.  The highest estimate is currently 3 mm a year. 

In other words, at the current rate, we'll see another 120 meter increase around AD 42,005; even if the rate were to quadruple, we'd still be seeing the increase that size in AD 12,005.  It's unlikely that there would be enough water left to get to that level. 

To get a one meter (1000 mm) raise by 2100, sea level would have to rise at a rate of just over 10.5 mm per year.  The maximum estimate of the current rate of sea level increase is 3 mm; other estimates put it at between 1 and 2 mm/year.