Sea level rate of change

Oh Baaaab.

Baobab.

 

Frankly unsure how best to address future success of our human enterprise, but Mo Brooks ain't it. Paul Erlich neither. IPCC climate/CO2 might not be either, mostly for being too narrow in focus.

While population continues to increase, success requires more energy, water, food, and wealth growth by trading and innovations. All that to happen during +CO2, +T, +SL along with perhaps +disease and -agricultural nutrient supply. Surely it's a tricky thing.

But our debates seem poorly focused. Previous-century folks hope (claim, expect) burning more fossil C is the way. New-century folks have brought less energy to the table than is needed. Neither present what I consider a broad-enough view.

It could be that catastrophe looms, but current rates of +T and +SL do not support it. Quick acceleration in either would interfere, but mechanisms for those are not strongly founded.

This debate appears to be CO2 poisoned and poorly posed. It may remain so until how to make 9 or 10 billion humans great reframes the debate.

 

Internet traffic is largely carried by fiber optic cable. Waterproof where they need to have been. Not so onshore. A bit of higher water might cause problems:

Rising Seas Are Putting The Internet At Risk, Study Finds | HuffPost

Includes free link to conference paper in case anybody feels 'huffy' about that particular media source.

 

A more neutral source

Buried Internet infrastructure at risk as sea levels rise -- ScienceDaily

Although it seems to lack the conf-paper link.

 

SLR (by radar) conference underway in Azores. Our chance to look at current research in this field.

25YPRA

Or communicate with authors.

 

Ocean heat content from Argo equipment has lots of data but also areas with poor coverage. Its increase can be found independently from 'exhalation' of CO2 and O2, as gases are less soluble in warmer water. This has been done, and indicates more heating than Argo does:

Earth's oceans have absorbed 60 percent more heat than previously thought -- ScienceDaily

Lacks the journal link which is here:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8

And, being Nature, does not reveal corresponding author's email. Should take you about 5 seconds to get that on your own.

 

not pissed here. Instead pleased that a completely independent method gave concordant (well, higher) results. Seems to me that we have very little notion of when or if the zetajuoles will begin to flow other direction.

 

Any thoughts about Venice? Just another seasonal storm?

I was surprised that sea-blocking megaproject there is uncompleted. Mildly amused it is called "Moses".

 

I'm right near the coast. Guess I'd better get that Ford truck I've been looking at.

New report estimates all the fish will be gone by 2050? Can't be. But they say all the plastic will overwhelm the ocean. I find that to be much more disturbing than global warming.

Leave it to mankind to destroy the Earth. (And himself.) Idiots!

 

Some marine fish species have been heavily over harvested. Where limits have been emplaced, some recover but others do not.

Separate but related issues with bycatch and sea-floor trawling.

Coral reefs are spawning grounds for about 1/4 fish species, and in some places reefs are doing poorly.

Farming of particular commercial marine fish is an unstoppable force.

It is certain that by 2050, oceans will still be producing vast amounts of fish protein. Whether it is that which people want to pay lots for, remains to be seem.

Fresh-water fish are another topic.

 

This belongs in polar thread but that seems to have gone very quiet. New Greenland meltout estimate:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0752-4

 

Antarctica mass-loss rate has increased since 1979:

Antarctica losing six times more ice mass annually now than 40 years ago: Climate change-induced melting will raise global sea levels for decades to come -- ScienceDaily

Four decades of Antarctic Ice Sheet mass balance from 1979–2017 | PNAS

362 gigatons (petagrams) of melted grounded ice corresponds to 1 millimeter of global sea-level rise. Antarctica was 40 gigatons per year at start of this study and has increased to 252 per year.

I don't know (or forgot) whether other SLR sources, Greenland and continental glaciers, are similarly increasing. But combined rate is currently < 4 mm/yr as estimated separately.

Article is noteworthy as "inaugural" for Rignot, meaning he has joined US National Academy of Sciences. On this occasion, one is expected to prepare such.

 

Which reminds me, this 2017 publication got some coverage recently:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2017GL075609

Not shown on that page but readily available elsewhere is maximum geothermal heat flux of 150 milliwatts per square meter. If one wanted to melt ice on walkways for example, 10 watts/m^2 would be a typical target. No doubt a small amount could be melted with tenths of watts.

One place to see the graphic is

Antarctica melting because of heat deep within the Earth | Daily Mail Online

Not unusual for such media coverage is to imply up top that geothermal is doing the melting. While later in text, science-dudes are quoted:

'The ice loss we’ve seen in recent decades is actually the result of changes in air and ocean temperatures."

So, careful reading will help one keep one's head screwed on straight.

I'd dare to take it one step further: Air T over Antarctica is probably causing little or no melting. It's very cold down there, and ice is thick. Coastal oceans (wherever they got their new heat) are doing it.

 

Continental ice has been newly estimated to equal about a foot of potential sea level rise. This is somewhat less than earlier estimate. Has implications.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0300-3#author-information