Goodbye glaciers?

[David B]

Here is one example

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8046540.stm

As the piece says, lots of people depend on glacial melt for a steady water supply.

This is not good!

David

[BWE]

we are fucked in so many ways. Our fisheries are almost all in danger of collapse. The ones that haven't already collapsed anyway.

[premjan]

The last James Bond movie was about water sources in Bolivia. Prophetic perhaps.

[premjan]

The last James Bond movie was about water sources in Bolivia. Prophetic or topical?

[nygreenguy]

The last James Bond movie was about water sources in Bolivia. Prophetic or topical?


Bolivias problem isnt water sources, but private ownership of water. A private enterprise owns ALL the water, this includes the rain.

Go private enterprise.

[Jehanne]

Here is one example

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8046540.stm

As the piece says, lots of people depend on glacial melt for a steady water supply.

This is not good!

David

This excellent site is updated twice daily (even on weekends):

http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/amsre.html

You can also watch it happen "live" here:

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np.html

[premjan]

The last James Bond movie was about water sources in Bolivia. Prophetic or topical?

Bolivias problem isnt water sources, but private ownership of water. A private enterprise owns ALL the water, this includes the rain.

Go private enterprise.
In the movie or in reality? I see, in reality. That's amazingly sad. I can't believe that Bolivia just let ownership of its water (and 15% annual profits) go to the hands of foreign corporations. That's just amazing in a post-colonial age.

[BWE]

The last James Bond movie was about water sources in Bolivia. Prophetic or topical?

Bolivias problem isnt water sources, but private ownership of water. A private enterprise owns ALL the water, this includes the rain.

Go private enterprise.
In the movie or in reality? I see, in reality. That's amazingly sad. I can't believe that Bolivia just let ownership of its water (and 15% annual profits) go to the hands of foreign corporations. That's just amazing in a post-colonial age.
Isn't (wasn't) it Enron that bought it?

[premjan]

A company called "Suez".

[VoxRat]

I was watching How the Earth Was Made" on the History Channel (http://www.history.com/minisites/how-the-earth-was-made) last night. It was about the Alps. I was surprised to learn that Hannibal would not have been able to do his famous transalpine march these days; the glaciers 2200 years ago had receded beyond the point they've receded to now. They came back, and now they're retreating again.

At least according to the TV program. I haven't done any independent checking.

[Notta]

I always wondered how he got those elephants to march over ice & snow. You'd think they'd sink in so far they wouldn't be able to walk!

And we still haven't gotten as warm as it was when Greenland was actually arable land.

I'm waiting for the time when spring comes to central Pennsylvania before the end of May. We had a frost last night, and it STILL hasn't hit 60 degrees yet today.

[Steviepinhead]

Here's a well-studied glacier (http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/geller1/south_cascade_glacier.htm) in my neck of the woods, the South Cascade Glacier in North Cascades National Park, that's been in retreat since at least the late 1920s.

If you look up at the small peaks at the head or top of the glacier, I've hiked across there (on what's called,among mountaineers, the "Ptarmigan Traverse"), so this isn't a case of "if they faked the moon landing, they can fake a receding glacier." It's a real glacier, that real mountaineers and scientists have observed to be in substantial retreat during a single lifetime.

While this particular glacier, which faces toward (or has a "solar aspect" that is) southwesterly, may be particularly vulnerable -- the canary in the coal mine -- other glaciers in the North Cascades are also retreating and several smaller ones have actually disappeared. They just haven't been studied as consistently, for as long, and with as detailed a photodocumentation, as the South Cascade Glacier.

[Jehanne]

I always wondered how he got those elephants to march over ice & snow. You'd think they'd sink in so far they wouldn't be able to walk!

And we still haven't gotten as warm as it was when Greenland was actually arable land.

I'm waiting for the time when spring comes to central Pennsylvania before the end of May. We had a frost last night, and it STILL hasn't hit 60 degrees yet today.

As I recall, Hannibal only got one elephant across the Alps. The climate was warmer back then, at least in that area. However, globally, the climate was cooler than it is today, at least according to the global climate proxy modeling. (Just Google "climate hockey stick.") As for climate change, it is supposed to impact the poles first, everywhere else later.

[Free in Freeport]

Wont less glacial mass translate to higher rainfall in the same region?

[Jehanne]

Wont less glacial mass translate to higher rainfall in the same region?

The maxim in climate science is that a warmer world will be a wetter world.

[David B]

Wont less glacial mass translate to higher rainfall in the same region?

Perhaps, but not necessarily at a time when rain is needed, for consumption or agriculture.

Glacial melt over the summer is a major source of water in some chunks of the world, which is fine when the summer melt is about the same as the winter snowfall.

If the glaciers go, then there will be rivers that are very low or dry in summer, in many places.

And that will cause problems.

Another factor is that ice melting, whether on glaciers or sea ice, it will lower the average albedo of the world, and factor into warming. I'd guess that glaciers disappearing would be trivial regarding warming at a global level, but perhaps not at a local one.

David

[premjan]

Warmer world may see both heavier monsoons and more desertification - more polarization of extremes. Such as bigger and more numerous storms.

[Jehanne]

Warmer world may see both heavier monsoons and more desertification - more polarization of extremes. Such as bigger and more numerous storms.

The really, really BIG consequence of GW will be flooding. I will make a prediction: Before I am dead (barring tragedy), New York City will be abandoned due to immersion by the Atlantic Ocean. Thoughts?

[premjan]

True, though some people see parts of the ice caps growing in depth and other parts shrinking.

[SteveF]

Warmer world may see both heavier monsoons and more desertification - more polarization of extremes. Such as bigger and more numerous storms.

The really, really BIG consequence of GW will be flooding. I will make a prediction: Before I am dead (barring tragedy), New York City will be abandoned due to immersion by the Atlantic Ocean. Thoughts?

How old are you? I doubt New York will be abandoned at any time soon, there'll be a will to build appropriate engineering solutions (which are obviously imperfect, but sufficient to keep people around I would imagine).

The IPCC predicts a sea level rise of between 21cm and 70cm by 2100, depending on which emissions scenario is used. There's a lot of uncertainty in sea level projections. Probably the most pesimistic view can be found in:

Rahmstorf, S. (2008) A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea-Level Rise. Science, 315, 368 - 370.

This paper (which isn't believed by everyone) constrains the lower end of IPCC range, arguing that low values are unlikely, and expands the upper bounds. It ends up with a range of 55 to 140 cm, arguing that a rise over 1m can't be ruled out. This is the relevant figure from the Rahmstorf paper:

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk186/geosteve/315_368_F4.jpg

Fig. 4. Past sea level and sea-level projections from 1990 to 2100 based on global mean temperature projections of the IPCC TAR. The gray uncertainty range spans the range of temperature rise of 1.4° to 5.8° C, having been combined with the best statistical fit shown in Fig. 2. The dashed gray lines show the added uncertainty due to the statistical error of the fit of Fig. 2. Colored dashed lines are the individual scenarios as shown in (1); the light blue line is the A1FI scenario, and the yellow line is the B1 scenario

It's difficult to say exactly where things stand. IPCC is arguably rather conservative and there do seem to be a few people breaking away and arguing for the possibility of larger rises. But we shouldn't place a huge amount of confidence in their POV either, although arguably when considering policy we should pay more attention to them (precautionary principle etc). It's currently really difficult to get a good handle on what sea level is going to do over the next century.

[Jehanne]

True, though some people see parts of the ice caps growing in depth and other parts shrinking.

This is one of the paradoxes of global warming in that some parts of the World will see more snow as the planet warms, hence, it is no surprise that some glaciers are growing. However, most glaciers are shrinking. Eventually, all will follow that trend.

[SteveF]

Of relevance from todays Science:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/324/5929/901

[Jehanne]

Of relevance from todays Science:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/324/5929/901

3.3 meters? Enough to flood New York City. Besides, this is just one study. It may or may not represent reality.

[VoxRat]

...
How old are you? I doubt New York will be abandoned at any time soon, there'll be a will to build appropriate engineering solutions (which are obviously imperfect, but sufficient to keep people around I would imagine)....I'm pretty pessimistic about the long term, but I'm seriously considering an investment in Manhattan real estate right now.

[Ray Moscow]

The last James Bond movie was about water sources in Bolivia. Prophetic or topical?

Bolivias problem isnt water sources, but private ownership of water. A private enterprise owns ALL the water, this includes the rain.

Go private enterprise.
In the movie or in reality? I see, in reality. That's amazingly sad. I can't believe that Bolivia just let ownership of its water (and 15% annual profits) go to the hands of foreign corporations. That's just amazing in a post-colonial age.

The world isn't really post-colonial. The big powers include the corporations, not just nation-states.

[SteveF]

Of relevance from todays Science:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/324/5929/901

3.3 meters? Enough to flood New York City. Besides, this is just one study. It may or may not represent reality.

No, it may not. However, it's probably more reliable than previous work that predicts a greater sea level rise from collapse of the WAIS. The higher figures really stem from work done in the late 70s when the data wasn't so great. It's my impression that things hadn't really moved on much from that. Now there is much better data on subglacial topography and the thickness of the ice sheet and so this result is likely to be more accurate. Anyway, the main figure:

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk186/geosteve/324_901_F3.jpg

Fig. 3 Regional SLR after instantaneous removal of ice from the ROI, including the effects of self-gravitation, elastic rebound of the lithosphere, and Earth rotation perturbations but excluding the effects of ocean circulation (29) and other sources of ocean mass. w.r.t., with respect to.

[Worldtraveller]

Not sure how much wieght this has, but this article (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0916-09.htm) claims that some experts think we are already past the point of no return with regards to the ice caps.

[Jehanne]

Not sure how much wieght this has, but this article (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0916-09.htm) claims that some experts think we are already past the point of no return with regards to the ice caps.

Dr. Jim Hansen of NASA Goddard Space Institute and some 18 (or so) co-authors believe that we have past the "point of no return" (although, they would probably not say this publicly):

http://www.350.org/
http://www.350.org/understanding-350#8

[Jehanne]

Of relevance from todays Science:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/324/5929/901

3.3 meters? Enough to flood New York City. Besides, this is just one study. It may or may not represent reality.

No, it may not. However, it's probably more reliable than previous work that predicts a greater sea level rise from collapse of the WAIS. The higher figures really stem from work done in the late 70s when the data wasn't so great. It's my impression that things hadn't really moved on much from that. Now there is much better data on subglacial topography and the thickness of the ice sheet and so this result is likely to be more accurate. Anyway, the main figure:

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk186/geosteve/324_901_F3.jpg

Fig. 3 Regional SLR after instantaneous removal of ice from the ROI, including the effects of self-gravitation, elastic rebound of the lithosphere, and Earth rotation perturbations but excluding the effects of ocean circulation (29) and other sources of ocean mass. w.r.t., with respect to.

Of course, this is just one ice sheet on the Earth. I am not sure what the estimates are for Greenland (8 to 10 meters?), however, if the worst case scenarios materialize, then we looking at between 50 to 80 meters of sea rise from melting all the ice and from the thermal expansion of the water.

[Notta]

...
How old are you? I doubt New York will be abandoned at any time soon, there'll be a will to build appropriate engineering solutions (which are obviously imperfect, but sufficient to keep people around I would imagine)....I'm pretty pessimistic about the long term, but I'm seriously considering an investment in Manhattan real estate right now.My in-laws have a home built 6 feet above ground level about 12 miles inland in southern Florida. I hope to inherit a beach-front home in about 20 years.

[Jehanne]

...
How old are you? I doubt New York will be abandoned at any time soon, there'll be a will to build appropriate engineering solutions (which are obviously imperfect, but sufficient to keep people around I would imagine)....I'm pretty pessimistic about the long term, but I'm seriously considering an investment in Manhattan real estate right now.My in-laws have a home built 6 feet above ground level about 12 miles inland in southern Florida. I hope to inherit a beach-front home in about 20 years.

Good Luck. Seriously, I think that the environment is going to collapse here in the next several years, due to nonlinear forcings. This is a scientific hunch, nothing more.

[epepke]

As the piece says, lots of people depend on glacial melt for a steady water supply.

They'd better drink up, then.

[Asha'man]

The really, really BIG consequence of GW will be flooding. I will make a prediction: Before I am dead (barring tragedy), New York City will be abandoned due to immersion by the Atlantic Ocean. Thoughts?

Flooding is the least of our coming problems. The way I see it, the biggest issue is going to be a reduction in agricultural productivity. Higher temperature swings, heavy rainfall, lower soil moisture and droughts, extreme weather events, heat waves and late frosts all combine to reduce our ability to consistently produce good crops. (One part of Australia recently lost 95% of it's rice crop due to the recent weather extremes.)

So we have 6.5 billion people on the planet now, and can just barely feed them all. What happens when our food production drops by 20-30%, and population tries to rise towards 9 billion? You get a few billion people starving to death.

Correction, you get a few billion people starving to death, with guns.

[Worldtraveller]

The population will vary pretty closely with food production. I remember when I first read a couple of Daniel Quinn's books a few years back, I went and checked his numbers based on what information I could find, and the bits about food, population, and starvation where pretty accurate.

The global starvation rate is pretty constant. No matter how much food we produce, there is always a commensurate increase in population. There is also a proportional increase in the number of people starving. It seems we humans aren't any different than any other animal, after all, in that respect.

So what will happen is that if the global food supply decreases, the prices will increase, of course. Globally, though, the population will probably follow the same curve it always has since we've achieved a mostly global economy. Now, if the transport systems break down too, all bets are off, and I have no idea how that will play out.

[Jehanne]

The really, really BIG consequence of GW will be flooding. I will make a prediction: Before I am dead (barring tragedy), New York City will be abandoned due to immersion by the Atlantic Ocean. Thoughts?

Flooding is the least of our coming problems. The way I see it, the biggest issue is going to be a reduction in agricultural productivity. Higher temperature swings, heavy rainfall, lower soil moisture and droughts, extreme weather events, heat waves and late frosts all combine to reduce our ability to consistently produce good crops. (One part of Australia recently lost 95% of it's rice crop due to the recent weather extremes.)

So we have 6.5 billion people on the planet now, and can just barely feed them all. What happens when our food production drops by 20-30%, and population tries to rise towards 9 billion? You get a few billion people starving to death.

Correction, you get a few billion people starving to death, with guns.

I admit that I was being ethnocentric in expressing my opinions, that is, the biggest impact to the United States will be, IMHO, flooding. But, you are correct. Starvation will become the rule and not the exception. I do not even want to begin to think about the ramifications from all of this.