CapturedNature Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I was just reading how erstwhile climate models predicted that sea level rise due to global warming should range between 1 to 3 feet by the turn of 2100. Was there anything in there about sea level rise due to the number of cargo ships in the oceans and added landmass? I was playing around with some numbers last year when someone had asked me about this and it turns out that just the number of cargo ships in the world would account for about 1" of sea level rise by themselves. I have been unable to find numbers to account for amount of landmass added so I couldn't calculate that number but I think it would be several more inches based on the volumes that are known. Then there's cruise and pleasure craft, beach replenishment and all kinds of other man made forces that would effect sea levels than just warming. I'm just wondering if there is any accounting for any of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codfishsnowman Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 nova scotia being wiped off the map, wow!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamarack Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I was just reading how erstwhile climate models predicted that sea level rise due to global warming should range between 1 to 3 feet by the turn of 2100. That doesn't 'sound' staggering at first ear, no. But ... it would still mean tens of millions of displaced people world over. Now consider that the Totten Glacier over the eastern flank of the Antarctic icecap holds enough mass to raise sea-levels an additional 11 feet. Why that is important is because TAMU scientists have discovered a recently, unknown warm seawater (relatively speaking) channels penetrate into Totten's basal regions. The plausible additional mass of the Totten Glacier was was not included in the original climate, model-based assessments for the impacts on global sea-level rise. How thick is that glacier, and how much areal coverage? Just playing with numbers, if the ice is one mile thick (and all above current sea level), the glacier would need an area a bit bigger than Texas to produce an 11-foot rise by a total melt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 3' by 2100? Yeah I'll take the under. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I went for a walk and sledding twice today. It's pretty dam brutal outside. That wind is nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damage In Tolland Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Deep winter out there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whineminster Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I think all these death and destruction predictions due to global warming...or climate change...or whatever the heck the new term is, is overblown. Maybe its just me but I see climate as a slow thing to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 14" in the shade. Probably flower bulbs in the sun. Congrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalcottWx Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I have 10-15" varying between sun and shade in N And. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damage In Tolland Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 14" in the shade. Probably flower bulbs in the sun. Congrats. Nope..There's 10-15 depending where I measure. No grass anywhere around here..like you have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 3' by 2100? Yeah I'll take the under. Our current rate is 10 inches of rise between now and 2100...we'd need to have that rate average nearly quadruple that amount in the next 85 years to reach 3 feet of rise by 2100. I'll take the under too. Prob more like 12-18 inches would be my guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damage In Tolland Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Deep winter out there Look at that fence in the background.. It was almost buried 2 weeks ago if you recall those pics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dendrite Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 18.9F right now with winds gusting to 32mph. 3 years ago today my high was 78F. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ma blizzard Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 11"-18" (avg of ~14") snow depth imby in shrewsbury, measured in spots that are 50/50 sun/shade during the day. Couldn't believe I was walking on top of the snowpack while making measurements either. Almost makes me want to root for a VD 07 style sleet storm to lock the pack in until mid april Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damage In Tolland Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 11"-18" (avg of ~14") snow depth imby in shrewsbury, measured in spots that are 50/50 sun/shade during the day. Couldn't believe I was walking on top of the snowpack while making measurements either. Almost makes me want to root for a VD 07 style sleet storm to lock the pack in until mid april Oh we're getting at least that far with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Not to beat a dead horse with storm tracks...but can someone clarify why folks think MillerA's are so bad in the interior? Just continuing this discussion from the storm thread... I knew what he meant, But i won't get into the Miller A tracks again, Just put it this way, I like the ones that track into the GOM, But more of them do not Hmmm see I think Miller As are the best tracks for up here. Miller Bs are too far east most of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Our current rate is 10 inches of rise between now and 2100...we'd need to have that rate average nearly quadruple that amount in the next 85 years to reach 3 feet of rise by 2100. I'll take the under too. Prob more like 12-18 inches would be my guess. Yeah that seems like what some data suggests . The rate is a bit concerning, but 3'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Like this is what I think of when I think Miller A...a north northeast (NNE) moving low hugging the coast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Nope..There's 10-15 depending where I measure. No grass anywhere around here..like you have Looks meh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Not to beat a dead horse with storm tracks...but can someone clarify why folks think MillerA's are so bad in the interior? Just continuing this discussion from the storm thread... They can be real good for the interior if they hug the coast. Blizz of '93 is one of them . But there are a lot of redevelopers that hug the coast and bury the interior. Of course there is the interior and then far interior which probably means a big difference here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damage In Tolland Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Looks meh. What do you mean exactly? Those sorry pics you posted of Marshfield looked awfully sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 What do you mean exactly? Those sorry pics you posted of Marshfield looked awfully sorry you wish. I'm kidding. Looks amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherwiz Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 pick and Mix for lunch and nose in the same post is apropos Pick and Mix is the bomb!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Miller As suck a lot because a bunch of them will whiff. Yeah a perfect track miller A is really fun but you get so many ugly tracks too. I'd take miller b in powderfreak land all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 They can be real good for the interior if they hug the coast. Blizz of '93 is one of them . But there are a lot of redevelopers that hug the coast and bury the interior. Of course there is the interior and then far interior which probably means a big difference here. Haha true about the interior...interior to you is like Worecester, interior to me is like ALB-BTV . Here's another Miller A graphic...too bad they don't seem as frequent as the B's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I thought the marshfield pics looked better than Kevin's but it was close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhoon Tip Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Our current rate is 10 inches of rise between now and 2100...we'd need to have that rate average nearly quadruple that amount in the next 85 years to reach 3 feet of rise by 2100. I'll take the under too. Prob more like 12-18 inches would be my guess. It's not linear. The rise is "run-away", in the sense that it becomes logarithmic as more arctic land and sea ice exposes dark seas and land, things speed up. Beside, I am not sure what the "under" really means, or is intended to mean, when the prediction is "1" to 3 feet. The under is less than 1 foot then? Be that as it may, here is just one of many scale right out on the web. Someone asked how big it was? I have seen graphical presentations that suggest is is roughtly the size of TX, NM combined, and averages 2 km of thickness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Miller As suck a lot because a bunch of them will whiff. Yeah a perfect track miller A is really fun but you get so many ugly tracks too. I'd take miller b in powderfreak land all day. I guess I'm not grasping this haha. Of my climo biggest storms were they B's? I really have no idea haha. All the graphics I see when I google Miller A's and B's, the A graphics seem more favorable than the depictions of B's which are mainly SE of here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 It's not linear. The rise is "run-away", in the sense that it becomes logarithmic as more arctic land and sea ice exposes dark seas and land, things speed up. Beside, I am not sure what the "under" really means, or is intended to mean, when the prediction is "1" to 3 feet. The under is less than 1 foot then? Be that as it may, here is just one of many scale right out on the web. Someone asked how big it was? I have seen graphical presentations that suggest is is roughtly the size of TX, NM combined, and averages 2 km of thickness. Well we were specifically discussing the 3 foot range. I'd take the under on 2 feet too. I'm sure we will get some acceleration of SLR, but it hasn't happened yet going back to the turn of the 20th century. It's been quite linear. A lot of those upper bounds too are predicated on the higher end warming scenarios (such as another 3C of warming by 2100) which are going to be difficult to verify. At any rate this is more suited for the climate forum were all of these topics have been discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.