Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
19. What the paper says:
Fri Jul 24, 2015, 09:40 PM
Jul 2015
Humanity faces near certainty of eventual sea level rise of at least Eemian proportions, 5–9 m, if fossil fuel emissions continue on a business-as-usual course, e.g., IPCC scenario A1B that has CO2 ~ 700 ppm in 2100 (Fig. S21). It is unlikely that coastal cities or low-lying areas such as Bangladesh, European lowlands, and large portions of the United States eastern coast and northeast China plains (Fig. S22) could be protected against such large sea level rise.

Rapid large sea level rise may begin sooner than generally assumed. Amplifying feedbacks, including slowdown of SMOC and cooling of the near-Antarctic ocean surface with increasing sea ice, may spur nonlinear growth of Antarctic ice sheet mass loss. Deep submarine valleys in West Antarctica and the Wilkes Basin of East Antarctica, each with access to ice amounting to several meters of sea level, provide gateways to the ocean. If the Southern Ocean forcing (subsurface warming) of the Antarctic ice sheets continues to grow, it likely will become impossible to avoid sea level rise of several meters, with the largest uncertainty being how rapidly it will occur.

5-9 meters in 85 years...

Keep in mind that he's using SRES A1B, not A1FI (~RCP8.5) which is a more probable scenario for the next 40 years. I also think the possibility of methane feedbacks must be considered at this point.

So I'm content that 3m by 2055 is indeed possible. It may not happen, because that represents a LOT of added water and heat. However, it's not being dismissed out of hand by Hansen et al, so I won't dismiss it out of hand either. Certainly not just because it makes you feel aggrieved.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

It is as bad as many have suspected. Actual death threats made! More from OP's link: Mnemosyne Jul 2015 #1
"all amplified by a relentless propaganda campaign nakedly financed by the fossil-fuel companies." RiverLover Jul 2015 #4
Didn't we just have this article posted sue4e3 Jul 2015 #2
Read the article. RiverLover Jul 2015 #5
I did, twice now sue4e3 Jul 2015 #6
Sad...Its about how scientists aren't supposed to convey exactly how dire it is. Jeesh. RiverLover Jul 2015 #7
If that's how you feel sue4e3 Jul 2015 #8
Its ok you don't get this isn't regurgitating. Its insight into what scientists deal with, RiverLover Jul 2015 #9
Sobering article... truebrit71 Jul 2015 #3
Gavin Schmidt is not in denial LouisvilleDem Jul 2015 #10
"You don't have to close down all the coal-powered stations tomorrow. You can transition." truebrit71 Jul 2015 #11
He isn't denying that 100 million people have to move LouisvilleDem Jul 2015 #12
But it's not going to be 100 million people over 50 years.... truebrit71 Jul 2015 #13
How many will it be then? LouisvilleDem Jul 2015 #14
According to this study, it looks like over 200 million would be displaced by a 3-meter rise GliderGuider Jul 2015 #15
Those numbers are not supported by the evidence LouisvilleDem Jul 2015 #16
Remember the shape of an exponential curve? GliderGuider Jul 2015 #17
It doesn't make enough of a difference LouisvilleDem Jul 2015 #18
What the paper says: GliderGuider Jul 2015 #19
Matter of time, we are fucked AuntPatsy Jul 2015 #20
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»When the End of Human Civ...»Reply #19