SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the a-rising-ocean-floods-all-ports dept.
The University of New South Wales (Australia) is reporting on research [abstract;full article paywalled] by an international team led by Dr Nicholas Golledge, a senior research fellow at New Zealand's Victoria University's Antarctic Research Centre. According to the article, a jump in global average temperatures of 1.5°C–2°C will see the collapse of Antarctic ice shelves and lead to hundreds and even thousands of years of sea level rise. It goes on to say:
Using state-of-the-art computer modelling, Dr Golledge and his colleagues including researchers from UNSW simulated the ice-sheet's response to a warming climate under a range of greenhouse gas emission scenarios. They found in all but one scenario (that of significantly reduced emissions beyond 2020) large parts of the Antarctic ice-sheet were lost, resulting in a substantial rise in global sea-level. "The long reaction time of the Antarctic ice-sheet – which can take thousands of years to fully manifest its response to changes in environmental conditions – coupled with the fact that CO₂ lingers in the atmosphere for a very long time means that the warming we generate now will affect the ice sheet in ways that will be incredibly hard to undo," Dr Golledge said.
[...] "Around 93% of the heat from anthropogenic global warming has gone into the ocean, and these warming ocean waters are now coming into contact with the floating margins of the Antarctic ice sheet, known as ice shelves. If we lose these ice shelves, the Antarctic contribution to sea-level rise by 2100 will be nearer 40 centimetres." To avoid the loss of the Antarctic ice shelves, and a long-term commitment to many metres of sea-level rise, atmospheric warming needs to be kept below 2°C above present levels. "Missing the 2°C target will result in an Antarctic contribution to sea-level rise that could be up to 10 metres higher than today," Dr Golledge said. "The stakes are obviously very high—10 percent of the world's population lives within 10 metres of present sea level."
[...] "The striking thing about these findings is that we have taken the most conservative estimates possible," said co-author of the paper, Dr Chris Fogwill from UNSW Australia's Climate Change Research Centre. "In all IPCC global warming scenarios, only one (RCP2.6) saw Antarctic ice shelves avoid ongoing collapse. In every other case we saw significant collapse and rising sea levels continue for hundreds to thousands of years. "The results suggest Antarctic ice shelf stability has a tipping point dependent on a critical temperature threshold that can lead to substantial sea level rise even if we reduce emissions after that threshold has been reached." The findings raise an ethical decision for us all, according to Dr Golledge.
So, we have more research detailing the impact of AGW on sea levels. Interestingly, the paper's authors slam the IPCC's estimates of sea level rises due to Antarctic ice sheet melting as too modest.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Murdoc on Monday October 19 2015, @10:30PM
Alright, we should all know by now that we're not going to solve this problem with business as usual, or by waiting for some miracle politician/company/technology to come save us. We've known this would happen for at least 20 years now, and how much closer are we to fixing it? Kyoto? Remember that? Too little-too late, and never reached anyway. We all know that democracy doesn't work. If it did we'd actually get leaders that fixed something for a change rather than continually disappoint us. Most of us know that capitalism isn't working either (if it ever did) and for those that don't, no, your dream kludge isn't going to cut it. It's time to start looking in other directions, outside the box.
Something like Technocracy [technocracy.ca], and no, probably not the kind you're thinking of. I'm talking about the economic theory developed by scientists and engineers in the 1920s to fix this and many other problems we're suffering from. It's not hard to understand, but you won't understand it by reading a single page about it (or even a just a comment). Give it a good, hard look. Those problems you're seeing in it? Most likely just gaps in your knowledge. They've been addressed hundreds of times already (I know, I've seen them all).
How is this relevant? By switching to a Technocratic economy we will no longer have greedy and power-hungry corporations and politicians screwing things up. Just one, unified organization who's sole purpose is to provide all citizens with the highest standard of living possible for the longest period possible. That last bit there means sustainability is built right in from the beginning, not clumsy attempts to patch a already out-of-control system that frankly, those at the top don't want "fixed" anyway. With the gains we can make in efficiency we can reduce waste and pollution by quite a bit in a relatively short period of time, and then make best use of what remains of whatever fossil fuels we have access to to build a even far more efficient infrastructure. It's all there, simply laid out. No money to corrupt anyone, no political power for people to misuse. And no, it's not a dictatorship, it's actually more free than any so-called democracy today.