Sea level rise....5 years 1'/30cm rise.....armageddon?

"Why isn't there a reaction from governments?" Scientists and activists have been wondering about this for decades. The truth is that people across the major economies have repeatedly voted in governments full of climate deniers snd do nothings. Australia is amongst the worst offenders.
For the rest, there are huge uncertainties about the exact impacts of climate change. The big picture is longer hotter heat waves, more intense rainfall and flooding, more frequent and more intense bushfire, less sea ice, melting permafrost, rising sea levels etc etc. All this was predicted decades ago. We are now in adaptation mode but on issues like glacier instability in Antarctica and Greenland all we can do is monitor and update the risk level as it increases.

"less sea ice.."
With global warming there is actually more sea ice. As things warm up more ice breaks away from glaciers and ice sheets, resulting in more floating sea ice. More larger ice-bergs drifting further north / south away from the poles.
I've seen climate change deniers use reports of there being more sea ice to back up their claims that climate change isn't real.
But yes 30cm sea level rise in one hit is a real worry

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

Yes I know that brutus. I was responding to gragagan who claimed sea ice was increasing. I can't access the Science article as I have used up my free allowance. The research paper on which it is based seems to be less alarmist and suggests that the worst case scenario is a collapse within five years but the other scenarios are 10-20 years. This is part of their conclusion
"Continued ocean-forced thinning of the ice shelf and advection of thinner ice onto the pinning point will result in partial or complete unpinning of the ice shelf and loss of integrity. The extensive flow changes and migration of high velocities towards the pinning point over the last decade suggest that this process is underway and could destabilize the shelf in 1 to 2 decades."
Also as far as I can see there is no estimate of the sea level rise it would produce or the rate at which that rise would happen. Sometimes things get over-stated by secondary sources...though Science is usually pretty good.

" really doesn't matter anymore about the heating of the planet/carbon footprints /renewables and the whole climate change debacle...its going to happen sooner or later , and there's nothing we can do about it."

I disagree.....violently.....in reality what we do now is critically important. The longer we continue to emit greenhouse gases the worse the future climate will become and the greater burden we will leave to future generations.

brutus, it may be that the Thwaites system creates a sudden surge in sea level but the paper on which the article was based does not make that claim. More importantly to focus on that single issue while ignoring the more important one of reducing emissions is to further increase the risk of us hitting a tipping point that leads to much greater melting and sea level rises well beyond anything that the Thwaites can produce, as well as increasing the intensity of all the other consequences.
Thwaites is not being ignored. It is being monitored. $50 million seems adequate for that but only the specialists would know for sure. If there is evidence of further rapid deterioration that may stimulate increased government responses. Scientists can only provide data and modelling. Politicians make the decisions and globally they continue to make bad ones. Join the activists, write letters, march, donate, campaign. I'm not sure there is much else that we can do as individuals in a dysfunctional system.

brutus the apathy is about anything to do with climate change. I do not underestimate the seriousness of the Thwaites issue. I am pretty sure the first thing I wrote on this site was about sea level rise. I also later wrote an extended piece on how it would impact surfing based on the available research which they chose not to publish. I admit to having become pretty fatalistic about climate change. We are locked into a long sequence of disasters of one kind or another that will kill millions and are likely to slowly erode our standard of living. If we do not get emissions under control soon then the implications become even more horrendous. I taught about the issue from around 1980 until 3 years ago. Having witnessed all the warnings being ignored over that time, I am probably suffering a bit of burn out on the issue.

Likely you have all seen this

Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot

For those suffering burn out on environmental issues and social issues. Keep influencing your inner circle. Its a healthy way to live even if it takes a bit of effort. Collective effort adds up no matter how insignificant it may feel sometime. Die with your head up knowing you gave it a crack individually. Influence those open to learn the cleaner side of living.

Positive changes start with us, continues with us. Otherwise your just another brick in the wall. It's so easy to be lazy to change, even small changes. it has to start somewhere and will be carried forward by those open to it. Negative realities of a global scale will all ways be challenged by some of humankind and ignored by others.

All the more import are those little positive effects you can have on your inner circle and local environment. One person influenced to make positive change in any regard is a benefit to the world and humankind. It starts with us if we want to take it on, as it dies with us if we decide the fight is no longer ours to fight. I'd rather see small contributions to positive change than nothing at all from anyone who cares to take a bit of positive action. A better world will never be handed to us. We have got to be the change if we desire it. Negativity can stop positive action if we take it on board or surround ourselves with it.

Death is inevitable but it is how you live that counts. Those that carry the burden of the world often have less materialistically but are often much more in touch with whats happening environmentally and socially, (not always but often). Change globally seems slow at the moment but networking and information has never been faster. It's how we choose to use it and what outcomes we desire on a personal level that can influence or bring about localised change. Some people wont change at all, some will and some may be forced to reconsider their ideals if climate change becomes more threatening.

I am happy to follow what i see creates a better world environmentally or socially, I may be wrong in some eyes but its a lifestyle which has been passed onto me by those who influenced me and positive change. I choose to carry the torch. Be the change if you wish, it's healthy and a great way to live simply without leaving a big footprint. Every effort counts. Negativity never brought great change, nor stagnation on closing issues such as climate or social policy.

The conservative view of your wasting your time is stifling and doesn't provide positive growth at all. It just keeps man from evolving to his true potential. In a way some conservatism is well past it's use by date as a way of thinking, as it has done nothing to positively effect the world in which we live in, . Be positive change, take care of your inner circle and world any way you wish. Collective energy all adds up, even after death. Cultivate a better world it's a Positive step both Scientifically, Socially and environmentally. The choice is ours

indeed, i alway enjoy reading the forums, I'm not always positive as I seem, Truth can be brutal, i think many speak for a better world and thats what really counts. I hear you as well as others. Each path is different. Keep your head up. Be thought provoking. I enjoy the discussions posted on swellnet wether i can relate or not. I see the arguments right or left. Its a reflection of the of ideas and beliefs we carry amongst us. Keep pushing for a better world your way, no right or wrong in positive action and thought. Celebrate what you focus on and embrace the chaos that provokes this, wether good or bad right or wrong in context. Better to hear you shine than fade away. Represent whats important to keeping the focus on positive change and important to you. Culturally, spiritually, socially, environmentally scientifically etc. We are all in this together wether we like it or not.

blindboy wrote:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

Yes the ice sheets / ice shelfs are in retreat, shrinking, getting smaller etc. I agree with that, as does all of the evidence.

But I wasn't talking about ice sheets, I was talking about the ice that has broken away from the ice sheets and glaciers as they shrink. They don't just melt straight away, they break up, bits break off. The water becomes like an ice slurry. The more they melt the more they break up. Then the tourists on these Antarctic cruises see this, and they think "gee there's more ice in the water than the last time I was here 5 years ago, climate change can't be real".

Just as an interesting aside, one of the articles I read was claiming that in the last couple of years ice sheets were increasing in parts of Antarctica. Something to do with global warming changing the westerly wind track, which was changing ocean currents, causing colder ocean temperatures, which was then affecting the local weather patterns, leading to colder air temperatures locally.

Totally get it brutus, Shine on crazy diamonds

gragagan, the chart refers to the Arctic. The extent of Antarctic sea ice is quite variable with no clear trend.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/understandin...

Interesting topic Brutus. I didn't realise that the expected sea level rise is not from the ice shelfs breaking away and melting, but from the glaciers and ice sheets on the land mass moving faster (unhindered access to the coast) into the waters. So when it comes to timelines, I guess we are talking glacial speeds from that perspective (and that varies per glacier), but the large volumes of land bound ice down there, will have some form of impact over time on sea level. Some waves will be lost, and others will be born, some will get better others worse. As for very low altitude coastal real estate, well we all know what will happen there in the future if we continue down the path of global warming. Thanks for the links. Cheers.

Its also the snow in the mountains that will melt and cause sea level rises in climate change.
Back in geography we were taught all the water of earth ends back in the ocean but thats just not true.
People are 60% water and with the population souring a lot of water will be in people. untill they die.
i understand the arctic and antarctic have way more water/ice but its something i felt was wrong about what we were taught in geography.

Personally I feel its more about humans greed and power

brutus I doubt very much that we will see a 30cm rise in sea level within the next decade and nothing in the study you provided suggests that such a catastrophic surge, if it is at all possible, is anything but a very low probability, worst case scenario. More likely is that the eastern Thwaites ice shelf will continue to destabilise increasing the flow rate of the glacier and increasing its contribution to sea level rise over the coming decades.
If the worst case scenario did develop loss of surfing breaks would be the least of our worries.

brutus as I said before I cannot access the Science article as I have used up my freebies. I have read the abstract and conclusion of the published paper and also the Columbia article.
In terms of the Thwaites glacier, the immediate issue is the break up of the ice shelf which currently slows the flow of the glacier into the sea. It is this that has the 5-10 year prediction. It is the glacier itself that could raise sea levels by 30cm or more. It is very concerning that the glacier itself may break up but it is predicted to happen within decades, and is not happening in 5-10 years.

brutus if that is what the Science article states post the text and I will have a look. It is not what the original paper says. I think you are confusing the collapse of the ice shelf with the collapse of the glacier. Read the first paragraph of the Columbia link carefully.

brutus as I said before read the first paragraph carefully.

“Scientists, speaking at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting in New Orleans this month, reported that a critical section of the keystone Antarctic glacier, Thwaites Glacier, will likely collapse in the next five to ten years. “

Key word “section”. It refers to the ice shelf

“The research, led by Erin Pettit of Oregon State University, predicts that the Thwaites ice shelf will break apart within the next decade because of startling increases in surface fractures and rifts.”

The ice shelf will break up….not the entire glacier. As ice shelves are floating, this will not contribute directly to sea level rise but will cause the glacier to flow more rapidly into the sea leading to possible total collapse over several decades.

Are we done with this now?

All the best for the New Year brutus. Thanks for drawing everyone's attention to the Thwaites issue.

brutus, it is very difficult to make accurate predictions about sea level rise. The problems include not knowing what future emissions will be, not being sure how rapidly ice in Antarctica and Greenland will melt and the unequal distribution of the rises that do occur. For example sea levels on the east coast of Australia have risen more than those on the Surf Coast. I used to surf a couple of spots around Sydney where rocks would be above the surface by a few centimetres on the lowest tides. That doesn't happen anymore.
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/regional-sea-level/ove...

As a rough estimate based on the IPCC data I think we will struggle to keep the global average sea level rise below 1m by 2100. This is the relevant section of the IPCC report on Ocean and Cryosphere.

For me, I worry more about fire. We actually live in a pretty safe spot but in 2019-20 huge areas around us burnt and, without a fortunate wind change it could have been even worse. With the La Nina we have had lots of rain and rapid regrowth in many of the areas that were less seriously impacted. The risk of a repeat, or worse, will be very significant as things dry out, particularly if there is a swing back to drought.

You'll have to excuse me but how on earth can there be a difference between sea levels from one coast to the next? That would defy the laws of hydrophysics. If sea levels rise or fall I would say relative to time the waters of the world will remain equal irrespective of volume. If you have a giant swimming pool no amount of tide, wind, swell, gravity will make one end higher than the other, it's impossible. You can add a couple of thousand litres of water, the level of the pool will rise but both ends will be equal in measure.

If you had have said land had risen or fallen at different rates between coasts either seismic or otherwise. then I would be inclined to believe you. Different sea levels between coasts? Highly skeptical I'm afraid.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/water-land-sea-levels...

Zen you are wrong. Look at the links.

Ps- please don't refer me back to your NASA link. I read it thoroughly. While I don't dispute the science, and I'm certainly no climate change denier, none of those reasons given is static. Everyone of them is dynamic, moving, fluctuates and subject to change. Water will always move towards equilibrium, that cannot be disputed.

Anyway, all the best to you BB and MC too for 2022. Hope you're enjoying warm water waves. Freeeezing here.

I did.

The current sea level anomaly chart for NSW. Notice it ranges from -0.6m to +0.6m.
I know it's a different scenario but it's an example

http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/forecasts/idyoc300.shtml?region=NSW&f...

Again G-man, sea level anomalies are dynamic and fluctuate constantly as water seeks to do what it does- maintain equilibrium. I need to be convinced that there can be a difference measurable to the naked eye between sea levels of only a few hundred k's. Science may try to prove otherwise but the laws of physics will remain the same.

I'll see if I've got time later to go right into it, unless bb or someone else beats me to it.

I'd appreciate that. And, can you please put it in simple terms that will help a simmple man like me understand how (irrespective of tide, wind, swell and all the other natural elements) that the sea level can be higher from one coast to the next? For example, why does my GPS take its bearings from wherever I am positioned starting at 'sea level'?

zen the basic physics is that water moves under the influence of the forces acting on it. These include Earth's gravity as well as the gravity of both the sun and moon. Atmospheric pressure exerts a variable force also. Friction from wind on the surface causes not only waves but storm surges on the coast similar effects at sea raise sea level. Inertia also tends to hold water in place as Earth rotates so there is the potential for relative movement between water and adjacent land. In these circumstances there is no possibility of the sort of equilibrium you are talking about. Regional sea level differences are caused by local conditions. The East Australian Current is a large eddy system that creates a southerly flow along the coast. The sea level at the centre of the eddy is higher than surrounding waters.

Yep, even just a simple one Zen is the Indonesian Throughflow. All easterly trade-winds pile up water to the western side of the Pacific, causing a difference in sea height to the Indian Ocean (which is lower).

This then causes a significant flow through Lombok Strait and further east around Timor, trying to balance out the difference.

BB, thankyou, I know all that but my question goes back to you stating that east coast sea levels have increased relative to the surf coast. All things being equal, how can this be? Is this a permanent increase? I know the waters of the world will never truly reach equilibrium, that's why we have waves and sea levels will of course fluctuate (tide, moon, swell etc) but in terms of proximity, how can the sea level be markedly different in a relatively short distance. It doesn't compute.

Edit- the way I read this is you have your backyard swimming pool, everyone is splashing around, doing bombs, making whirlpools and when everyone jumps out for a cordial, one end is 10 cm higher than the other. It's an impossibility.

Looks like the new playbook has been handed out and there’s been a change in schedule. Covid Panic is out and Climate Panic is back in. Not a chance that the Trump sequel isn’t going to draw a few dozen high camp outrage pieces on the coming Death of Democracy…..lolol.

Don’t look up!

Blowy, I believe climate change is very much real and we have to do our best at a local level to look after our patch- my question is purely based on physics and I just can't see how one coastline has a higher sea level than another.

zenagain wrote:

Blowy, I believe climate change is very much real and we have to do our best at a local level to look after our patch- my question is purely based on physics and I just can't see how one coastline has a higher sea level than another.

I’m just taking the piss out of Blindboy’s seamless transferral of panic from one topic to the next. No time to look back and reflect on past lies and bullshit , it’s onwards and downwards.