Print 77 comment(s) - last by WLee40.. on Oct 9 at 1:08 PM

Emissions up until this point have ensured an irreversible sea-level rise of 1.1 meters by the year 3000

A new study has found that it's too late to reverse the effects that greenhouse gas emissions will have on sea levels over the next thousand years -- but we could lessen the impact of these effects if proper changes are made. 

According to research by scientists at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Manchester Metropolitan University and the Université catholique de Louvain, greenhouse gas emissions produced up to this point has ensured an irreversible sea-level rise of 1.1 meters by the year 3000. This number could increase, they warn, if no action is taken to reduce these levels -- and the effects could extend into thousands of years into the future.  

The research team came to this conclusion by modeling sea-level changes over thousands of years while including all of our planet's ice sheets and warming of the oceans into its projections. This includes glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. The team said this has never been done before. 

Using a climate modeling system called LOVECLIM, the team analyzed several scenarios over the next thousand years. It found that there will be a sea-level rise of at least 1.1 meters by the year 3000, but if other certain emissions scenarios were followed, it could increase to 2.1, 4.1 or even 6.8 meters. 

The study also found that the Greenland ice sheet was the cause of over half of the sea-level rises while thermal expansion of the ocean came in second place and glaciers/ice came in third. 

"Ice sheets are very slow components in the climate system; they respond on time scales of thousands of years," said Professor Philippe Huybrechts, co-author of the study. "Together with the long lifetime of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, this inertia is the real poison on the climate system; anything we do now that changes the forcing in the climate system will necessarily have long consequences for the ice sheets and sea level.

"Ultimately, the current polar ice sheets store about 65 metres of equivalent sea level and if climatic warming will be severe and long-lasting, all ice will eventually melt. Mankind should limit the concentration of greenhouse gases at the lowest possible level as soon as possible. The only realistic option is a drastic reduction of the emissions. The lower the ultimate warming will be, the less severe the ultimate consequences will be." 

This study was published in Environmental Research Letters

Source: Science Daily

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: This is good news
By JNo on 10/3/2012 4:31:20 AM , Rating: -1
Right because you're a climate scientist too...

Forgive me if I think they've already accounted for your 'facts'.

There is incredibly strong consensus amongst the scientific literati that anthropogenic global warming has and is occurring but let's not vast weighted evidence of the scientific community get in the way of some good denial.

RE: This is good news
By TSS on 10/3/2012 7:12:58 AM , Rating: 5
Even a consensus can be wrong. For example in cases where the raw data is flawed.

The NOAA admits it's decreased in number, but gives a vague reason:

really? 4,500 weatherstations where "no longer accessible in real time"? What does that even mean? Did any human try to come close end up in a temporal loop?

But then again. Let's not allow evidence to get in the way of our "consensus". Especially not any leaked emails that show how fightfully weak that consensus really is.

RE: This is good news
By FITCamaro on 10/3/2012 7:28:31 AM , Rating: 2

RE: This is good news
By FITCamaro on 10/3/2012 7:30:59 AM , Rating: 3
And don't forget the locations of some of those weather stations.

Under AC system outlet ducts, next to brick walls which absorb and hold heat, on asphalt, etc.

RE: This is good news
By FaaR on 10/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: This is good news
By senecarr on 10/3/12, Rating: 0
RE: This is good news
By Paj on 10/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: This is good news
By mcnabney on 10/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: This is good news
By Cluebat on 10/3/2012 10:12:52 AM , Rating: 2

RE: This is good news
By tamalero on 10/3/2012 10:23:28 AM , Rating: 3
Doesnt it work BOTH WAYS?

RE: This is good news
By FITCamaro on 10/3/2012 9:45:14 AM , Rating: 4
So I guess the massive droughts in the early 20th century were also caused by man made global warming despite that we were barely producing any emissions by comparison to today back then.

Liberals seem to have a blind eye to history.

RE: This is good news
By FaaR on 10/3/2012 12:18:40 PM , Rating: 1
Spoken like a true ignoramus on the subject.

Of course both droughts and blizzards too would continue to exist both with and without human-induced climate change. Drought = weather. This is about climate. Apples and oranges, see?

RE: This is good news
By superflex on 10/3/2012 1:31:49 PM , Rating: 2
Ah yes, name calling. Typical tool of the progressive.
You consider 150 years of weather station data but ignore the 400,000 years of climate data from the Vostock ice cores.
Milankovitch cycle anyone?

RE: This is good news
By FITCamaro on 10/3/2012 2:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yes and climates have cycles.

RE: This is good news
By WLee40 on 10/3/2012 1:13:27 PM , Rating: 2
Look, this is my take simplified:
We are just getting out of the last ice age and the temperatures are naturally rising. There is no question that avg. temps are rising. This will likely cause greater fluctuations and increased anomalies and weather pattern changes. The amount of human influence is unknown and likely a small percentage-wise influence. Again, this is UNKNOWN. We don't understand all the complexities of our climate to make an accurate assessment. Nonlinear and chaotic equations that make up weather patterns need a high degree of accuracy and detail in the initial conditions and measurements that we simply don't have yet. I doubt we will know how much human influence has changed or will be able to change the climate until several more decades have passed. In the meantime, it makes sense to try and reduce, reuse and recycle as much as possible, but not go into debt or hurt the economy doing it.

RE: This is good news
By FITCamaro on 10/3/2012 3:47:08 PM , Rating: 4
In the meantime, it makes sense to try and reduce, reuse and recycle as much as possible, but not go into debt or hurt the economy doing it.

I agree with this statement absolutely. Is recycling good? Absolutely. Is trying to save energy good? Absolutely. Is trying to use less gas good? Sure.

But if I want a sports car, I should be able to buy one because that's the way a free market economy works. And these days we're building things like appliances that may use less whatever but are less effective at what they're designed to do. Namely toilets and washing machines.

Then you have all this "no lead" crap going on as if people are just sucking on their electronics. What is the result? Things break more. Resulting in even more waste from people largely throwing these things away and then having to go out and buy a new one.

RE: This is good news
By macca007 on 10/4/2012 4:44:22 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you,You hit it on the head!
Man I am so annoyed about these so called eco friendly whitegoods. Half flush toilets what a fkn joke,Yes I know that side is for taking a leak but usually they have smaller hole in the toilet bowl as well, So when you take a dump you have to flush 2 or 3 times which cancels out the saving on having the half flush in first place. Secondly front loading washing machines are CRAP, My next one will be a back to a top loader again, Front loader gets crap stuck in window which stinks out your washing if you forget to clean it and secondly I can't fit as many clothes in there so I have to do another load once again cancelling out the water savings from having front loader. Same can be said of many things we have now, Designed obsolescence? Or made so cheap they break after a several uses, Who cares they say as it's so cheap you just go buy another one.

RE: This is good news
By WLee40 on 10/9/2012 1:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I have a sports car and don't want to see performance or choice go away. I doubt it will though, look at that sweet Tesla S car! Although, we may need to make sure Obama doesn't get a 2nd term...

RE: This is good news
By Arsynic on 10/3/2012 10:56:36 AM , Rating: 4
Consensus is no substitute for actual scientific data and methodology. Government money can make any group of people come to a consensus.

RE: This is good news
By DiscoWade on 10/3/2012 12:44:39 PM , Rating: 3
The consensus was, at one time, that bad air made you sick. Miasma was once the consensus of scientists and anyone who said otherwise were shamed.

I'll believe in man-made global warming when (a) the scientists who talk about make their data and methodologies readily available to everyone as per the scientific method requirement; (b) when these same scientists also follow the Freedom of Information Act and release their data and methodologies when their studies were done at taxpayer funded universities; (c) when these same scientists practice what they preach and do the things they say we should be doing; (d) when these same scientists also have a honest, open, and public debate with someone who does not agree with their position; and (e) when these same scientists also stop denigrating and insulting those who have a different opinion.

RE: This is good news
By Paj on 10/4/2012 8:26:36 AM , Rating: 2
a) they do
b) they do
c) they do
d) they do
e) they do

RE: This is good news
By JPForums on 10/5/2012 9:55:06 AM , Rating: 2
a) Perhaps limited groups have started to do this recently. However, this is not the case with the most damning reports I've read. When asked for the data so that it could be verified, they destroyed original raw climate data and dumped a load of modified data without so much as an equation that could get it back to the original.

b) More recently, groups have in fact been submitting their data and methods. Though it is still common to get modified data and not the raw data. That said, there has also been more contrasting analysis recently. In the most recent reports I've read, the conclusion, rather than the data or method, was called into question.

c) I think he's confusing Al Gore with a scientist. His humble abode consumes 4 time energy of the average household in the U.S., while he preaches global warming. That said, I still haven't seen any climatologists publicly step up to the plate and say "This is how it's done.", while showing off their residence. Interestingly, the "Oil Monger" Bush, who gets railed for his lack of ecologic interest has a nice eco-friendly geothermal heating/cooling system for his house. Of course, his reasons are economic and not ecologic, but that just proves the two need not be mutually exclusive.

d) Honest - doubtful, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for the moment.
Open - I've never seen them accepting of an alternate viewpoint (at least not in public). In my experience, they tend to play off the opposition as imbeciles too stupid to waste time on with meaningful discussion (again in a public setting).
Public - Sure, they are all over the place.
Debate - See point about openness.

e) In reality, most climatologist are probably not prone to denigrating and insulting others. However, those that represent them and interact with the media are often guilty of it. Unfortunately, the non climatology community (read "The world at large") only ever interact with these. If they want to be taken more seriously, they need to take us more seriously (see point about openness above).

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to at least given some counter examples to his points. References are even better if you have the time. Simply saying "They don't" or "They do" doesn't make it so.

While we are on the subject of global warming and greenhouse gases, do you know what the most abundant greenhouse gas is? It is the same whether you check by concentration (factually) or by its contribution to the green house effect (debatable). I'll give you a hint: It contains NO CARBON. Of the greenhouse gases, we contribute to, do you know what percentage we contribute? Any effect we can cause is limited to this as an overall percentage. Likewise, any resolution should be limited to this percentage. To go beyond this is to oppose the natural cycle.

I'm all for better power efficiency, cleaner air, and the likes. I'll even spend money into it for the real benefits it brings: long term savings, better health, etc. I'm not opposed to the idea of preserving the environment for our children to enjoy. I just prefer to take a more realistic outlook on what we can realistically affect and prefer to use methods that are well thought out and economically viable. Some of the proposed solutions cause problems worse than the initial problem. As an example, you can force everyone to use electric vehicles and appliances in place of gas and natural gas. But if the power plant puts out more pollution to provide the extra electricity than is saved by removing gas and natural gas, then you've made the problem worse. Even if the plant is marginally better, you have to consider the waste and energy spent building new cars and appliances before the old ones reached the end of their useful life. The better solution would be to instead, continue using gas in the area and work on moving over to a cleaner plant. With improvements in the efficiency and technologies of clean plants, costs go down and people are tempted to move to electric on their own.

"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki