James Hansen On Energy

[CaptainBeowulf]

If the sea level were to rise two meters in the next ten years, it would be catastrophic. Over generations, it's disconcerting - there would be time to adapt, although some historic cities and landmarks would be lost and decaying buildings would cause a lot of ocean pollution.

I get the impression from a lot of AGW supporters that they think the ice caps will melt imminently and sea levels will soon rise by several meters. When they're told that the Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035, this isn't surprising.

If you're not an alarmist, good, I'm just saying that we are subjected to alarmism.

[MSimon]

I absolutely think a meter or two in sea level rise can be catastrophic to the worlds populations. That doesn't make me an alarmist because I understand we're talking generational scales here. I might see it happening.

But twenty meters will be worse than we thought.

The high end IPCC estimate is 34" (IIRC) the low end 3.5" (they have that one nailed). Arith mean 19". Geometric mean 11". Continuation of current 100 year trend (2.2 mm/year) line 8". IPCC estimate of (3.3mm/year) 12". (All by 2100).

A 1 meter rise (40") would be a rate of 4.5 mm/year and 2 meters (80") 8.9 mm per year. Rates are going to have to kick up quite a bit to meet your targets considering the recent decline in rate.

I'd like to see the provenance of your two meter estimate. Would that be a WWF or Greenpeace fund raising estimate? Or a UEA model?

Have you factored in a 500 G ton meteor strike? The Yellowstone caldera blowing (over due). Or a return of volcanism? We have been in a rather quiet period for volcanoes. It can't last.

[Josh Cryer]

If the sea level were to rise two meters in the next ten years, it would be catastrophic. Over generations, it's disconcerting - there would be time to adapt, although some historic cities and landmarks would be lost and decaying buildings would cause a lot of ocean pollution.

Indeed, it is easily handled by countries like the US (we'll probably wind up integrating Canada). Countries like the UK and EU, maybe a bit worse off. Third world countries, frick, since their billions simply cannot migrate enough to anywhere. And we wouldn't let the strain on us so we'd close up and arm our borders. Of course, again, over generational times. Our grandchildren probably wouldn't really notice it to any significant extent.

I get the impression from a lot of AGW supporters that they think the ice caps will melt imminently and sea levels will soon rise by several meters. When they're told that the Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035, this isn't surprising.

I think you are projecting as I never get that from AGW truthers.

If you're not an alarmist, good, I'm just saying that we are subjected to alarmism.

The real alarmism I am seeing are people claiming economic catastrophe if we attempt to do something about it. There are also double standards being presented.

The oil will run out eventually (certainly in my lifetime at the rate we're going). It'd be good to have something to replace it in any event.

[Josh Cryer]

MSimon, IPCC sea level rise estimates do not include dynamical ice flow. How often does this have to be repeated? They only go by some glacial runoff (a very small amount) and oceanic thermal expansion (simple math). It's completely underestimating the sea level rise that is caused by ice mass losses over Greenland and even more importantly Antarctica (the latter of which which no one thought would lose net ice mass).

I fully expect that you will start seeing its impacts on the sea level rise trend within the next 5 years, but if I start graphing short term trends you would probably have a problem with it.

[MSimon]

MSimon, IPCC sea level rise estimates do not include dynamical ice flow. How often does this have to be repeated? They only go by some glacial runoff (a very small amount) and oceanic thermal expansion (simple math). It's completely underestimating the sea level rise that is caused by ice mass losses over Greenland and even more importantly Antarctica (the latter of which which no one thought would lose net ice mass).

I fully expect that you will start seeing its impacts on the sea level rise trend within the next 5 years, but if I start graphing short term trends you would probably have a problem with it.

I believe the short term trend (3 to 5 years) is roughly no rise. You accepted that. You now have a new story?

But Greenland is not losing ice very fast and the Antarctic as a whole is gaining. BTW what was the sea level when Greenland was thriving with human habitation now under ice? If we don't go above that level it will be no worse than natural variation.

And if the IPCC is not including ALL effects they are lying to us. Why would they do that?

Or as one wag once said of a Civil War Officer (Union). "He was so economical with the truth that you couldn't even believe the opposite of what he said."

[MSimon]

What do I expect? Roughly zero rise over the next 5 years as we enter a cooling period. And by zero I mean 1.1 mm a year or less.

[Josh Cryer]

I believe the short term trend (3 to 5 years) is roughly no rise. You accepted that. You now have a new story?

Where did I say that?

But Greenland is not losing ice very fast and the Antarctic as a whole is gaining.

Outright falsehood, they're both losing ice mass. Antarctica is gaining ice extent, because, yaknow, it's losing so much ice mass that whatever is sitting there when it gets cold again stays around.

BTW what was the sea level when Greenland was thriving with human habitation now under ice? If we don't go above that level it will be no worse than natural variation.

What was the world population when Greenland was thriving with human habitation now under ice? Something like 6 billion less than now?

And if the IPCC is not including ALL effects they are lying to us. Why would they do that?

The deadline for dynamical ice flow papers passed and they had to pass. I advocate a "moving IPCC" which can be updated regularly, every year or so, rather than the 5 year schedule they're on.

Or as one wag once said of a Civil War Officer (Union). "He was so economical with the truth that you couldn't even believe the opposite of what he said."

Heh, you do represent that quote very well. IPCC doesn't include something because the deadline passed = IPCC "are lying to us."

[MSimon]

What was the world population when Greenland was thriving with human habitation now under ice? Something like 6 billion less than now?

Lebensraum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Josh Cryer]

Absolutely.

Might buy me some land up there, it's bound to be extraordinarily cheap.

But building new habitation and moving a billion or so people, not so economical.

[MSimon]

Absolutely. :D

Might buy me some land up there, it's bound to be extraordinarily cheap.

But building new habitation and moving a billion or so people, not so economical.

Do you get how the CAGW movement is a variation of the Lebesraum movement of the 30s?

c.f. Too many people, not enough land.

A little craftier: in the future there will not be enough land because the seas will rise. And why will the seas rise: too many people creating too much CO2.

Another variant - too many people not enough resources.

[MSimon]

Absolutely. :D

Might buy me some land up there, it's bound to be extraordinarily cheap.

But building new habitation and moving a billion or so people, not so economical.

Do you get how the CAGW movement is a variation of the Lebesraum movement of the 30s?

c.f. Too many people, not enough land.

A little craftier: in the future there will not be enough land because the seas will rise. And why will the seas rise: too many people creating too much CO2.

Another variant - too many people not enough resources.

How soon do you have to move the 6 billion? How far? Say 500 miles inland in 100 years. So do we have enough resources to move 6 billion people 500 miles in 100 years? I can't see that as a big problem. And if the sea rise is only 12" - well no one has to move.

[CaptainBeowulf]

Josh,

Oil may run out in the next several decades. There are probably unknown reserves yet to be tapped, and there are reserves like the Alberta oil sands that will see production ramped up when oil prices rise again. But yes, if demand for oil continues to grow at a high rate, it could run out this century.

That's why I support developing new technology now. Basic research takes a long time. We should be able to develop fusion reactors, cheap, durable mass produced solar cells you buy at the hardware store and put on your roof, and batteries that can recharge quickly, hold their charge for weeks and power a car for a few hundred miles.

I'm only an economic catastrophist in the sense that I think going for major carbon cuts right now will hurt the economy. The necessary technology isn't ready yet. Now is the time to invest. Fusion and solar panel technologies will ultimately strengthen our economy on Earth and facilitate our expansion into the solar system.

And if the climate changes significantly on a generational scale? On a generational scale you get huge population movements. How many people in North America were either not born here, or have parents who were not born here? Look at the Old West - settled very rapidly in the second half of the 19th century. Look at Classical and early medieval Europe - one Germanic tribe (the Vandals) got from Scandinavia to North Africa over a few centuries basically on foot (a few of the nobles probably had horses). Yes, the populations were smaller, but technology was also simpler. Moving a billion people in 10 years would be a gong show. Having a billion people move from, say, Africa to Greenland over a couple of generations... quite feasible.