The wording of that quote is weird - if the Greenland ice were to thaw today, it would raise sea levels "over centuries."
Last I heard, the calculations say Greenland ice melting leads to a 5m sea level rise by itself; so when that happens, it's already close to 20 feet right there, not over centuries.
This will lower the Earth's albedo effect, contributing to a Blue Ocean Event as well as an AMOC collapse, all of that contributing to the Antartic melting, which would entail an additional 60m sea level rise (back to before our current interglacial period). Barring cascading tipping points, that should take some centuries.
To me, it's so weird to think about how (barring extinction events) it will one day be normal for humans to live on an Earth with countless megacities underwater. I wonder if they will ever fully understand why we let that happen.
Your articles notes that we are at the red line at 421 ppm CO2. We aren't. We blew past that a long while ago. We are at about 565 ppm CO2(e).
The distinction is that human caused gas emissions besides CO2 greatly add to the warming. And other than at times like the PETM comparing CO2 then to CO2 now is invalid. Instead, the comparison must be to CO2(e) to account for the full driving force. Or better, CO2(e) in both cases, which amounts to the same result as CO2 then to CO2(e) now.
At 565 ppm CO2(e), we aren't now at double the CO2(e) from preindustrial times.
The shift from 178 ppm CO2 to 278 ppm CO2 in the ice age cycles resulted in a 10 C warming. Warming gases cause temperature change in a logarithmic fashion. So 10 C rise is to ln(278)/ln(178) as X degrees C is to ln(565)/ln(278). Solve for X = + 10.4 C. This accounts for the equilibrium response. But, this overstates methanes impact, and understates CO2 and methane releases from the environment that are not yet in equilibrium.
+11 C is ice free conditions and hot house Earth.
The question is whether we have already pushed so hard that ongoing methane and CO2 releases by the Earth are so great that a) man cannot overcome them, and b) that the thermal inertia of Antarctica and Greenland cannot overcome them.
With 1,500 GT of carbon as mixed CO2 and CH4 expected to be released from the tundra alone and perhaps 500 GT more from Arctic ocean clathrates, I have difficulty seeing any possibility of stopping the thermal runaway to hot house Earth even with every possible effort by humans being used.
420 or 560, doesn't really matter does it? The big question is "How Long" it will take to flood coastal cities. Miami and Houston are already in trouble. What would another 12 inches do? How long before we see another 12 in he's? I've seen the warming in general beginning to accelerate, at least from what I read. If the warming isn't linear than the ice melt won't be either. How long have we got?
Excellent research and reporting. Somewhere in my bookmarks, I have an article somewhere in my trove about a $56bn plan to save NYC from the Atlantic! I'm working on designs to put skyscrapers on pontoons, there's definitely money to be made here!
Now Richard, I'm a bit perturbed by this:
"NO, you Moderate ASS, this is damage we have ALREADY CAUSED."
How am I going to profit from this if you keep insisting on the truth? And remember, without water there would be no life. We can turn this into a positive!
The wording of that quote is weird - if the Greenland ice were to thaw today, it would raise sea levels "over centuries."
Last I heard, the calculations say Greenland ice melting leads to a 5m sea level rise by itself; so when that happens, it's already close to 20 feet right there, not over centuries.
This will lower the Earth's albedo effect, contributing to a Blue Ocean Event as well as an AMOC collapse, all of that contributing to the Antartic melting, which would entail an additional 60m sea level rise (back to before our current interglacial period). Barring cascading tipping points, that should take some centuries.
To me, it's so weird to think about how (barring extinction events) it will one day be normal for humans to live on an Earth with countless megacities underwater. I wonder if they will ever fully understand why we let that happen.
Things aren't anywhere near this rosey.
Your articles notes that we are at the red line at 421 ppm CO2. We aren't. We blew past that a long while ago. We are at about 565 ppm CO2(e).
The distinction is that human caused gas emissions besides CO2 greatly add to the warming. And other than at times like the PETM comparing CO2 then to CO2 now is invalid. Instead, the comparison must be to CO2(e) to account for the full driving force. Or better, CO2(e) in both cases, which amounts to the same result as CO2 then to CO2(e) now.
At 565 ppm CO2(e), we aren't now at double the CO2(e) from preindustrial times.
The shift from 178 ppm CO2 to 278 ppm CO2 in the ice age cycles resulted in a 10 C warming. Warming gases cause temperature change in a logarithmic fashion. So 10 C rise is to ln(278)/ln(178) as X degrees C is to ln(565)/ln(278). Solve for X = + 10.4 C. This accounts for the equilibrium response. But, this overstates methanes impact, and understates CO2 and methane releases from the environment that are not yet in equilibrium.
+11 C is ice free conditions and hot house Earth.
The question is whether we have already pushed so hard that ongoing methane and CO2 releases by the Earth are so great that a) man cannot overcome them, and b) that the thermal inertia of Antarctica and Greenland cannot overcome them.
With 1,500 GT of carbon as mixed CO2 and CH4 expected to be released from the tundra alone and perhaps 500 GT more from Arctic ocean clathrates, I have difficulty seeing any possibility of stopping the thermal runaway to hot house Earth even with every possible effort by humans being used.
420 or 560, doesn't really matter does it? The big question is "How Long" it will take to flood coastal cities. Miami and Houston are already in trouble. What would another 12 inches do? How long before we see another 12 in he's? I've seen the warming in general beginning to accelerate, at least from what I read. If the warming isn't linear than the ice melt won't be either. How long have we got?
Excellent research and reporting. Somewhere in my bookmarks, I have an article somewhere in my trove about a $56bn plan to save NYC from the Atlantic! I'm working on designs to put skyscrapers on pontoons, there's definitely money to be made here!
Now Richard, I'm a bit perturbed by this:
"NO, you Moderate ASS, this is damage we have ALREADY CAUSED."
How am I going to profit from this if you keep insisting on the truth? And remember, without water there would be no life. We can turn this into a positive!