The 100 Metre Line

Sea levels to continue to rise for 500 years? Long-term climate calculations suggest so

2011-10-19T14:07:00.000-07:00

ScienceDaily (Oct. 17, 2011) — Rising sea levels in the coming centuries is perhaps one of the most catastrophic consequences of rising temperatures. Massive economic costs, social consequences and forced migrations could result from global warming. But how frightening of times are we facing? Researchers from the Niels Bohr Institute are part of a team that has calculated the long-term outlook for rising sea levels in relation to the emission of greenhouse gases and pollution of the atmosphere using climate models.
...
In the pessimistic scenario, emissions continue to increase. This will mean that sea levels will rise 1.1 meters by the year 2100 and will have risen 5.5 meters by the year 2500.
...
For the two more realistic scenarios, calculated based on the emissions and pollution stabilizing, the results show that there will be a sea level rise of about 75 cm by the year 2100 and that by the year 2500 the sea will have risen by 2 meters.
...
it would be 2-400 years before we returned to the 20th century level of a 2 mm rise per year,
---
OK, so its another 'official' view that sea levels will continue to rise for a long time, and even if things 'stabilise' at the 20th century rate of 2 mm per year, its going to keep on keeping on.

Also check out:

Rising oceans: Too late to turn the tide?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110718092220.htm

ScienceDaily (2011-07-18) -- Melting ice sheets contributed much more to rising sea levels than thermal expansion of warming ocean waters during the Last Interglacial Period, scientists have found. The results further suggest that ocean levels continue to rise long after warming of the atmosphere levels off.
---
Keep building your arks and planting your spinach!!

How long do we have?

2011-08-21T05:36:00.000-07:00

This post highlights the potential timeframes we have to deal with as far as any energy-intensive solution to impending climate change and sea level rise is concerned.

You will recall that with the global CO2 levels now passing through 390ppm, there is nothing standing in the way of an eventual melt-out of most of the global ice sheets, and consequent 70 to 80 metre sea level rise.

This chart is our view of the future of oil supply for small nations that are net importers of oil.

The chart uses two sources of data:-
Declining production data from the IEA World Energy Outlook 2010's expected crude oil production from Existing fields plus part of the IEA's Fields yet to be developed and Fields yet to be found.
and
Consumption data from the CIA World Fact Book:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2173rank.html
The net-exporter's consumption is incremented by a modest 2.9% per year from 2010 levels.

The premise is that net exporting nations will continue to favour supplying their internal consumption over exporting their oil during the next 20 years. These nations will thus become prime locations for global manufacturing as oil supplies to the net importing nations become more tenuous.

At the same time their production capacity will be affected generally in the same way as the rest of the world, as depicted by the IEA's WEO2010. The suggested rate of increase of only 2.9% per year is likely to be very 'conservative', but things get quite bad enough fast enough with that rate; people can make their own assessment of the more likely rate and the following implications. (Saudi Arabia's internal consumption is rising at about 5.5% per year, for example.)

The largest oil importers (say the top ten importers including USA, China, Japan, Germany, South Korea and India etc) will make (have made) agreements with other exporters to assure supply of their import requirements over the same period - at any cost.

This leaves 'what's left' of global oil exports for the other 140 net importing nations, including many nations with little or no internal oil production at all.

The 'what's left' for these 140 nations is depicted on this chart as what could be termed a 'Triangle of Hope' spanning on the y axis from about 22 to 52 million barrels per day for them today (providing them with about 30 mmbbl per day today), running out to zero available to them in ten years time.

ZERO. TEN YEARS TIME.

And the internal demand of the net exporters reaches their present day production levels in 20 years time. At which time there is nothing left to send to any of the importers.

At that stage, 20 years out from now, this chart suggests that the only oil that will be availably to any nation will be the oil it produces itself. It appears that there will not be any nation with a surplus of supply over demand. Its my guess that past that date any global oil movements will be by way of private treaty between parties with something to trade rather than within any open market.

I offer this perspective on the global oil supply situation as an incentive to viewers to hasten their personal and community preparations for the coming 'interesting times'.

Kind regards

Nigel

How are we doing? Latest Global CO2 Level

2011-05-31T13:36:00.000-07:00

Not doing that well! No sign of any useful levelling-off of CO2 levels, the upward trend appears to be continuing unabated.

and so the Earth's energy imbalance caused by increased greenhouse gas levels is increasing the required surface temperature and thus driving an ever-increasing forcing on ice melt and the rate of sea level rise.

We COULD get onto a war footing to do what we can to stop the rot, while making prudent and straightforward provision for the perils of climate change and resource depletion (the perfect storm, isn't it!?!).

As so many other scientists and commentators have observed. if we do nothing but persist with Business as Usual catastrophe is certain.

This catastrophe is way more certain than the likelihood of a fire burning down your house (an eventuality that most homeowners pay thousands of dollars a year to insure against), yet right now very few people are making any provision against the consequences of climate change and resource depletion.

The IMF and IEA are now both shouting that the time of plentiful energy supplies are behind us and we are entering a time of increased scarcity of oil supplies. It would pay to listen.

But if instead we initiate a national mobilisation to produce our food locally and sustainably, and to reconfigure our entire society to a low-energy operation (which WILL entail turning away from our present economic and social paradigm) then we can give ourselves and our children the best chance that we can to make it through with some sort of dignity and a fair chance of living to a ripe old age.

We have to paint this truly grim picture plainly and honestly for all people to come to understand what is in front of us, and to thus provide the emotional and intellectual basis for mobilisation. The short-term risks involved in doing this must be determined to be worth enduring if we are to avoid the worst impacts of what at the moment is a certain unravelling of life as we know it as the global economy and energy situation spirals downwards to oblivion.

We are in for a low-energy climate-affected future ANYWAY. We will be better off if we accept that, and prepare for it for all we are worth, directing our remaining energy resources towards building our lifeboat, rather than wasting those precious resources on useless trivia such as new motorways or the manufacture of massive volumes of soon-to-be-useless consumer goods.

Time to write some letters to MPs, Councillors and newspapers, methinks!

The Road to Utopia

2011-05-08T03:47:00.000-07:00

The Road to Utopia

Nigel Williams

8 May 2011.

As citizens of this planet Earth, as mothers, fathers, as people with loved ones about whom you care deeply, I ask you to consider what is to be done to get us from the present economic and social condition to a new condition that offers a perpetual and sustainable way forwards for future generations.

Some folk are anxious about the likely depletion of some critical resources or energy supplies; others are worried more by the possible impacts of changing climate and more extreme day-by-day weather events. These concerns are becoming heightened as the world and the people who inhabit it negotiate a new 'contract' on the availability and operation of the Earth's life-giving resources and functions.

For some the concern may revolve around the continued viability of their businesses, while for many others it is the desire to be a good parent; to set a good example to our children and grandchildren that is prodding us into action.

It is difficult for us to imagine how it will be during the transition; every scenario presents so many options - so many ways it can play out - that we cannot plot a clear path through the hazards to a safe end point. The more authors and commentators try and paint a singular picture, the more divergence we find in the probability of that view being true or not, that remedy for that disease being the right cure to apply or not. So contemplation of the transition period itself is often unhelpful.

Instead we can step back and see where it is that we would like to be when its all settled down again. I believe that we are entitled to paint a utopian view of how we would like it to be for our children and all after them; and with that distant view in mind we can then consider what it is that needs to be done to get us safely there; regardless of the many obstacles in our way. This is my view:-

An encouraging indicator of our national thinking in relation to the balance between what we take and what our provider, the Earth, can give is embodied in the Act of Parliament passed in 1991; the Resource Management Act. The purpose of this Act is stated as:

PART II

PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES

5. Purpose---(1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

(2) In this Act, ``sustainable management'' means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and

social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while---

(a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and

With the rider that 'minerals' including energy minerals should be included in the protective cover the Act sought to provide (and putting aside the actual outcomes of this well-intentioined legislation), this statement gives us a useful working platform for the function of our future Utopia.

In 1964 Sir Fred Hoyle put our condition rather bluntly:-

'It has often been said that, if the human species fails to make a go of it here on the Earth, some other species will take over the running. In the sense of developing intelligence this is not correct. We have or soon will have, exhausted the necessary physical prerequisites so far as this planet is concerned. With coal gone, oil gone, high-grade metallic ores gone, no species however competent can make the long climb from primitive conditions to high-level technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this planetary system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will be true of other planetary systems. On each of them there will be one chance, and one chance only.'

In this statement Hoyle is perhaps mixing the concept of 'intelligence' with that of 'high-level technology'. We are indeed hoping that we can continue to use this high intelligence on a planet that is in balance, albeit in a way that may be viewed as 'primitive'. But in terms of reaching a level of high technological competence in the use of resources and all the goodies that implies we have seen where our 'intelligent' use of the Earth's physical prerequisites has got us to.

We stand near the end of the Mineral Energy Era with virtually nothing to show for it in terms of the intelligent use we have made of all the resources we have consumed to date. Compared with man of 300 years ago we are no smarter, no better, no happier as people and we have constructed no everlasting bits of fantastic equipment to take us forward on a higher plane into a new era. The impact of this burst of resource consumption will last as long as it takes for a bolt to rust through or a bit of reinforcing steel to fail, or the battery to go flat, a dam to fail and it will all be gone.

I suggest that our intelligence can be used to take us to a perfectly satisfactory alternate destination that does not (indeed it cannot) entail continued depletion of the Earth's resources. We must apply our intelligence to husband the remaining and renewable resources to make the best of our planetary system's 'one chance'.

Discussing our ability to somehow dodge the oncoming times of change, Australian writer Reg Morrison observed:-

'Not only have our genes managed to conceal from us that we are entirely typical mammals and therefore vulnerable to all of evolution's customary checks and balances, but also they have contrived to lock us so securely into the plague cycle that they seem almost to have been crafted for that purpose. Gaia is running like a Swiss watch. ' (Morrison, 1999)

Putting it simply then; In our Utopia we have to be living within our means. And 'our means' is determined by the natural rate of replacement of the resources we use to ensure that we are 'sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations and safeguarding the life supporting capacity of air, water, soil and natural ecosystems' (from the Resource Management Act 1991).

Every aspect of our Utopian life must be governed by the rate at which energy arrives on the surface of the Earth day by day, and the bounty that energy yields in terms of the growth of plants, the movement of wind and water and the regeneration of soil and mineral resources.

If we are to survive long in our Utopia then one of the key provisions of the new system is the supply of food. Food produced in perpetual balance with the daily and annual cycle of solar energy inputs.

When we look at 'modern' agriculture we find that is unable to operate within this limitation. The use of fossil fuels for farm machinery and agri-chemicals is utterly incompatible with the constraints of our Utopia's energy and resource allocations, as is the maintenance of infrastructure like freezing works, vast dairy factories and the international transport of critical farm inputs such as phosphate and sulphur, and exports of surplus product.

In terms of its ability to sustain higher animal life the natural New Zealand bush is close to a 'green desert'. There are reports from early European explorers of tribal hunting parties almost starving to death when lost for a time in the bush, and the Europeans themselves, even with indigenous guides familiar with the area, found sustenance hard to find.

Recent research has found that within a couple of hundred years of their arriving the recent Polynesian migrants to the islands of New Zealand had burned off much of the land's pre-existing forest cover in an apparent effort to create better growing conditions for self-regenerating food crops such as fern roots (an important source of carbohydrate). This effort created an environment that led to the loss of some animal life (the Moa and the Haast Eagle), but which better sustained the local human population. Similar research has led to the appreciation that the forests of North America were heavily modified by the pre-European population to encourage the growth of fauna and flora to support human needs. The turkeys found by the Europeans wandering 'wild' were in fact part of the local people's complex forest food gardens; not some random distribution of wild-fowl.

Thus there is already a strong and ancient pattern of deliberate large-scale modification of our local plant and animal life as a means of sustaining human habitation, and this points a way to suggesting that again our national food production can be based around the broad productive capability of the entire sunlight-receiving surface of the country from the coast to the alpine bush-line.

There are many recorded sites of formal gardens near places of pre-European habitation (some older than the recent Polynesian arrivals) and of course the continued operation of the kitchen garden as a source of much of the required food supply will persist.

The Polynesian settlers were limited in the nature of plants they could introduce as they had a fairly limited pool of viable species to draw from, and transport and propagation of new plants was difficult. We are now comparatively fortunate that in addition to those plants so carefully tended and understood by the pre-Europeans we have a wide range of useful 'exotic' perennial food plants from root vegetables, greens, berries, medicinals, fruit and nuts that can be planted in viable locations to grow 'wild' until they are needed. This will allow us to re-establsh the national forest food garden as a 'common good' for the people of New Zealand to replace the resource-hungry mechanised factory-food-farming of today.

Beyond food of course our Utopia's gardening efforts will provide various fibres for clothing (harakeki, linen flax and cotton should be broadly re-propagated) and timber sustainably coppiced for energy, tapa cloth (as the climate warms) and building materials.

Thus our Utopia has its food and primary material needs addressed in a way that demonstrates our intelligent utilisation of the resources we will have available.

Our Utopia will not have many of the employment opportunities of today; national electricity supply will collapse within a few weeks of the last tanker-load of crude oil arriving at Marsden Point, and with the loss of electricity will go most forms of commerce and employment. Instead we will find work for idle hands in gently guiding the national forest food gardens (the 'commons') through its annual production cycles, caring for each other and maintaing the modest infrastructure of our new more intelligent civilisation.

We will find time to be gentle with ourselves. We will listen to our bodies and recognise for example that the majority of our population have blood types and genetic backgrounds that find ingestion of gluten (wheat) and dairy products compromises our immune systems. This stress leads to many illnesses and disabilities that can be resolved by adherence to a simpler diet of fresh green vegetables, fruit and nuts and moderate protein intake for some.

We will live quietly in balance with nature and with each other. No raiding parties, no resource wars, no felling of our forests to provide spars for foreign warships. We will sit in the sun a lot and exchange knowledge with our children and grandchildren, we will come to know the land again and our place within it.

We will understand that no-one can take more than their share of the 'common' without prejudicing us all. We have tried ignoring this natural rule, and this is where we are today. Thus the intelligence and wisdom of Utopia will be passed on from parent to child, and our performance will be watched over and if need-be softly realigned by those who still remember the cost we paid - that is the cost we will pay in the next few decades.

We will know that peace that transcends all understanding, the peace of surrender, of faith, and of true companionship with man and with nature. Utopia.

But. Are we ready for Utopia? Can we simply drop tools, shut down the laptop, say goodbye to the nine-to-five job, step out of the queue at the job search agency, and catch a bus to become a model citizen of Utopia? I think not.

In New Zealand we are blessed with a vast array of people with different geographic and social backgrounds. Some of us are less than four generations distant from cannibals, while others are direct descendants of those arrogant economic imperialists who enslaved and devoured the souls and spirits of the uncomprehending populations of entire continents of the 'new world'. When we push the pin into this heap of history, of layered cause and effect, we find that in the end no one's pot is really any blacker than the any one else's. Its just not a pretty picture.

We are not nobly defined by our land, by our government, by our flag, or by our behaviour as citizens. We kill too many children, we murder too many friends, we disobey too many laws. The fact that we have so many laws to disobey is a clear indication of the failure of our moral education at the most basic level. We don't need laws relating to 'Careless use of a motor vehicle causing death' if everybody respects and obeys the basic principle that no one should kill anybody else. We don't need laws relating to 'Converting to his own use ...' if everybody respects and obeys the basic principle that no one should take what doesn't belong to them.

We give our power to elected representatives knowing that those exercising the power only represent the views of a minority, and then grumble at the outcome of government. We surrender our most basic needs as human beings into the hands of 'the system' and then rial at our sense of powerlessness and cry out "Why doesn't the government do something...!"

Why do we fear loosing our jobs, dropping off the dole, standing up for ourselves when to do so will mean we cannot buy food for our families, we cannot pay the water supply, electricity and sewerage utilities? Because we have given the power of life and death over our families to the supermarket supply chain, the council, the energy company!

If you grow your own food - they have no power over you! if you collect your own rain water - they have no power over you! If you convert human waste to humanure to fertilise your garden - they have no power over you! If you use a solar cooker and a small solar electricity unit - they have no power over you!

Yet how many of us are so independent of 'the system' that we no longer need to care if it exists or not? Very few. Yet therein lies our rite of passage to Utopia.

By taking these and many other powers back to ourselves we can begin to assume the responsibilities we as adults pretend to our children that we have, but know we don't have. It is for us to determine how much food we eat, and to never fear 'the price of milk', the price of water, the price of energy. But until we are in that position we will always demand that 'they' do something to make it right. We will always be a mouse, rather than a man.

Yet in our hearts this is not where we want to be is it? In each of us resides the Noble Savage; the Provider and Protector. The Father or Mother figure proud of its brood of well-manered fledglings.

So now we have a destination; somewhere to aim for. With this knowledge we can define our new direction; we now know in which direction lies peril, and in which direction we will find Utopia. How do we move from where we are today? As usual; we take one step at a time in the right direction.

Nigel Williams

Christchurch and The Emperor's Clothes - Some Harsh Realities

2011-03-04T01:12:00.000-08:00

Christchurch and The Emperor's Clothes - Some Harsh Realities

Nigel Williams

Updated March 5, 2011.

This paper gathers together information that is relevant to the condition of Christchurch, New Zealand. It raises some `home truths' that will be unpalatable to many, particularly at a time so close to the recent series of tragic events.

But as a Christchurch-born boy I feel I have a duty to drag these harsh realities into the open; to discuss The Emperor's Clothes. So, before you shoot the messenger, please listen to what he has to say.

Introduction

As the dust begins to settle on another devastating earthquake in my dear hometown, the clamour to resume business as usual and rebuild something new and `iconic' on the rubble of the old is gaining momentum.

Our government is struggling to find the money to help restore the city to its former glory, especially with the multiple hits of the earthquakes on top of the generally depressed economic conditions nationally and globally.

Deep down I'm sure the decision-makers know that they are going to have to be very careful with every penny that is spent on Christchurch.

The city is proud of its heritage. The combined European and Polynesian presence has left its mark on place and history stretching back atleast 800 years. If we are to build a new and more resilient city then we must look for a place and manner of community function that has a genuine potential to provide a future at least as long as the city's noble past.

We must use the knowledge we have of the state of the world today to must ensure that what we re-build today will be of service to our children, and to their children for many generations; to ensure that our efforts will reap the same rewards that we enjoy today from the efforts of our forefathers many centuries ago.

Among the mud, dust and rubble of this trembling town there are many spirits stirring. Some will urge us to take swift and decisive action with the risk of repeating many of the errors of the past; others, three in particular, will demand of us the utmost strength to think deeply of them, and to find the courage to make very hard choices based on what these spirits tell us.

These three sleeping spirits stand on each other's shoulders; each reinforces the effect of the ones beneath as time passes.

The first spirit will awake and open its eyes in a time frame of years, perhaps months. Its name is FIRE.

The second spirit raises its head in a time frame of decades, perhaps years. Its name is FOOD.

The third spirit bares its teeth in timeframes of centuries, perhaps decades. Its name is FLOOD.

FIRE

To support in just a few years the building of a third of a city that has taken 150 years to build before will require a significant amount of energy. That first build and work to date was enabled by the fire of cheap readily available high-density energy; first coal, then oil.

In one of its many increasingly blunt statements about the global energy predicament the International Energy Agency stated in 2009 that "…global oil supply is expected to decline at about 6.7% per year from its peak in 2008."

This means that by 2020 the theoretical oil supply for NZ will be only 55% of the 1990 level. That's the IEA, and they should (and do) know.

The recent Parliamentary Research Paper The next oil shock? restates warnings by other agencies that: "…another supply crunch is likely to occur soon after 2012 due to rising demand and insufficient production capacity…"

http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/ParlSupport/ResearchPapers/4/6/a/00PLEco10041-The-next-oil-shock.htm

The report Peak Oil Vulnerability Assessment for Dunedin (Dr Susan Krumdieck et al.; 2010) notes that: "The peak and decline in world oil supply will be a driver for long-term fuel consumption reduction to around 50% of current levels by 2050. The possibility of fuel shocks will be ever-present."

http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/159857/Peak-Oil-Report-Dec-2010.pdf

Comment: These are not idle threats to our way of life; these are plain realities that we ignore at our peril. Sometime soon we will have another oil price spike and within the next 10 to 40 years (2020 to 2050; that long, if we are so lucky) global supplies of conventional oil (the stuff we use to rebuild cities with and to take Johnny to school with) will be down to 50% or less of today's level.

This will impact not only on the choice of urban form for a rebuilt city but also on our ability to move food supplies long distances, and to obtain materials for the production of essential manufactured goods and agricultural efforts.

The FIRE is flickering now, and it will surely die.

FOOD

Christchurch's new town will continue to rely on the production of its rural hinterland as the cornerstone of its economic wealth and reason for being. How viable is that production? Remember that by 2050 for sure we will be fortunate to have perhaps half the oil for transport, agricultural chemicals and production that we do today. We will `eat local', or we will not eat at all. What else can go wrong with our ability to feed ourselves in Christchurch?

Refer to the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry: The EcoClimate Report - Climate change and agricultural production. http://www.maf.govt.nz

The EcoClimate report presents projected changes based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) third and fourth assessment reports.

Figure 7: `Projected changes to the frequency of droughts' shows the projected driest annual conditions in the 2080s under (a) low medium and (b) medium high scenarios for conditions that currently occur on average once every 20 years.

This Figure shows Canterbury experiencing once every 20-year drought conditions every 5 to 10 years under the low medium scenario and every 2.5 to 5 years under the medium high scenario.

Comment: So, bearing in mind the necessarily conservative approach adopted by the IPCC, it is virtually certain that Canterbury will be experiencing once-in-20-year drought conditions every 5 to 10 years by 2080, possibly as frequently as once ever 2.5 years.

The eastern areas of New Zealand have already had samples of these conditions, and the Ministry's report confirms that these dry conditions will continue to arrive with increasing frequency. Agriculture (particularly with low energy inputs) will be hard to sustain as Plains dry out. 2080.

Because, by 2080, the Earth's atmosphere and temperature will not yet be in balance with the climate-altering forcings we have imposed, these conditions in Canterbury will continue to get worse for some considerable time beyond 2080.

The absence of readily available or affordable oil for transport, agri-chemicals, fertiliser, and energy for irrigation will make it very difficult for Canterbury to sustain a form of agriculture that will provide local food to a population of four to five hundred thousand people.

Agricultural production will be in dire straights, as will one of Christchurch's main reasons for being. In Christchurch by 2080 the combination of the energy situation and the increasing frequency of drought conditions will mean that FOOD will be hard to find.

FLOOD

If we are looking at local food supplies, then the most productive land (before much of it was filled over for housing – Bad move!) was on the coastal soils including Marshland and in the rich soils of the valleys of the Port Hills (Watch that rock-fall!). In common with all coastal cities, Christchurch has to consider the impact of sea level rise on its plans for investment in the development of the repaired town.

Hansen recently suggested that a 10-year doubling time in the rate of ice sheet melting was plausible; pointing out that such a doubling time from the current observed base of 1 mm per year ice sheet contribution to sea level in the decade 2005-2015 will lead to a cumulative 5 metre sea level rise by about 2095. Hansen has found that actual data points to a shorter doubling time of around 8 years.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf

Comment: The steps into Christchurch's Cathedral are at 6.197m above mean sea level, or less than 5 metres above high tide.

So by the Year of Our Lord 2100, high tide will see ocean fish nibbling the Cathedral's altar cloth and the coastal strip containing the premium market gardening soils will be awash. By 2200 AD with at least 10 m of sea level rise Captain Cook will be right, its 'Banks Island' not 'Banks Peninsula'; Lyttelton Port becomes inaccessible from The Mainland and two-thirds of present-day Christchurch City is reclaimed by the sea. 200 years is barely the duration of European association with the Cathedral City. Not long. Certainly not long enough.

With the absence of cheap oil that will be evident by late in the century our ability to transport food and commodities long distances will be compromised, and drought conditions will make it difficult to produce sufficient food to meet the local demand of a large city. Rising seas will by 2100 have inundated prime coastal market gardening areas further exacerbating the food supply situation, as well as taking over a third of the existing urban area including most of the parts of Christchurch which have suffered the worst effects of liquefaction in the recent earthquakes.

The sea will rise faster and faster over a number of centuries until the amount of grounded ice left to melt begins to decline significantly.

As James Hansen declared in his 2008 testimony to Congress: "No stable shoreline would be re-established in any time frame that humanity can conceive."

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf

Sea levels will eventually stabilise when all the ice that there is to melt is melted, and the seas have risen about 75 metres, plus a bit for thermal expansion. Rangiora and Rolleston will be gone, and Dunsandel and Ashburton will be seaside towns perched on the 15 metre high eroding sea cliffs of the shrinking and desolate Canterbury Plains.

http://tinyurl.com/69eskta

By late in the century the lack of oil-powered transport and construction equipment will mean that it is impractical to consider building any sort of barrier to the rising sea (after all it would have to be built by hand), and the inevitability of continued sea level rise for centuries makes any development or reconstruction within the long reach of the rising ocean a temporary arrangement at best, and a criminal waste of the effort, money and resources used in its construction at worst.

By 2100 the sea's inroads will confirm that the continued habitation of what is currently Christchurch City is unwise, and indeed pointless.

In time FLOOD will wipe clean the slate that was Christchurch.

Conclusion

We have lit the fire and consumed the oil, the burning of the fire has changed the climate, the changed climate is bringing the heat and drought, and the heat is melting the ice that is filling the oceans.

Within the next couple of years the all-sustaining fire of cheap energy is going to flicker, and oil (and all it means for us) will be beyond our economic reach within 10 to 40 years. In particular the city’s ability to source staple food supplies from long distances away will be compromised; the principal source of food will have to be that grown locally. Two years to perhaps 40 years, if we're lucky.

Over the next 60 to 70 years progressively worsening drought conditions on the Canterbury Plains will become so extreme that, in combination with the lack of oil supplies to support drought-tolerant agricultural production, the overall viability of large-scale commercial food production will be suspect. 60 to 70 years, and it will not get better.

Within the next 50 to 100 years the progressive and inexorable rise in sea levels will become evident as coastal areas are inundated. By 2100 the surf could be running through Cathedral Square. The sea will continue to rise and "...No stable shoreline would be re-established in any time frame that humanity can conceive".

These are the realities that a local view of the much-discussed impacts of resource depletion, climate change and the inevitable and progressive rise in sea levels will have on the existing city of Christchurch.

Over our lifetimes and the lives of our children and grandchildren these impacts are – as far as we are concerned – inevitable and unavoidable.

So Where and How for Christchurch?

The changed climate is expected to give rise to more floods in the rivers over the plains. Perhaps a modest new city in the foothills at the top of the plains watered by gravity fed canals from the great rivers may be a possibility.

The hills above Timaru will eventually be the best harbour on the edge of the plains, and the downs there may become a safe haven if water supply can be assured.

But whatever the solution we have a marvellous opportunity to take part in a consciously joyful process to re-establish a meaningful and viable city that can look forward to a future at least as long as its past. To achieve that we must bring the talents of the entire community to bear on the realities that confront us.

We must ask: “Where is the best place to apply the effort and money we are planning to spend rebuilding Christchurch?” Sadly, one place is sure; NOT Christchurch.

We have no time and no money to loose. The informed community must debate the final answer to that question before any more money is wasted.

With the right outcome from this debate we can look forward to the best and most meaningful times of our lives.

~/~

Update 13 June 2011.

Article in Christchurch Press re Hansen referring to The 100 Metre Line:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/5130776/Flood-risk-grows-as-ground-slumps

Commented in:

http://www.rebuildchristchurch.co.nz/blog/2011/6/flood-risk-in-christchurch#comments

and

http://astroblognz.blogspot.com/2011/05/christchurch-quake-warnings-extended-by.html

and

http://www.silobreaker.com/flood-risk-grows-as-ground-slumps-5_2264631227124285530

~/~

80m Sea Rise Maps - Scandinavia, Western Russia, Caspian and Black Sea

2011-02-09T05:39:00.000-08:00

Using Google Maps and the Sea Level Rise applet, the following maps show 80 metres of sea level rise.

Areas shaded red are those areas inundated.

Scandinavia and Western Russia

Caspian and Black Sea Area

I strongly recommend you check with your local maps to review the location of the 80 metre contour in your area of interest.

The Promise of Doubling

2011-01-22T16:59:00.000-08:00

In seeking to understand the implications of this latest paper from Hansen et al (see my earlier posts), a useful place to start is with Hansen’s observation that:

“…Hansen (2007) suggested that a 10-year doubling time was plausible pointing out that such a doubling time from a base of 1 mm per year ice sheet contribution to sea level in the decade 2005-2015 would lead to a cumulative 5 m sea level rise by 2095. ”

While we know that in fact the 2005-2015 base to start the doubling from is probably somewhat higher than that.

As with any compounding calculation the final result is very dependent on the starting conditions. Hansen notes in the paper that recent data suggests a 6 to 8 year doubling rather than the 10 year he uses in Figure 7. So his sea level rise in 2100 is very ‘conservative’.

For instance:
"Since the beginning of the 20th century, the seas have continued to rise at an average rate of 1.7 ± 0.5 mm per year, according to the IPCC (Bindoff et al., 2007). This increase, however, has not happened at a constant rate. The first noted increase was over the period of 1961 to 2003, when the average rate of sea level rise was 1.8 ± 0.5 mm per year (Church et al, 2001; Church and White, 2006; Bindoff et al., 2007). Global mean sea level measurements have become even larger since 1993. According to the IPCC, “For the period 1993 to 2003, the rate of sea level rise is estimated from observations with satellite altimetry as 3.1 ± 0.7 mm yr–1, significantly higher than the average rate.”
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/SeaLevelRise.asp?MR=1

So starting at 3.1mm/yr and using that rate doubling in say every 8 years gives over 75 metres rise before 2100, i.e. all grounded ice in the world melted. Most coastal cities (including most of London, Washington, Tokyo, Berlin and Beijing, for example) gone.
Not a good look!

Alternatively, if we use Hansen’s 1.0 mm rise contribution from ice sheets C2010, then we find (as Hansen’s figure 7 shows) we get to 5 metres sea level rise by 2095 with 10-year doubling in the rate of ice sheet loss, by year 2080 with 8-year doubling, and by 2065 with 6-year doubling; and of course the curves just keep on getting steeper after those dates; such is the nature of exponential growth. That is, the melt rate will continue to increase until the volume of ice left to melt starts to diminish, and then the melt will continue until all the ice is gone.

Neither of these approaches yield pleasant outcomes for humanity.

Nigel

Hansen 5 metres by 2100...

2011-01-19T13:30:00.000-08:00

From Hansen today in addition to my previous post:

Its worth reading the paper in full, please:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf

Hansen says:

Fig. 7. Five-meter sea level change in 21st century under assumption of linear change (Alley, 2010) and exponential change (Hansen, 2007), the latter with a 10-year doubling time.

...These projections are typically a factor of 3-4 larger than the IPCC (2007) estimates, and thus they altered perceptions about the potential magnitude of human-caused sea level change.

Alley (2010) reviewed projections of sea level rise by 2100, showing several clustered around 1 m and one outlier at 5 m, all of which he approximated as linear. The 5 m estimate is what Hansen (2007) suggested was possible, given the assumption of a typical IPCC's BAU climate forcing scenario. Alley's graph is comforting, making the suggestion of a possible 5 m sea level rise seem to be an improbable outlier, because, in addition to disagreeing with all other projections, a half-meter sea level rise in the next 10 years is preposterous.

However, the fundamental issue is linearity versus non-linearity. Hansen (2005, 2007) argues that amplifying feedbacks make ice sheet disintegration necessarily highly non-linear. In a non-linear problem, the most relevant number for projecting sea level rise is the doubling time for the rate of mass loss. Hansen (2007) suggested that a 10-year doubling time was plausible pointing out that such a doubling time from a base of 1 mm per year ice sheet contribution to sea level in the decade 2005-2015 would lead to a cumulative 5 m sea level rise by 2095.

...

By mid-century most of Greenland would be experiencing summer melting in a longer melt season. Also some Greenland ice stream outlets are in valleys with bedrock below sea level. As the terminus of an ice stream retreats inland, glacier sidewalls can collapse, creating a wider pathway for disgorging ice.

...

PIG and neighboring glaciers in the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica, which are also accelerating, contain enough ice to contribute 1-2 m to sea level. Most of West Antarctica, with at least 5 m of sea level, and about a third of East Antarctica, with another 15-20 m of sea level, are grounded below sea level. This more vulnerable ice may have been the source of the 25 ± 10 m sea level rise of the Pliocene (Dowsett et al., 1990, 1994). If human-made global warming reaches Pliocene levels this century, as expected under BAU scenarios, these greater volumes of ice will surely begin to contribute to sea level change. Indeed, satellite gravity and radar interferometry data reveal that the Totten Glacier of East Antarctica, which fronts a large ice mass grounded below sea level, is already beginning to lose mass (Rignot et al., 2008).

...

These data records are too short to provide a reliable evaluation of the doubling time, but, such as they are, they yield a best fit doubling time for annual mass loss of 5-6 years for both Greenland and Antarctica., consistent with the approximate doubling of annual mass loss in the period 2003-2008. There is substantial variation among alternative analyses of the gravity field data (Sorensen and Forsberg, 2010), but all analyses have an increasing mass loss with time, providing at least a tentative indication that long-term ice loss mass will be non-linear.

We conclude that available data for the ice sheet mass change are consistent with our expectation of a non-linear response, but the data record is too short and uncertain to allow quantitative assessment. The opportunity for assessment will rapidly improve in coming years if high-precision gravity measurements are continued.

Finally, we note the existence of a strong negative feedback described by Hansen (2009) that comes into play when the rate of sea level rise approaches the order of a meter per decade. Such an iceberg discharge rate temporarily overwhelms greenhouse warming, cooling high latitude atmosphere and ocean mixed layer below current levels. Ice sheet mass loss may slow in response to this cooling, but, as described qualitatively by Hansen (2009), it will be no consolation to humans. Stronger storms driven by increased latitudinal temperature gradients, combined with multi-meter sea level rise, will produce global havoc.

...

However, we must expect ice sheet mass balance changes will occur simultaneously in both hemispheres. Why? Because ice sheets in both hemispheres were in near-equilibrium with Holocene temperatures. That is probably why both Greenland and Antarctica began to shed ice in the past decade or so, because global temperature is just rising above the Holocene level.

Ice sheet disintegration in Antarctica depends on melting the underside of ice shelves as the ocean warms, a process well underway at the Pine Island glacier (Scott et al., 2009). The glacier's grounding line has retreated inland by tens of kilometers (Jenkins et al., 2010) and thinning of the ice sheet has spread inland hundreds of kilometers (Wingham et al., 2009).

...

d. Scenarios and predictions

Predictions of future sea level change are inherently difficult because, we assert, ice sheet disintegration is fundamentally a non-linear process. However, in addition, the climate forcing scenario is uncertain. When predictions are made, or statements that can be construed as predictions, it is important to be clear what climate forcing scenario is being considered.

IPCC BAU (business-as-usual) scenarios assume that greenhouse gas emissions will continue to increase, with the nations of the world burning most of the fossil fuels including unconventional fossil fuels such as tar sands.

An alternative extreme, one that places a substantial rising price on carbon emissions, would have CO2 emissions beginning to decrease within less than a decade, as the world moves on energy systems beyond fossil fuels, leaving most of the remaining coal and unconventional fossil fuels in the ground. In this extreme scenario, let's call it fossil fuel phase-out (FFPO), CO2 would rise above 400 ppm but begin a long decline by mid-century (Hansen et al., 2008).

The European Union 2°C scenario, call it EU2C, falls in between these two extremes.

BAU scenarios result in global warming of the order of 3-6°C. It is this scenario for which we assert that multi-meter sea level rise on the century time scale are not only possible, but almost dead certain. Such a huge rapidly increasing climate forcing dwarfs anything in the peleoclimate record. Antarctic ice shelves would disappear and the lower reaches of the Antarctic ice sheets would experience summer melt comparable to that on Greenland today.

The other extreme scenario, FFPO, does not eliminate the possibility of multi-meter sea level rise, but it leaves the time scale for ice sheet disintegration very uncertain, possibly very long. If the time scale is several centuries, then it may be possible to avoid large sea level rise by decreasing emissions fast enough to cause atmospheric greenhouse gases to decline in amount.

What about the intermediate scenario, EU2C? We have presented evidence in this paper that prior interglacial periods were less than 1°C warmer than the Holocene maximum. If we are correct in that conclusion, the EU2C scenario implies a sea level rise of many meters. It is difficult to predict a time scale for the sea level rise, but it would be dangerous and foolish to take such a global warming scenario as a goal.

.End.

And from me in 2009, taking an empirical view...

Nigel Williams' estimate of sea level rise. Note the exponential curve through 5 metres rise at 2100,

As noted in earlier postings, once ice sheet disintegration gets under way, unless there is some drastic (and currently not anticipated) reversal in climate forcings the process will simply continue until the bulk of the ice sheets are gone.

We're on our way to a very wet and wild time!

Hansen: "...implying the possibility of multi-meter sea level rise this century."

2011-01-19T12:11:00.000-08:00

A draft of a paper by Hansen et al just out today..

Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change

James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato, January 2011

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf

Abstract:

"... Deglaciation, disintegration of ice sheets, is nonlinear, spurred by amplifying feedbacks. If warming reaches a level that forces deglaciation, the rate of sea level rise will depend on the doubling time for ice sheet mass loss. Gravity satellite data, although too brief to be conclusive, are consistent with a doubling time of 10 years or less, implying the possibility of multi-meter sea level rise this century. "

As I was saying...!

It is a moral issue.

2011-01-11T01:13:00.000-08:00

In response to a post in Hot-topic.co.nz I suggested that the solution to the present issues confronting us can best be addressed by moral force:-

"Erentz; I most respectfully but strongly disagree with your contention that government is a necessary element in the process of advancing the change required.

I see the issue as a moral issue, not one that 'government' can or even needs to get involved in.

We are told repeatedly by 'government' that the market can lead to change in the products and systems we have to use; carbon-free transport for example. If that is the case, (and it has been for a while) then we-the-market can choose to force those changes.

For example I suggested at a City Council hearing that the most effective thing our city could do to reduce food miles and non-recyclable packaging would be to include a dozen sheets of small stickers which read "I didn't buy this product today because it came from too far away!" and "I didn't buy this product today because the packaging is not sustainably produced or recyclable!". Include these with every notice to householders for a year for them to take with them shopping and the change would be remarkable. They saw the threat to their commercial rates-base however, and demurred.

The moral issue here is well known to most of us:-

It is wrong to keep on doing what we are doing to the Earth. It is wrong because it is having an impact on all of us today, and the impacts on our children and future generations are certain to be worse than we can imagine. Therefore the moral issue relates to the choice between business-as-usual and some other thing.

We do not need government to make these choices, and we do not need government to make these choices known to the market or to any powers-that-be who may have any useful interest in our choices.

The greatest issues of our times have not been solved by government cooperation or action, but by moral action declared by conscious non-violent actions as evidence of the moral stand. The two great examples of the use of moral force are South Africa's abandonment of apartheid and India's freedom from the British. Neither of these remarkable events required the 'cooperation' of governments, but rather the governments fell beneath the force of the moral onslaught.

These shining lights contrast markedly with every other 'solution' that has been tried; with perhaps the notable exception of the elimination of CFCs in relation to the ozone layer depletion - which was achieved cooperatively because (again) the problem and solution were clear and morally it was the morally right thing to do.

There is no other practical way forwards for us;
*We must resolve and declare the nature of the moral issue in terms that the poorest most uneducated and disadvantaged members of our society can grasp, see the rightness of and act on;
*We must apply our individual moral force to the issue by 'becoming the change you want to see in the World' (MKG). If this change is seen as good, then it will encourage others to the rightness of the need for change.
*We must, if need-be, apply non-violent means, including civil non-cooperation against established institutions which are obstacles to the required change to achieve the morally correct end.

That is the only way to take this matter beyond individuals and get the movement that is necessary."

Thanks,

Nigel

Another perspective - Arctic Ice Gone for Good by 2040?

2011-01-09T02:33:00.000-08:00

This from October 2010 - a rather more scientific approach than mine earlier.

by GARETH on OCTOBER 18, 2010
http://hot-topic.co.nz/gone-for-good-arctic-ocean-ice-free-all-year-by-the-2040s/

A few days ago I used a combination of Arctic sea ice volume data from the University of Washington’s PIOMAS model and NSIDC sea ice extent numbers to project that the Arctic Ocean would be effectively ice-free in late summer within ten years. The key to that exercise was the rate at which the volume of sea ice has been declining ...

As I was saying...

Greenland - a turning point by around 2040.

2011-01-09T02:25:00.000-08:00

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/346/855/Greenland_s_melting_seems_unstoppable.html

Berlingske Tidende
Friday 7 January 2011, 03:53

'Even if we turned off all power stations and threw the keys to our car away, we would probably be unable to put a stop to it.

'No matter how much we turn down the CO2-burner, Greenland will still reach a significantturning point by around 2040, writes Berlingske Tidende.

'Subsequently, the melting of the island's enormous quantities of ice will continue and continue and in principle not stop until most of the ice is gone.

"It is a very troubling result, because it shows that the melting can go much stronger than we usually imagine," says one of the article's authors, Jens Hesselberg Christensen,Berlingske Tidende.

'...A total meltdown of the ice cap will have the world's oceans to rise with six to seven meters.

2040. Say no more!

Running Hot and Cold

2011-01-01T17:10:00.000-08:00

The recent extreme cold events in Europe have understandably given some folk cause to mutter about the supposed direction of climate change and global temperatures.
But we can be assured that we are on track to our ultimate destination; plus more degrees C than normal civilised life can sustain.
Hansen sums it up thus:

"...Sea ice insulates the atmosphere from ocean water warmth, allowing surface air to achieve temperatures much lower than that of the ocean. It is for this reason that some of the largest positive temperature anomalies on the planet occur in the Arctic Ocean as sea ice area has decreased in recent years.

The cold anomaly in Northern Europe in November has continued and strengthened in the first half of December. Combined with the unusual cold winter of 2009-2010 in Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, this regional cold spell has caused widespread commentary that global warming has ended. That is hardly the case. On the contrary, globally November 2010 is the warmest November in the GISS record...." (Hansen et al 20101211)

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20101211_TemperatureAndEurope.pdf
Other recent research has attributed the same sea ice effect on the location of the jet streams, and this is found to be a primary cause of the European winter chills.
"It is nevertheless no contradiction between a global warming and cold winters in regions like Europe. Rather, recent analysis suggest that the global mean temperature is marching towards higher values (see figure below), and Petoukhov and Semenov argue that the cold winter should be an expected consequence of a global warming..." (Rasmus Benestad 20101214)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/cold-winter-in-a-world-of-warming/

Both commentaries note the potential importance of Arctic sea ice cover.
Running totals of sea ice cover are found at:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
in particular the long term record:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg

From the time series there is evidence of a steady (and increasingly rapid) decline in seasonal ice cover. The Cryosphere charts show that the minimum ice area has fallen from typical historic lows of about 5 million square kilometres to around three million.

But that is only part of the story. The surface of your glass of freshly made lemonade can be covered in ice if that ice is only a thin veneer or if it extends all the way to be bottom to be mashed and swizzled with your straw.

The volume of the sea ice is the key indicator of how things are going. The volume of Arctic sea ice figure is calculated every few weeks by the University of Washington's Polar Science Centre.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php

But while this shows the anomaly (the variance from a running trend) it does not give us a real clue about how much ice volume remains.

The site comments:

"Monthly average Arctic Ice Volume for Sept 2010 was 4,000 km^3, the lowest over the 1979-2010 period, 78% below the 1979 maximum and 9,400 km^3 or 70% below its mean for the 1979-2009 period. "

From the text and chart on the Washington U Ice Volume site I have extracted a few salient points which as far as I can tell give a true indication of how much ice is left in the Arctic glass.

From this we can see that the summer minimum ice volume has diminished from the 1979 September minimum of 19,000 cubic kilometres to the 2010 September minimum of 4000 cubic kilometres.

I have not joined the dots with a curve, as its non-linear, and the site does not give me enough data to confidently make those interpolations. But the points for 1979, 2009 and 2010 provide sufficient evidence for us to see that, while sea ice cover is still remaining fairly high, the actual volume of ice beneath that cover is declining drastically. The ice on your glass is getting very thin indeed. A layman could be forgiven for drawing the conclusion that an ice-free arctic is not many seasons away.

With that ice goes an enormous heat sink and stabilising influence on the rate of global temperature rise, which will further hasten the rate of loss of grounded ice, and the consequent rate of sea level rise.

If we think back now to the present anomalous state of Europe's recent summer and winter weather with a very modest loss of Arctic sea ice cover, we can only begin to appreciate what may be in store when that last fragile 4000 cubic kilometres of Arctic ice turns to mush not many summers from now, and the lid comes off the Arctic Ocean Weather Machine.

Keep thinking. Keep acting.
Kind regards
Nigel

The Price of Change - This just out from Dr James Hansen

2010-11-22T22:20:00.000-08:00

The Price of Change
James E Hansen
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20101122_ChinaOpEd.pdf

"Sea level rise is one problem. Carbon dioxide amounts of 400ppm (parts per million), expected in 2016 with current emissions, will cause an eventual sea level rise of about 25 metres. China's land area will shrink rapidly, requiring about 250 million people to move inland.

"How rapidly ice sheets will collapse is uncertain. A sea level rise of one metre every 20 years has occurred in the past ice sheet disintegrations. But the human-made climate forcing is far greater and faster than past natural forcings. Ice shelves - tongues of ice protruding into the ocean and buttressing the great Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets - are melting. Both ice sheets are now loosing over 100 cubic kilometres of ice each [year]. If mass loss continues to accellerate, ice sheet collapse may begin within decades."

"Governments must recognise this harsh fact: Burning all fossil fuels would increase carbon dioxide to more than 555ppm and create a different planet - a desolate, ice-free planet with sea levels 75 metres higher than today.
---

As Glaciers Melt, Science Seeks Data on Rising Seas - N.Y. Times

2010-11-19T02:43:00.000-08:00

Some quotes from this recent article in the NYT:

"As a result of recent calculations that take the changes into account, many scientists now say that sea level is likely to rise perhaps three feet by 2100 — an increase that, should it come to pass, would pose a threat to coastal regions the world over.
"And the calculations suggest that the rise could conceivably exceed six feet, which would put thousands of square miles of the American coastline under water and would probably displace tens of millions of people in Asia.

"Water that originated far to the south, in warmer parts of the Atlantic Ocean, is flushing into Greenland’s fjords at a brisk pace. Scientists suspect that as it melts the ice from beneath, the warm water is loosening the connection of the glaciers to the ground and to nearby rock.

"Moreover, scientists point out that if their projections prove accurate, the sea will not stop rising in 2100. By that point, the ice sheets could be undergoing extensive melting.
“Beyond a hundred years out, it starts to look really challenging,” said Richard B. Alley, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University. “You start thinking about every coastal city on the planet hiding behind a wall, with storms coming.”

"Climate scientists note that while the science of studying ice may be progressing slowly, the world’s emissions of heat-trapping gases are not. They worry that the way things are going, extensive melting of land ice may become inevitable before political leaders find a way to limit the gases, and before scientists even realize such a point of no return has been passed.
“The past clearly shows that sea-level rise is getting faster and faster the warmer it gets,” Dr. Rahmstorf said. “Why should that process stop? If it gets warmer, ice will melt faster.”
---

" ...sea-level rise is getting faster and faster the warmer it gets..." Thanks Dr Rahmstorf!

Temperature is proportional to CO2 levels. (You know that!)
The monthly average CO2 levels trend for the year to date (Jan to October 2010) are:

387.38, 387.76, 387.86, 387.87, 387.94, 388.18, 388.45, 388.74, 389.21 ppm.

Every month upwards.  Every month the global temperature is higher, and

"sea level rise is getting faster and faster".  Isn't it.

“Why should that process stop?" asks Dr Rahmstorf!

Yes, why indeed!

The Difference between an Anomaly and a Catastrophe

2010-06-25T15:53:00.000-07:00

This chart shows the prevailing trend in the volume of floating ice in the Arctic. The loss of Arctic ice impacts on the entire climate dynamic, as increased open sea surface changes the way heat is transported globally, and particularly around Northern Hemisphere and Europe.

This in turn impacts on temperatures impinging on Greenland's grounded ice sheets, and on methane release from tundra; while all contribute to positively reinforce the trend of increasing rates of sea level rise.

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png

The Polar Science Centre observes:

"Total Arctic Ice Volume for March 2010 is 20,300 km^3, the lowest over the 1979-2010 period and 38% below the 1979 maximum. PIOMAS calculates that the monthly average Arctic Sea Ice Volume for May 2010 was 19,000 km^3, the lowest May volume over the 1979–2010 period, 42% below the 1979 maximum and 32% below the 1979–2009 May average. September Ice Volume was lowest in 2009 at 5,800 km^3 or 67% below its 1979 maximum. Shaded areas represent one and two standard deviations of the anomaly from the trend. "

Check it often.

And for comparison, using

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg

I've copied the 2007 ice extent over the 2010 situation. The 2010 is the darker line stopping 28 June. Remember that 2007 was the lowest ice extent year recorded to date.

Global CO2 level for May 389.88ppm, trend 388.23ppm.

2010-05-31T13:41:00.000-07:00

The Month of May saw CO2 at 389.88ppm, with the annual trend at 388.23ppm. Another good month for increase in CO2. Sigh!

Let us assume that we will see at least 4 [metres], and plan accordingly

2010-05-03T03:58:00.000-07:00

Three great articles by Orlov and Friends. Please read them and ponder a while:-

"...If the latest forecast is for 2 metres this century, let us assume that we will see at least 4, and plan accordingly.

But do the exact forecasts even matter? We already know enough to say that there is a high probability that ocean levels will rise, significantly, within the lifetimes of most of the people alive today, disrupting the patterns of daily life for much of the world's population, which tends to be clustered along the coastlines and the navigable waterways. We also know that ocean levels will continue to rise far into the future, until they are 20 to 36 metres higher than they are today. We know that continuous coastal erosion and salt water inundation, coastal flooding and displacement of coastal populations, which number in the billions, toward higher ground, will be normal and expected. We also know that there is a high chance these changes will occur based on present carbon dioxide levels, regardless of what is being currently proposed by the governments of the world to reduce greenhouse gas emissions..."

"...Our worst-case scenario is that our worst-case scenario is going to continue getting worse and worse..."

http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2009/10/oceans-are-coming.html
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2009/11/oceans-are-coming-part-ii-living-on.html
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2010/01/oceans-are-coming-part-iii-remaining.html

Nigel

New paper: Global sea level linked to global temperature

2010-04-18T02:45:00.000-07:00

Global sea level linked to global temperature
By Martin Vermeera, and Stefan Rahmstorf
October 26, 2009
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21527.full.pdf

This new paper takes a 'modern' look at sea level rise projections out to 2100 AD.

The abstract notes:
"For future global temperature scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report, the relationship projects a sea-level rise ranging from 75 to 190 cm for the period 1990–2100"

In the discussion on projections of future sea levels:-
"Qualitatively we consider this decline in the thermal share and increasing importance of ice melt a robust result, which is our key difference to the IPCC AR4 (2), where the ice-melt share is assumed to diminish with thermal expansion contributing between 55% and 70% of the total sea-level rise over the 21st century."

which fits well with my albeit uneducated perspective,

In
Discussion: Implications for the Future
If our method presents a reasonable approximation of the future sea-level response to global warming, then for a given emission scenario sea level will rise approximately three times as much by 2100 as the projections (excluding rapid ice flow dynamics) of the IPCC AR4 (2) have suggested. Even for the lowest emission scenario (B1), sea-level rise is then likely to be [about] ~1 m; for the highest, it may even come closer to 2 m.

Uncertainties remain, however..."

The discussion concludes:

"In addition, highly nonlinear responses of ice flow may become increasingly important during the 21st century. These are likely to make our linear approach an underestimate. Therefore, we have to entertain the possibility that sea level could rise faster still than suggested by the simple projection based on Eq. 2.

How much faster? Pfeffer et al. (25) provided an independent estimate of maximum ice discharge based on geographic constraints on ice flow; they concluded that sea-level rise in the 21st century is very unlikely to exceed 200 cm. If this estimate is correct, a nonlinear dynamical ice-sheet response may not change our estimate upward by very much. To limit global sea-level rise to a maximum of 1 m in the long run (i.e., beyond 2100), as proposed recently as a policy goal (26), deep emissions reductions will be required. Likely they would have to be deeper than those needed to limit global warming to 2 °C, the policy goal now supported by many countries. Our analysis further suggests that emissions reductions need to come early in this century to be effective.""

--

and still...
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
Seasonally corrected March 2010 level of CO2 = 389.44ppm, and so based on the average rate of change over the last three months, its probably about 389.73ppm today, and still rising....

A Good Hard Look at the Science of Climate Change

2010-04-17T20:34:00.000-07:00

The Economist in a leader:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15720419

and article:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15719298

published in March 2010 has had come out with a very balanced view of the current state of the way the science about climate change is done. Well worth a read.

In its final paragraph the article says:
"The fact that the uncertainties allow you to construct a relatively benign future does not allow you to ignore futures in which climate change is large, and in some of which it is very dangerous indeed. The doubters are right that uncertainties are rife in climate science. They are wrong when they present that as a reason for inaction. "

The leader concludes:

"With climate change you do not need to invent things; the truth, even with all those uncertainties and caveats, is scary enough."

and still...
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
Seasonally corrected March 2010 level of CO2 = 389.44ppm, and rising....

CO2 levels at Mauna Loa. A great indicator of how well we are doing (or not!).

2010-04-05T19:37:00.000-07:00

I have put this link in the sidebar link list, but its worth showing you what it does.

The chart gives a monthly update of the CO2 levels at Mauna Loa - probably the most iconic (and certainly the longest running) CO2 monitoring site.

Chart: CO2 level at Mauna Loa. Data up to February 2010.

As you see there are seasonal variations (due mainly to plant growth during the northern hemisphere summer absorbing more CO2), so the 'middle' line in the chart is the level with the seasonal variation removed.

Make a note in your calendar to check this each month.

I've been watching this for a while, and in spite of all the cries of denial and hope we haven't made the overall trend line turn downwards yet.

Until we do; (you know what I'm going to say don't you) the ice is going to continue to melt and the seas will continue to rise until all the ice is gone.

Admirable restraint and a state of denial?

2010-04-04T14:49:00.000-07:00

http://www.gosford.nsw.gov.au/gis/slr/documents/sea_level_rise_facts.pdf

It is great to see some places taking sea level rise seriously.

This council in New South Wales has made a determination of sea level rise expected by 2100, and is hanging its policy-hat thereon.

"At its meeting of 27 January 2009, [Gosford City] Council considered and approved a report that recommends adopting, for purposes of future planning, a sea level rise planning level of 91cm by the year 2100."

The 91cm figure is made up of

59cm from the IPCC's AR4 global average sea level rise (ignoring ice melt) - high emissions scenario

20cm from AR4's allowance for ice melt uncertainty

and

12cm from the local CSIRO Technical Report (2007) – calculation for local variation on IPCC global average sea level rise.

The key uncertainty of course is the value for the 'ice melt uncertainty'.

Quite understandably the council is using the most solid data it can find, and that is the well-reviewed IPCC AR4 report. But as other postings have shown here, science and the ice has moved on quite a bit since 2007.

Thus I suggest that the council is doing well in that it is adopting figures that are very unlikely to be proven wrong (if we say that it will get at least as high as they say). They could have plugged for a higher figure (say +1.5 metres) without much chance of being wrong either, but they exercised admirable restraint by sticking to the IPCC values.

The national Real Estate and Insurance councils are of course panic-stricken by even this modest 91cm figure as it impacts directly on values and insurance costs.

The Property Council of Australia made a submission to the council including:-
http://www.propertyoz.com.au/Article/Resource.aspx?p=21&submission=551

"We have strongly advocated that the NSW Government demonstrate that it has considered and understands how sea level rise and the proposed projections will impact the property sector and broader community.

As an example, the Government must consider insurance implications and the likely response from the insurance sector as a result of revised sea level projections being released. This includes access to and the risk rating/cost of insurance.

A further worrying example relates to the values of property now caught within any area mapped as being at risk of inundation from rising sea levels. This will have severe flow on financial consequences for the and result in a reduction in lender’s loans to value ratio on property in this category."

The property council's points are well made, but I think from the wrong direction. They would like to see the council adopt a lower sea level rise prediction so that the financial impacts will be avoided. They do not argue the science. They do not suggest that the 91cm is wrong, just that they do not want to accept the consequences of sea level rise at all. Therein lies a state of denial.

As far as I can discern the City Council's resolution of 27 January 2009 embodying a sea level rise of 91cm by 2010 still stands. Good on ya mates!

Greenland Ice Sheet Losing Ice Mass on Northwest Coast, Says New International Study

2010-04-04T02:35:00.000-07:00

http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/f595fae00e6b451d4016ab9a43a049f8.html

Greenland Ice Sheet Losing Ice Mass on Northwest Coast, Says New International Study

March 23, 2010

"When we look at the monthly values from GRACE, the ice mass loss has been very dramatic along the northwest coast of Greenland," said CU-Boulder physics Professor and study co-author John Wahr, also a fellow at CU-Boulder's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences.

"This is a phenomenon that was undocumented before this study," said Wahr. "Our speculation is that some of the big glaciers in this region are sliding downhill faster and dumping more ice in the ocean."

"If this activity in northwest Greenland continues and really accelerates some of the major glaciers in the area -- like the Humboldt Glacier and the Peterman Glacier -- Greenland's total ice loss could easily be increased by an additional 50 to 100 cubic kilometers (12 to 24 cubic miles) within a few years," said Khan.

---
NJW Comment: If it looks like a dog, barks like a dog... !

Auckland, New Zealand. Logo competition for new city.

2010-03-17T17:46:00.000-07:00

The new Auckland City Council is looking for a logo to "...reflect the diversity and excitement of the greater Auckland area" and to "... represent the entire region."

http://www.aucklandcouncillogo.co.nz/

Since seasonally adjusted CO2 is now around 389ppm the ice will continue to continue to melt until its all gone, and in the absence of any viable energy source for humans to pull it down to pre-industrial levels of around 275ppm by doing Work with some Clever Machine, the CO2 levels will only decline by natural processes, in geological time frames.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

In the mean time the ice will continue to melt, and the seas will continue to rise.

So I submitted my logo concept to the competition with the following note:

"I am a citizen who is vitally concerned about the response of the new city's controlling powers to the threat of climate change.

In particular; melting of ice sheets will continue until all that remains of Auckland is the string of islands bounded by the proposed city boundaries, as depicted in my logo entry.

Everything that is done, every dollar of citizen's money that is spent must be directed to attending to this inevitability to ensure the ongoing safety and wellbeing of the people who reside in Auckland now, and in the future."

Nigel

Major sea level rise likely as Antarctic ice melts - 1.4 metres by 2100

2009-12-03T02:52:00.000-08:00

New studies find higher rates likely:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8387137.stm

Quotes:

"Sea levels are likely to rise by about 1.4m (4ft 6in) globally by 2100 as polar ice melts, according to a major review of climate change in Antarctica.

"Conducted by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), it says that warming seas are accelerating melting in the west of the continent.

and from:

Rising sea levels: A tale of two cities

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8369236.stm

"Off the Netherlands, for example, sea levels rose by some 20cm in the last 100 years. But the country's national Delta Commission predicts they will increase by up to 1.3m by 2100 and by as much as 4m by 2200.

---

Thats not a bad fit with the curve...

80m Sea Rise - Maps for Caribbean and South America

2009-09-05T05:37:00.000-07:00

Using Google Maps and the Sea Level Rise applet, the following maps show 80 metres of sea level rise.

Areas shaded red are those areas inundated.

Central America

Caribbean Islands

South America

Amazon Basin

Buenos Aires

I strongly recommend you check with your local maps to review the location of the 80 metre contour in your area of interest.

80m Sea Rise maps - Japan, China, Asia and South East Asia

2009-09-05T05:00:00.000-07:00

Using Google Maps and the Sea Level Rise applet, the following maps show 80 metres of sea level rise.

Areas shaded red are those areas inundated.

Japan

Beijing and Shanghai

Central China

Vietnam and Southern China

Vietnam, Cambodia and Burma

Borneo

Philippines

Indonesia (West)

Indonesia (East)

Irian Jaya / Papua New Guinea

I strongly recommend you check with your local maps to review the location of the 80 metre contour in your area of interest.

80m Sea Rise maps - Africa, Middle East, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh

2009-09-05T04:47:00.000-07:00

Using Google Maps and the Sea Level Rise applet, the following maps show 80 metres of sea level rise.

Areas shaded red are those areas inundated.

Africa

South-East Mediterranean - Egypt

Iraq - Pakistan

Pakistan (Detail)

India-Bangladesh

I strongly recommend you check with your local maps to review the location of the 80 metre contour in your area of interest

The 'Other Problem'. Resource Depletion and Climate Change

2009-08-07T18:59:00.000-07:00

While a little off-topic, the following is a New Zealand perspective on the issue of resource depletion. Since we need these resources to meaningfully address our past and future influence on climate and sea level rise, it is pertinent to consider these matters.

In summary:

*IEA says that oil production is now declining at 6.7% per year and there is no prospect of an upturn in production.

*Shell, BP, Mobil and Caltex are all attempting to sell their retail fuel systems in New Zealand as there is no future in the business. Now.

*New Zealand's only oil refinery is up for sale, and the most likely buyer is a USA refiner who needs Marsden Point's production to serve the USA market. Now.

*All the gas production from Taranaki is owned by an 100% overseas operator, who exports it all elsewhere.

Conclusion:

When these sales go through then the security of New Zealand's fuel supply to domestic consumers will drop to third-world levels.

We will have very limited bargaining power for supply of crude, and even less for supply of usable fuels: Diesel, Petrol and Gas.

This threat is real, and current, and confirms that we have a very short window of time to do anything about climate change and sea level rise, while at the same time the depletion of oil and other resources has a direct impact on our day to day survival.

It seems to me that we should use the time and resources we have to relocate critical national infrastructure above the 100 metre line, and to commence an urgent Cuba-style adoption of in-city food production to reduce our dependance on fossil fuels for food production and transport.

---

Big gas pulling out of the pumps

By GARRY SHEERAN - Sunday Star Times

Last updated 05:00 26/07/2009

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/2674283/Big-gas-pulling-out-of-the-pumps

Petroleum industry watchers say all four oil company majors could exit the local

retail market and revolutionise the ownership of NZX-listed NZ Refining.

It's understood Exxon Mobil has joined Shell in seeking buyers for its

downstream retail assets, including extensive service station networks and

shares in the Whangarei-based refinery company. Negotiations on the sale of both

stakes are understood to be well advanced.

McDouall Stuart analyst John Kidd said all four globally owned companies were

facing tight margins on petrol sales in a mature, over-pumped local market with

little growth opportunity.

…etc

---

US firm seen eyeing NZ refinery

By GARETH VAUGHAN – BusinessDay

Last updated 13:41 24/07/2009

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/2671676/US-firm-seen-eyeing-refinery

Valero Energy, the biggest US oil refiner, may be seeking to buy this country's

sole oil refinery the New Zealand Refining Company, Bloomberg News reported.

The report comes after The Independent revealed yesterday that Exxon Mobil was

looking to sell its New Zealand petrol stations, tank farms and 19.2 percent

stake in NZ Refining. Shell also has a series of Kiwi assets on the block

including its 17.4 percent NZ Refining stake.

That means a total of 36.34 percent of NZ Refining is up for sale. Other major

shareholders in the Marsden Point-based refiner include BP with 23.66 percent,

Chevron with 12.69 percent and the Canadian owned Emerald Capital with 13.12

percent.

…etc

---

Now I wonder WHY there is `little growth opportunity' in the local market? I

don't think it is because we wouldn't use more if we could get it; so maybe its

because they know there is no more to give us?

Why would they be flicking off the local retail arm, unless it is to get out of

a market that is about to collapse? And why try to seize control of our only

refining capacity, unless they wanted the capacity to spin product away to other

markets?

---

Warning: Oil supplies are running out fast

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/warning-oil-supplies-are-running-out-f\

ast-1766585.html

Catastrophic shortfalls threaten economic recovery, says world's top energy

economist

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

Monday, 3 August 2009

The world is heading for a catastrophic energy crunch that could cripple a

global economic recovery because most of the major oil fields in the world have

passed their peak production, a leading energy economist has warned.

Higher oil prices brought on by a rapid increase in demand and a stagnation, or

even decline, in supply could blow any recovery off course, said Dr Fatih Birol,

the chief economist at the respected International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris,

which is charged with the task of assessing future energy supplies by OECD

countries.

...

The IEA estimates that the decline in oil production in existing fields is now running at 6.7 per cent a year compared to the 3.7 per cent decline it had estimated in 2007, which it now acknowledges to be wrong.

...

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5638

Temporary Recession or the End of Growth?

Posted by Gail the Actuary on August 6, 2009 - 10:25am

This is a guest post by Richard Heinberg. Richard is a Senior Fellow of the Post Carbon Institute and author of five books on resource depletion and societal responses to the energy problem. He can be found on the web at www.richardheinberg.com and www.postcarbon.org.

...About 85 percent of our current energy is derived from three primary sources—oil, natural gas, and coal—that are non-renewable, whose price is likely to trend sharply higher over the next years and decades leading to severe shortages, and whose environmental impacts are unacceptable. While these sources historically have had very high economic value, we cannot rely on them in the future; indeed, the longer the transition to alternative energy sources is delayed, the more difficult that transition will be unless some practical mix of alternative energy systems can be identified that will have superior economic and environmental characteristics....

...The winding down of this historic growth-contraction pulse doesn’t necessarily mean the end of the world, but it does mean the end of a certain kind of economy. One way or another, humanity must return to a more normal pattern of existence characterized by reliance on immediate solar income (via crops, wind, or the direct conversion of sunlight to electricity) rather than stored ancient sunlight....

...However, while there is not as yet general agreement on the point, climate change itself and the needed steps to minimize it both constitute limits to growth, just as resource depletion does. Moreover, if we fail to successfully manage the inevitable process of economic contraction that will characterize the coming decades, there will be no hope of mounting an organized and coherent response to climate change—a response consisting of efforts both to reduce climate impacts and to adapt to them. It is important to note, though, that the measures advocated here (including the development of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency, a rapid reduction of reliance on fossil fuels in transport and agriculture, and the stabilization of population levels) are among the steps that will help most to reduce carbon emissions.

...

http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2003-4/2003-4-01.htm

Cuba has transformed its agriculture from a low productivity, highly subsidized, high input system to one that is more productive and greener, while removing subsidies.

But its not perfect by any means:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/04/16/cuba.farming/index.html

HAVANA, Cuba (CNN) -- President Raúl Castro has moved quickly since taking the reins of power from his ailing brother, Fidel, last year to boost food production by putting more land into the hands of profit-earning farmers.

Government officials hope that, with more land into production, the nation would need to import less food.

And so on...

Nigel

The First Sign Erected

2009-08-03T01:33:00.000-07:00

On 2nd August 2009 I put together the first High Tide sign, and screwed it to a tree at my gate, clearly visible from the road.

The sign was produced by a print-shop enlarging the A4-sized notice to metric A0 size on paper, then laminating it to make it weather-proof. I then screwed it to an 1200mm x 800mm bit of plywood which was screwed to the tree. That is a nice readily read sign and will do well for road-side installations.

As usual one gets around to doing these things last thing Sunday afternoon, so the first pix is just after dark!

But it looks pretty good too by the light of day.

The view in the distance is of the rolling country north of Albany, Auckland. Incredible to think of all that going under water.

Looking forward to hearing of more signs!

80m Sea Rise maps - Australia

2009-07-30T17:57:00.000-07:00

Using Google Maps and the Sea Level Rise applet, the following maps show 80 metres of sea level rise.

Areas shaded red are those areas inundated. (Click on map symbol to see enlargements.)

Australia

Adelaide

Detail of Porters Hill - the ridge keeping the ocean out of the Lake Eyre Basin. About 4km, and only a few tens of metres above 80m.

It won't last long. Be there when that breaks through!

Melbourne

Sydney

Brisbane

I strongly recommend you check with your local maps to review the location of the 80 metre contour in your area of interest.

Now: Why it's even worse than we feared.

2009-07-29T18:24:00.000-07:00

In relation to the Science behind my estimates of sea level rise we can now add the information from an article by Sharon Begley at newsweek.com published 24 July 2009. Sharon pulls together some recent views on the state of the ice on and around Greenland. Read the article for the details.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/208164

Some quotes:

...the sea ice found a more open, ice-free, and thus faster path westward thanks to Arctic melting.

...The loss of Arctic sea ice "is well ahead of" what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecast, largely because emissions of carbon dioxide have topped what the panel—which foolishly expected nations to care enough about global warming to do something about it—projected. "The models just aren't keeping up" with the reality of CO2 emissions, says the IPY's David Carlson.

... satellite measurements of Greenland's mass, show that it is losing about 52 cubic miles per year and that the melting is accelerating. So while the IPCC projected that sea level would rise 16 inches this century, "now a more likely figure is one meter [39 inches] at the least," says Carlson. "Chest high instead of knee high, with half to two thirds of that due to Greenland." Hence the "no idea how bad it was."

...estimates of how much carbon is locked into Arctic permafrost were, it turns out, woefully off. "It's about three times as much as was thought, about 1.6 trillion metric tons, which has surprised a lot of people," says Edward Schuur of the University of Florida. "It means the potential for positive feedbacks is greatly increased." That 1.6 trillion tons is about twice the amount now in the atmosphere. And Schuur's measurements of how quickly CO2 can come out of permafrost, reported in May, were also a surprise: 1 billion to 2 billion tons per year. Cars and light trucks in the U.S. emit about 300 million tons per year.

...the G8, led by Europe, has vowed to take steps to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius by reducing CO2 emissions. We're now at 0.8 degree. But the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is already enough to raise the mercury 2 degrees. The only reason it hasn't is that the atmosphere is full of crap (dust and aerosols that contribute to asthma, emphysema, and other diseases) that acts as a global coolant. As that pollution is reduced for health reasons, we're going to blast right through 2 degrees, which is enough to ex-acerbate droughts and storms, wreak havoc on agriculture, and produce a planet warmer than it's been in millions of years.

...The test of whether the nations of the world care enough to act will come in December, when 192 countries meet in Copenhagen to hammer out a climate treaty. Carlson vows that IPY will finish its Arctic assessment in time for the meeting, and one conclusion is already clear. "A consensus has developed during IPY that the Greenland ice sheet will disappear," he says.

Now what happens to Greenland will also be mirrored in the Antartic, where as detailed in previous posts and below, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is showing signs of distress. The combination serves to push the "Very Likely" sea level rise closer to two metres, and the possible worst case through my estimated five metres.

I insure my house against fire for the possible worst case. I don't know anybody who has had their house burned down, do you? But we all act to protect ourselves and our record collections against the conceivable worst case. Five metres is conceivable, and even more so in terms of these latest discoveries by the International Geophysical Year scientists.

We should act accordingly.

The only number that matters...

2009-07-13T17:26:00.000-07:00

My reason for hammering on about the two perils of sea level rise and resource depletion is that these will impose enormous demands on society to cope with - not the least being replacing coastal area's food production and the relocation of living places and critical infrastructure and production capacity to high ground. But as part of the attacking pincer movement we are exposing ourselves to, right when we need to start the biggest building effort the world has ever seen to get away from the coast we are running out of our primary energy source for construction.

Thus we only have a very short window of time (maybe 20 to 50 years at the most) to rebuild the fabric of our coastal civilisation someplace else before we run out of the energy we need to do that. And since we only have the time and resources to do this once. ONCE. Then we must do it where it will be SAFE from whatever is coming.

The level of the ocean at your place or mine in 2100 is irrelevant - it is just a marker on a journey to the finished level of +80 metres.

Eightly (80) metres of sea level rise is coming. We know this. This is the only number that matters. So we have a duty to only expend our diminishing resources ABOVE that level, or else with good cause our names will go down in infamy with our children and our grandchildren, 'yea unto the n-th generation'.

The simple point is that WE KNOW THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN sooner or later. To pretend anything else is to deny our children what ever small chance at survival we can give them.

I want to be able to look my grandchildren in their eyes, and say "I knew, and I tried."

Nigel

A sign!

2009-07-07T16:22:00.000-07:00

Five degrees and five metres by 2100?

2009-07-07T15:57:00.000-07:00

New information is suggesting that temperature rise may exceed current IPCC expectations. Five degrees Celsius is bound to give rise to more than just 2 metres sea level rise.

In my view, while 2 metres was strongly supported by people like Dr Hansen under 2008 Business as Usual scenarios, this recent information making it likely that we will get 5 degrees Celsius warming by 2100 leads me to recommend that we use the 5 metres by 2100 table and chart here as our basis for sign locations.

5 & 5 by 2100. Gulp!

This condition could give rise to accelerated ice loss, and hence sea level rise.

Thus by 'eyeometry' a curve fitted to past and expected long term SLR could entail this data:

DATE (YEAR AD)	SLR (m)
1800	0
1900	0.02
2000	0.2
2025	0.5
2050	1.4
2075	2.9
2100	5
2200	15
2300	27
2400	40
2500	52
2600	59.5
2700	63.5
2800	66.5
2900	68.5
3000	70
3100	71
4000	75
5000	77.5

and look like this:

and in detail

(Click on images for enlarged view)

This could be a more realistic view of our imminent future to use in our depictions of the Sea Level Rise that is coming.

So find out how far above high water your site is, and interpolate values from the above table or charts to figure out what date to write on your sign.

80m Sea Rise - Maps for North America

2009-06-10T00:29:00.000-07:00

Using Google Maps and the Sea Level Rise applet, the following maps show 80 metres of sea level rise.

Areas shaded red are those areas inundated.

North East USA and Canada

South East USA
South West USA
North West USA and Canada
Anchorage

I strongly recommend you check with your local maps to review the location of the 80 metre contour in your area of interest.

80m Sea Rise - Maps for New Zealand

2009-06-09T23:46:00.000-07:00

Using Google Maps and the Sea Level Rise applet, the following maps show 80 metres of sea level rise.

Areas shaded red are those areas inundated.

North Island

South Island

Auckland Area
Hawkes Bay
Manawatu
Wellington
Nelson Blenheim
West Coast
Invercargill
Dunedin
Christchurch

I strongly recommend you check with your local maps to review the location of the 80 metre contour in your area of interest.

80m Sea Rise - Maps for Europe, Great Britain and Ireland.

2009-06-09T02:28:00.000-07:00

Using Google Maps and the Sea Level Rise applet, the following maps show the impact of 80 metres of sea level rise on Europe, Great Britain and Ireland. Sorry.

Northern Europe - The Lowlands, Northern Germany and Denmark.

Western Europe

Southern Europe - France and Italy

Great Britain and Ireland

I strongly recommend you check with your local maps to review the location of the 80 metre contour in your area of interest.

Welcome to The 100 Metre Line!

2009-05-25T06:43:00.000-07:00

Hi!

Welcome to the 100 Metre Line blog.

There are many possible representations of the impact of climate change on humanity, but perhaps the most difficult to grapple with yet the easiest to show is that of sea level rise.

I hope you are able to participate in the 350 Day, and use the idea presented herein to give your community a sense of urgency about the real issues that now confront humanity.

See you beside a sign on 24 October!

Kind regards, Nigel and grandson.

Auckland New Zealand

To view or post comments click the word COMMENTS, below.

Write your comment in the box, then in Comment as: select Name/URL to enter you name, or Anonymous if you wish. Then click either Post Comment or Preview

Thanks. N

Best hits as at 20100408a: 100, 100metre, 1m, 2075, 2100, 2200, 2500, 2600, 80m, above, adelaide, africa, albany, america, arctic, antarctic, antarctica, antartic, areas, asia, auckland, australasia, australia, australian, beach, brisbane, britain, britian, briton, caribbean, celsius, change, charts, china, city, climate, co2, coast, coastal, coastline, community, continent, council, dangerious, degree, degrees, depletion, earth, effect, elevation, europe, future, glacier, global, greenland, highest, hundred, ice, increase, india, japan, land, level, levels, levels, levle, major, many, map, maps, maps, maximum, measures, meaters, melt, meters, metr, metre, middle, mideast, n.y, nasa, new, north, nz, ocean, pakistan, past, perth, picture, planet, post, prediction, present, probablity, projected, property, raised, resouce, resource, rise, rises, rising, rose, safe, sea, seas, singapore, south, southeast, state, submerged, sydney, temperature, uk, usa, vatican, warming, water, what, world, year, years, zealand, new zealand,