"3. Furthermore, I assume that SRM would help with the SLR from warming water and ocean expansion (?), but is the amount of expected SLR from ocean expansion low compared to the amount we get from melting ice?"
I presented evidence on the difficulties is quantifying the sea level rise risk in this paper at the Environmental Audit Committee. It summarises the recent processes up until April 2017. The paper contains links (references) to other papers and publications in this regard. One can learn more detail of many new processes seen taking place from those reports cited: https://www.academia.edu/33000316/MPs_to_review_UKs_role_in_Arctic_sustainability_-_24th_April_2017.docx <https://www.academia.edu/33000316/MPs_to_review_UKs_role_in_Arctic_sustainability_-_24th_April_2017.docx> Summarizing the above summary: The biggest SLR unknowns are: 1) the warming impact of methane and carbon dioxide releases from melting permafrost soils and sea bed. (a) field emissions of methane and carbon dioxide (CH4 and CO2 haze from the decomposing soils) (b) spot emissions of methane and carbon dioxide (where permafrost layer has ruptured and leaks gases (c) eruptive emissions of methane and carbon dioxide (erupting pingoes, compromised gas field containment) 2) the surface ablation (melting) impacts from North Greenland once the Arctic Ocean is ice free in summers. (a) accummulative effect of surface darkening as dirt is left behind as snow melts away (b) impact of exhaustive surface melt water ponding on low-lying North Greenland ice sheet and flash floods (c) water accummulation rates at subglacial surfaces (as seasonal impact moulins become accummulative impact moulins) 3) the stability of ice sheet over water infested rocks and soils (during exhaustive surface ablation in North Greenland) (a) Glacier Debris Flows (GDFs) - see the report cited on this in the above Parliament evidence (b) inward advance of calving edge from Petermann Ice Fjord | Melville Bay coast | NE Greenland across the shield region into the depression bowl area. (c) impact of rising heft of the calving edge onto calving event frequence and ice sheet integrity and fragmentation <https://www.academia.edu/33000316/MPs_to_review_UKs_role_in_Arctic_sustainability_-_24th_April_2017.docx> According to the chaos theory GDFs are entirely unpredictable and will always remain so. Indeed, their existence was totally unanticipated until recently events despite small scale detachment events of melting ice in everyday life from melting refridgerators to ice avalanches on the mountains. GDFs are a special new class of ice avalanches. How these unfold in Antarctic continent or Greenland scale situations has not been seen since major collapses from the Hudson Bay at Pleistocene termination. but as GDFs occur with 4 degree ground inklination - lots of ice could be suddenly on its way out to trigger the subsequent 'Last Dryas' event (as the ocean fills with ice debris). There is an article on Younger Dryas on this. Other unknowns are: 1) the level of devastation from plastic gyros were global sea level rise be abrupt 2) the level of radiochemical pollution from world's nuclear reactors (the Fukushima repeats) which would be harder to deal with if many were to occur at once and sea stays higher. 3) the problems of feeding people as Dryas cools Mid Latitudes severely and causes draughts, the manhandling fuels and food is another difficulty in flooded ports Germany and Japan take the nuclear flooding risks seriously. Global Seed Vault (Longyearbyen, Norway) engineering specifications accommodate the anticipation for a potential total loss of polar ice caps. However, serious questions has been raised as the permafrost into which it has been built is melting and its tunnels partially flooded - exposing Norwegians naked or blind on the problem of permafrost soil melting. The Pacific Island nations are also looking for relocation plans such as Kiribati, Tuvalu and to relocate to Fiji. President Teburo Tito and the environment secretary Bwere Erytaia prepared for a potential sea level rise risk with a plan of 6 metres (i.e. the Caroline Islands). Many have joined German merchant navy while others have moved to Australia for special re-training programme for nurses. In the aftermath of Rio Earth Summit (1992) the First Nations of the Americas floored a motion to the United Nations General Assembly then in joint session with the World Indigenous Peoples Summit stipulating that the Hudson Bay ice dome (the Foxe-Laurentide Ice Dome) collapsed violently and suddenly in a GLF-like event to trigger sudden sea level surge, the Great Earthquake of the East (the Cabracan) and the Three Heart Stones Event (ground vibrating for about theree days), and the sudden pandemic of volcanic eruptions (the Zipcana) - the UNGA 101292 based on their ancient ethnohistoric recollections about the Ice Age termination. The onus of UNGA101292 is to suggest the case history of the ice ages as presented by the European and American academia is wrong in its presentation of multimillennial melt. In any case, whether one agrees or disagrees the above, it is really disconcerting to recall that in 2016 the level of CO2 rose 3.33 p.p.m. despite cuts made in global CO2 emissions. Today's El Nino SST is tomorrow's La Nina SST with us living on borrowed time how long the oceans can mop up more gases. Albert ________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of SALTER Stephen <[email protected]> Sent: 03 November 2017 20:02 To: Douglas MacMartin Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Can anyone offer a CE perspective on this SLR article? Hi All I agree with Doug about climate models. They sometimes disagree about the polarity of results. However the long life of stratospheric sulphur means that it spreads through an entire hemisphere and lasts for a year or two while the short life of tropospheric sea salt means that it is less promiscuous. Stephen Sent from my iPad On 3 Nov 2017, at 19:32, Douglas MacMartin <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Whether one uses stratospheric aerosols or marine cloud brightening, it seems pretty safe to assume that lower temperatures at high latitudes will have a net benefit on both sea ice and SLR. Independent of CE, we have no useful capability to predict the most important part of SLR (that due to Antarctic and Greenland melt; the part due to thermal expansion is straightforward to calculate and clearly reversible by CE; it’s the Antarctic part that is most potentially scary and least well understood). We won’t likely have a useful capability to estimate SLR for at least a decade IMHO. Furthermore, all of the studies to date have been idealized in one way or another, been in a limited set of models, and have represented some specific strategy (e.g. injecting aerosols at the equator, which we now know is not likely the best place to inject them). So until we have robust conclusions from more models that include the important physics and can evaluate whether specific impacts are due to any possible deployment strategy or are simply a result of a specific deployment strategy (e.g. where to put aerosols), then pretty much any statement of impacts from any paper should be interpreted quite cautiously. (And I could point to specific issues in any of the papers you list, I could do the same for papers I’ve written too; the modeling simply isn’t mature enough yet, and until we’ve done some proper studies in a bunch of models, I don’t think we know whether the uncertainties are likely to be resolvable or not.) Bottom line – yes, I suspect with $5-10M of modeling we could start making some reasonably defensible statements about some impacts and our confidence in them, including sea ice, but with the exception of a few things like SLR that we need to wait for people to figure out how to model Antarctica. (And caveat that it’s pretty hard to predict what one might learn from $10M of modeling when one has only spent about a tenth of that.) doug From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of SALTER Stephen Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 3:13 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; geoengineering <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [geo] Can anyone offer a CE perspective on this SLR article? Hi All My suggestion is based on the idea that more precipitation and lower temperature will produce more ice. With marine cloud brightening in the troposphere we have some control of where this will form. I think that the papers Holly mentions may have been about stratospheric sulphur. Stephen Sent from my iPad On 3 Nov 2017, at 18:12, Holly J <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi, It would be very helpful if someone could weigh in on what the latest research on CE and SLR actually indicates. It seems as if early research on sunshade geoengineering found it promising for reducing ice melt. - But as Applegate and Keller (2015) wrote, with regards to Greenland, these groundbreaking earlier studies neglect feedbacks that may be vital for proper assessment of SRM's ability to reduce SLR. - Again in the Arctic, it seems that Jackson et al (2015) found that it was possible to remediate ice loss, but it would take a lot of SO2. - Looking at Antarctica, McCusker et al (2015) found that SRM could not preserve the West Antarctic ice sheet (because of upwelling of warm water, as I understand it). - Finally, Irvine et al’s review paper (2016) says that "While sunshade geoengineering could reduce sea-level rise, simulations employing more sophisticated models suggest that hysteresis in the response of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to climate change could mean that there may be a limited ability to reverse some of the contribution to sea- level rise from the ice-sheets if deployment of solar geoengineering is delayed.” Attempting to read & assess this body of work leaves me with three outstanding questions: 1. Is preventing ice loss / ice restoration just one of those areas where we still don’t know how well SRM works? Or is there kind of an informal consensus about it? 2. If it’s still an unknown, is it even possible to better understand it — or will it always be relatively uncertain? About how much research (in years or papers) would we need to better understand it with some degree of consensus / certainty? Are there new approaches coming online to get a better handle on it? (I know these are hard questions). 3. Furthermore, I assume that SRM would help with the SLR from warming water and ocean expansion (?), but is the amount of expected SLR from ocean expansion low compared to the amount we get from melting ice? Thanks so much, Holly “not-a-climate-scientist" Buck On Nov 3, 2017, at 08:21, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/11/01/can-we-stop-the-seas-from-rising-yes-but-less-than-you-think/?utm_term=.7af0d50d549e · Subscribe<https://subscribe.washingtonpost.com/acquisition/?nid=top_pb_subscribe&promo=o3&oscode=RPWH&destination=http://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/news/wonk/wp/2012/11/01/can-we-stop-the-seas-from-rising-yes-but-less-than-you-think/&tid=nav_subscribe_logged_out> ________________________________ · Sign In<https://subscribe.washingtonpost.com/loginregistration/index.html#/loginhome/group/long?destination=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/11/01/can-we-stop-the-seas-from-rising-yes-but-less-than-you-think/?nid=top_pb_signin&tid=nav_sign_in> ________________________________ · o Newsletters & Alerts<https://subscribe.washingtonpost.com/newsletters?tid=nav_acctmgnt_menu> o Gift Subscriptions<https://subscribe.washingtonpost.com/gift/?promo=digital_nav_gift&tid=nav_acctmgnt_menu> o Contact Us<http://help.washingtonpost.com/ics/support/ticketnewwizard.asp?tid=nav_acctmgnt_menu> o Help Desk<http://help.washingtonpost.com/ics/support/KBSplash.asp?tid=nav_acctmgnt_menu> · Wonkblog<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/> Can we stop the seas from rising? Yes, but less than you think. By Brad PlumerNovember 1, 2012 One of the main concerns with climate change is that it's causing the oceans to advance. Global sea levels have risen about seven inches<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_%28US_EPA%29.png> over the past century and that pace is accelerating. Not only does this threaten coastal regions, but it also makes storm surges much worse — both for huge hurricanes like Sandy and for smaller storms too. [https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/06/15/Health-Environment-Science/Images/AL%20storm073010%2001.jpg]We can hold back some of the tide, but not all of it. (Amanda Lucier/The Washington Post) And the oceans are likely to keep creeping up. Scientists project<http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/04/0907765106.full.pdf+html> that if we keep warming the planet at our current pace, sea levels could rise between two and seven feet by 2100, particularly as the world's glaciers and ice caps melt. So that raises the question: Is there anything we can do to stop sea-level rise? How much would cutting greenhouse-gas emissions help? As it turns out, reducing our emissions would help slow the rate of sea-level rise — but at this point, it's unlikely that we could stop further rises altogether. That's the upshot of a recent study<http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n8/full/nclimate1529.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201208> from the National Center on Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The study estimated that aggressive steps to cut emissions could reduce the amount of sea-level rise by somewhere between 6 and 20 inches in 2100, compared with our current trajectory. That's quite a bit. But sea levels will keep rising for centuries no matter what we do. We can't stop it entirely. We can only slow the pace. As NCAR's Gerald Meehl, a co-author of the study, explained to me by e-mail, it's a lot easier to stabilize global temperatures by cutting carbon emissions than it is to stabilize sea-level rise. The carbon-dioxide that we've already loaded into the atmosphere will likely have effects on the oceans for centuries to come. "But with aggressive mitigation," Meehl added, "you can slow down the rate of sea level rise, which buys time for adaptation measures." There are two ways that global warming causes sea levels to rise<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise>. First, as carbon-dioxide traps more heat on the planet, the oceans get warmer and expand in volume. Second, ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica as well as other glaciers start melting, pouring more water into the oceans. Once these processes get underway, they won't stop quickly, even if we ceased putting carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere tomorrow. The NCAR paper estimated that if emissions go unchecked, we could warm the planet 4°C over pre-industrial levels by 2100, causing sea levels to rise between two and five feet. By contrast, if we get really proactive at cutting emissions, we could probably keep the temperature increase below 2°C. But sea levels would still rise by between 11 inches and 3.5 feet. (The wide range is due to the uncertainties in modeling the behavior of glaciers and ice sheets—if the ice sheets destabilize, a bigger rise is possible.) That's progress, but not total victory. In both scenarios, sea-levels continue to rise through 2300, though at very different rates. The graph below shows the projected thermal expansion of the oceans (this doesn't factor in glaciers and ice sheets, which are more difficult to model). The red line is the "don't stop polluting" scenario. The blue line is the "aggressive carbon-cutting" scenario. The green line is a less aggressive cut: [https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/10/sea-level-rise.jpg] Other studies and modeling work have come to similar conclusions, albeit with somewhat different numbers (see here<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111017102601.htm> and here<http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL037074.shtml>). The basic idea: Cutting emissions can make a modest difference in sea-level rise in the near term, but the real impact comes after 2100. A few takeaways from these studies: 1) We're going to need to adapt to sea-level rise no matter what we do on carbon emissions. Even the "optimistic" scenario in the NCAR paper still envisions sea-levels rising roughly 11 inches by 2100. That's assuming we cut emissions drastically and the ice sheets don't do anything too unpredictable. Even then, New York City will have a bigger flood zone than it does today. Storm surges on the coasts will be much larger<http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/1/014032/article>. Low-lying areas will be at greater risk. In Bangladesh, for instance, the area prone to severe flooding would increase by 69 percent<http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2010/04/26/000158349_20100426144005/Rendered/PDF/WPS5280.pdf> (pdf) with just a foot of sea-level rise. 2) That said, cutting emissions can make a significant difference this century. Keeping sea-level rise a foot or two lower than it otherwise might be is nothing to sneeze at. As this map<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/11/nyregion/an-expanding-flood-zone.html>of New York City shows, the flood zone increases dramatically with each additional foot of sea-level rise. A city like Norfolk, Va. could get swamped entirely<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=whatever-you-call-it-sea-level-rises-in-virginia&print=true> by a Category 3 hurricane if ocean levels rose by two to five feet. Florida's adaptation costs go up by billions of dollars with each additional foot<http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/Florida_hr.pdf> of sea-level rise. Every little bit helps. 3) Sea-level rise is likely a much bigger problem for future generations. Not to get too morbid, but I'll probably be dead by 2100. So will most people reading this blog. So the main question at issue here is whether we want to leave our descendants a relatively stable coastline or an unstable one. According to NCAR projections, sea levels could rise as much as 34 feet, or nine meters, by 2300 if emissions continue unchecked (though modeling projections that far out have very large uncertainties, so don't take this as a definitive number). To get a sense of what a nine-meter rise would look like, check out this interactive map<http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/>. South Florida would be underwater. So would New Orleans. And Shanghai. And the Netherlands. And Bangladesh. But this is also 200 years in the future. That's a big reason why climate change is such a difficult problem to deal with. Economy & Business Alerts Breaking news about economic and business issues. Sign up Further reading: — Credit due to Roger Pielke Jr. for asking this question<http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/10/how-much-sea-level-rise-would-be.html> in the first place. His post cites a study showing a much smaller effect on sea-level rise by 2100 if we cut emissions, though that study doesn't looking at the impacts from melting glaciers and ice caps. The newer NCAR study tries to include those effects (though, as noted, that increases the uncertainty). — A look at why the United States is unprepared<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/31/why-the-united-states-is-so-unprepared-for-climate-disasters/> to adapt to climate disasters like sea-level rise. — Why Hurricane Sandy should get us thinking more seriously<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/29/yes-hurricane-sandy-is-a-good-reason-to-worry-about-climate-change/> about climate change, sea levels, and storm surges. — A list of cities<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/which-cities-get-screwed-by-rising-sea-levels/2011/10/13/gIQAPZrNhL_blog.html> expected to get hit hardest by rising sea levels -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
![https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/06/15/Health-Environment-Science/Images/AL%20storm073010%2001.jpg]We](https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/06/15/Health-Environment-Science/Images/AL%20storm073010%2001.jpg]We){kind=link}
