Ultimate space simulation software

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 16
 
User avatar
Watsisname
Science Officer
Science Officer
Posts: 1980
Joined: 06 Sep 2016
Location: Bellingham, WA

General global warming / climate chage discussion

22 Apr 2017 18:30

8 feet of sea level rise by 2070 is well above the high end of the projections.  More likely it will be between 1 and 3 feet by then unless a lot of ice destabilizes unexpectedly fast.  The sources of uncertainty in these projections come from how much thermal expansion of the oceans there will be (which depends on how much it warms, which depends on what humans decide to do), and how sensitive land ice is to increased temperatures and how quickly it responds (which is difficult to predict).

At this point in time it seems some manner of geoengineering is going to be required unless we decide to only go for adaptation.  The plausible pathways for reducing emissions enough to prevent 2C of warming are almost past.
 
User avatar
DoctorOfSpace
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Posts: 1297
Joined: 22 Aug 2016
Location: SpaceX Mars Colony
Contact:

General global warming / climate chage discussion

22 Apr 2017 19:19

Watsisname wrote:
Source of the post At this point in time it seems some manner of geoengineering is going to be required unless we decide to only go for adaptation.  The plausible pathways for reducing emissions enough to prevent 2C of warming are almost past.

I am down for geoengineering but I don't think most people are
CPU: Intel Core i7-5960X 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor - RAM: G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 - GPU: EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti SC Black Edition
Quando omni flunkus, moritati
 
A-L-E-X
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Posts: 2205
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

General global warming / climate chage discussion

22 Apr 2017 19:33

Watsisname wrote:
8 feet of sea level rise by 2070 is well above the high end of the projections.  More likely it will be between 1 and 3 feet by then unless a lot of ice destabilizes unexpectedly fast.  The sources of uncertainty in these projections come from how much thermal expansion of the oceans there will be (which depends on how much it warms, which depends on what humans decide to do), and how sensitive land ice is to increased temperatures and how quickly it responds (which is difficult to predict).

At this point in time it seems some manner of geoengineering is going to be required unless we decide to only go for adaptation.  The plausible pathways for reducing emissions enough to prevent 2C of warming are almost past.

I think the researchers mentioned that the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet is much faster than anticipated and that's why they changed their numbers- as well as the fact that the actual sea level rise is on the higher end of the expected spread.
 
A-L-E-X
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Posts: 2205
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

General global warming / climate chage discussion

22 Apr 2017 19:33

DoctorOfSpace wrote:
Watsisname wrote:
Source of the post At this point in time it seems some manner of geoengineering is going to be required unless we decide to only go for adaptation.  The plausible pathways for reducing emissions enough to prevent 2C of warming are almost past.

I am down for geoengineering but I don't think most people are

It's going to affect astrophotography because putting mirrors in orbit will increase light pollution but I guess we already have problems with LP
 
User avatar
DoctorOfSpace
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Posts: 1297
Joined: 22 Aug 2016
Location: SpaceX Mars Colony
Contact:

General global warming / climate chage discussion

22 Apr 2017 21:15

That depends if mirrors in orbit are required, there are plenty of other methods that can be used.
CPU: Intel Core i7-5960X 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor - RAM: G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 - GPU: EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti SC Black Edition
Quando omni flunkus, moritati
 
User avatar
midtskogen
World Builder
World Builder
Topic Author
Posts: 1052
Joined: 11 Dec 2016
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

General global warming / climate chage discussion

22 Apr 2017 22:52

A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post I think the researchers mentioned that the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet is much faster than anticipated

If you put a long string of assumptions into your models, then, of course, you can get all kind of scenarios as output, but a fast, accelerating sea level rise within the next few decades isn't what mainstream science predict.  Most estimates find that sea levels have risen fairly steadily for at least 150 years and will continue to rise slowly.  True, if the Antarctic inland ice sheets are to flow much more rapidly into the sea, the first step in a such string of events will be large ice shelf calvings, but remember that these shelves are destined to calve at one point anyway.  Predicting a catastrophe from this is a classic affirming the consequence fallacy.
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
User avatar
Watsisname
Science Officer
Science Officer
Posts: 1980
Joined: 06 Sep 2016
Location: Bellingham, WA

General global warming / climate chage discussion

23 Apr 2017 00:31

DoctorOfSpace wrote:
Source of the post I am down for geoengineering but I don't think most people are

I agree and think it's generally a better solution than just sticking with business as usual and dealing with the consequences. But it also depends on the manner of geoengineering.  There are a lot of ideas but with a wide spectrum of cost, plausibility of success, and risks of side effects.
 
A-L-E-X
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Posts: 2205
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

General global warming / climate chage discussion

23 Apr 2017 02:55

DoctorOfSpace wrote:
That depends if mirrors in orbit are required, there are plenty of other methods that can be used.

Yes, some of the other techniques which are already being implemented are more palatable.  For example what Norfolk, Viginia, Charleston, South Carolina and Copenhagen, Denmark are planning to do to release the excess water.
 
A-L-E-X
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Posts: 2205
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

General global warming / climate chage discussion

23 Apr 2017 02:59

midtskogen wrote:
A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post I think the researchers mentioned that the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet is much faster than anticipated

If you put a long string of assumptions into your models, then, of course, you can get all kind of scenarios as output, but a fast, accelerating sea level rise within the next few decades isn't what mainstream science predict.  Most estimates find that sea levels have risen fairly steadily for at least 150 years and will continue to rise slowly.  True, if the Antarctic inland ice sheets are to flow much more rapidly into the sea, the first step in a such string of events will be large ice shelf calvings, but remember that these shelves are destined to calve at one point anyway.  Predicting a catastrophe from this is a classic affirming the consequence fallacy.

Well the lower range of the predictions for 2070 was around 3 feet.  In the research they presented several different scenarios, from the lower 3 feet, to the middling 5 feet to the upper range of 8 feet.  None of these could be categorized as catastrophic, as coastal cities are already preparing for this and have plans in place to relocate people as well as release water.  It's good that they are planning ahead rather than waiting for it to happen.
 
User avatar
midtskogen
World Builder
World Builder
Topic Author
Posts: 1052
Joined: 11 Dec 2016
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

General global warming / climate chage discussion

23 Apr 2017 06:33

A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post Well the lower range of the predictions for 2070 was around 3 feet.

That's above the IPCC upper range.
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
User avatar
Watsisname
Science Officer
Science Officer
Posts: 1980
Joined: 06 Sep 2016
Location: Bellingham, WA

General global warming / climate chage discussion

23 Apr 2017 06:48

Midtskogen is correct.  A number of relevant figures from IPCC AR5 can be found here, and I find this one is perhaps the most informative:

► Show Spoiler


There are some scientists with models predicting faster or greater rise than this, but so far they remain outliers from the consensus of the bulk of available expert research.
 
A-L-E-X
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Posts: 2205
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

General global warming / climate chage discussion

23 Apr 2017 21:46

Here is what I was referring to  http://www.climatecentral.org/news/new-york-prepares-sea-level-rise-19629

http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/103925.html


https://insideclimatenews.org/news/2401 ... nald-trump

I don't think we use IPCC figures in the United States, we use NOAA.

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publi ... _final.pdf

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... 4aee9b53d5
 
A-L-E-X
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Posts: 2205
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

General global warming / climate chage discussion

23 Apr 2017 21:49

I use NOAA because they specifically stated that the sea level rise for us will be far worse than other parts of the world.  There was a Dr. Hook who is renowned at NOAA and AMS who was interviewed and talked about the possible 6-8 foot rise for the NE United States.  He also stated that climate change is only one symptom of a larger problem, one that involves too many people on a crowded planet, using too many resources and creating way more pollution than the planet (or our health) can handle.  Seeing the rise in big city pollution and health conditions like asthma and people in far eastern cities having to wear oxygen masks and all the toxic waste dumps and how we pollute our own environment, I'm not surprised.

Below is a quote from the link in the previous post (as well as an enclosed PDF.)

New federal estimates say global sea levels could rise faster than previously thought, and the rise may be even worse in many coastal regions of the United States.

A new report, written by scientists with several federal agencies and universities, says that under a worst-case scenario, climate change could raise the oceans an average of more than 8 feet by 2100, about 20 inches more than a previous federal estimate published in 2012. The best case now projected would be an average of about a foot.

The report was delivered just as President Donald Trump took office, immediately working to undo President Barack Obama's climate policies. On his inauguration day, pages mentioning climate change on whitehouse.gov were removed. Trump has promised policies to increase fossil fuel development in the U.S., and to undo Obama's major emissions-cutting initiative, the Clean Power Plan.

Sea level rise will likely be worse in some regions of the U.S. because of ocean currents, wind patterns and settling sediments. The authors examined six scenarios with a range of probabilities in an effort to help state and local governments plan for sea level rise. Under all of them, the Northeast should expect higher waters than much of the rest of the globe. The Pacific Northwest and Alaska would likely experience lower-than-average increases under the best-case scenarios.

The ocean's not flat," said William V. Sweet, one of the authors and a scientist at NOAA. "It's not going to rise like water in a bathtub."

The six scenarios are based on United Nations models of future greenhouse gas emissions, depending on whether countries rapidly slash pollution or continue burning fossil fuels as usual. The authors determined that the worst-case rise of more than 8 feet has only a 0.1 percent chance of occurring by 2100, even under a business-as-usual emissions scenario, but a rise of more than 1.5 feet is near certain with high emissions.

The increase in the estimates for global sea rise was partly due to new research on the Antarctic ice sheet, which is melting faster and appears to be more fragile than previously estimated, suggesting that some of the more pessimistic scenarios are increasingly likely.

The report also warned that moderate coastal flooding will become 25 times more likely with a 14-inch rise in the seas. That level could come anytime from 2030 to 2080 for most coastal cities, depending on their location and the world's emissions. It would mean that a flood that now comes once every five years would be expected five times a year.

Sea levels have already risen by more than 8 inches globally since 1880, with 3 inches coming since 1993. Tidal flooding "has increased by an order of magnitude over the past several decades," the report says, "turning it from a rare event into a recurrent and disruptive problem."

The authors note that 2 million Americans would likely see their homes permanently flooded if sea levels rise 3 feet. Twice that increase would inundate the homes of 6 million. Only the rosiest scenarios would avoid a 3-foot rise by 2100. The effects of global warming, of course, will continue long beyond that year.

"Even if society sharply reduces emissions in the coming decades," the authors write, "sea level will most likely continue to rise for centuries."
Last edited by A-L-E-X on 23 Apr 2017 21:55, edited 1 time in total.
 
A-L-E-X
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Posts: 2205
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

General global warming / climate chage discussion

23 Apr 2017 21:52

midtskogen wrote:
A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post Well the lower range of the predictions for 2070 was around 3 feet.

That's above the IPCC upper range.

See the NOAA PDF I included above.  We go by revised NOAA figures that are specific to the region I live in, not IPCC numbers.  Note at the end of the report, they stated that "only the rosiest of all possible outcomes" can avoid a sea level rise of 3 feet by 2100.  This is specific to our part of the world and may not apply to your region.
 
User avatar
midtskogen
World Builder
World Builder
Topic Author
Posts: 1052
Joined: 11 Dec 2016
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

General global warming / climate chage discussion

24 Apr 2017 11:47

IPCC refers to global changes, which is what's most relevant for global warming.  In my region the sea level is dropping by about 50 cm per century. The bay that I swam in as a kid does seem shallower now (there is not much tidal difference).  It has likely more to do with that I'm taller now than the actual ~15 cm sea level drop, though. :)
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 16

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest