The rising sea level problem
It was intriguing to read a Reuters news article about using ‘high tech’ (actually old tech which has been around a few decades now…) to pinpoint risk associated with Antarctic ice melting. As noted in the article, if all the ice was to melt on Antarctica, sea levels would rise by over 50m and if the Greenland ice melted, sea levels would rise by 6-7m. This would obviously, as duly noted by an IPCC representative, have a devastating impact on many settlements along coastlines, including the much talked about Bangladesh and lesser talked about New York.
The article then goes onto describe various tecniques they are using to try and predict the rate of ice melt. The fascinating bit comes from a comment about why they are going to use this new technology:
“Studies indicate that in the Eemian about 125,000 years ago, for instance, temperatures were slightly higher than now, hippopotamuses bathed in the Rhine — and seas were 4 metres higher”
A British Antarctic Survey scientist then went onto say it was important to drill the ice to bedrock in Western Antarctica because:
A sample of rocks beneath the ice would reveal if and when they had last been exposed to cosmic rays…. If the ice had collapsed in the Eemian or during other warm periods between Ice Ages, it would set off global alarm bells about risks of a fast rise in sea levels, Vaughan said. A finding that the ice had been stable would be a huge relief.
An observation has been made here that at a time when man had no impact on the climate whatsoever, indeed, barely even existed as Homo Sapien, the sea levels rose.
If anything, if the drill hole actually found that the West Antarctic ice sheet was stable 125,000 years ago, it does rather beg the question, what melted then to allow the sea levels to rise by 4m 125,000 years ago?
The key thing to remember there is Humans had no effect AND no control over that sea level rise, 125,000 years ago.
Sea level changes, rapid or slow are absolutely guaranteed on planet Earth. At the Dappled Planet, we have no issue with scientific investigations on Antarctica to better help us understand the climate. We just hope that the information is used to help make informed decisions about adapting to climate change rather than thinking it can be controlled by regulating our rather small contribution of one gas to the atmosphere.
However, we are not encouraged that this article, of course, chose to end with the IPCC’s worst predictions with rises of 18-59cm in the next 90 years, as well as other people’s arguments that the entire Greenland ice sheet will collapse in the next 300-1000 years…
Maybe this is so, although there is enough geologic evidence to suggest the Greenland ice sheet will not collapse with a 2C temperature rise. But that aside, sea level change in inevitable and we cannot control it by controlling our CO2 emissions as even this article hints, other things (cosmic rays – cause cooling) can cause the ice to melt.
If sea levels are to rise, then there is probably very little we can do to prevent it. Think of the little dutch boy with a his finger in the dyke… So the most important thing here is not to sit back, say we can hold back climate change by regulating CO2 emissions – then waiting 70-100 years to see if we did actually succeed in that! We need to be accepting and planning for possible changes in the sea level now!
And that is going to be very hard with most of the human population now located in permanent settlements called cities, and most of those cities are located along a coast line which will, in the event of a large rise in sea level, be negatively affected.
Sea level change is just one result from climate change. We shouldn’t wait a 100 years to see if regulating our CO2 emissions will keep the climate steady. The geologic record rather suggests it won’t, so we need to be planning – and planning now – for the inevitable changes that come with climate change.
