31–40 of 57 posts
Unlike climate change, this is a self correcting problem. We'll tap the last of the fresh water, and then no more sea level rise (from that source). Problem solved, once and for all.
The polar ice caps are the same way. Once we melt all the ice then the sea level rise will stop, and we can just deal with the change in lifestyle.
I’m not sure this title is completely correct “The researchers identified the type of water loss on land, and for the first time, found that 68% came from groundwater alone — contributing more to sea level rise than glaciers and ice caps on land.” They are saying the leading loss of water loss is from ground water. The largest contributor to sea level rise I would guess is still thermosteric sea level rise due to the…
Quote from the paper: "the continents are now the leading contributor (44%) to mass-driven GMSL rise". As regards to non-mass-driven rise, another article[0] states, "Ice-mass loss—predominantly from glaciers—has caused twice as much sea-level rise since 1900 as has thermal expansion". I think the findings about sea level rise are as interesting as the ones about fresh water disappearance. [0] https://www.nature.com/…
The IPCC section “9.6.1.1 Global Mean Sea Level Change Budget in the Pre-satellite Era” says Since SROCC, a new ocean heat content reconstruction (Section 2.3.3.1; Zanna et al., 2019) has allowed global thermosteric sea level change to be estimated over the 20th century. As a result, the sea level budget for the 20th century can now be assessed for the first time. For the periods 1901–1990 and 1901–2018, the assessed very likely range for the sum of components is found to be consistent with the assessed very likely range of observed GMSL change (medium confidence), in agreement with Frederikse et al. (2020b; Table 9.5). This represents a major step forward in the understanding of observed GMSL change over the 20th century, which is dominated by glacier (52%) and Greenland Ice Sheet mass loss (29%) and the effect of ocean thermal expansion (32%), with a negative contribution from the LWS change (–14%). While the combined mass loss for Greenland and glaciers is consistent with SROCC, updates in the underlying datasets lead to differences in partitioning of the mass loss.”
Edit: by a different story I mean a different story from what is the leading driver of sea level rise. Sea level rise from ice melt was larger since 1900 because sea level rise in general was less fast back then and global mean temperature rise was much smaller so thermosteric sea level rise played less of a role. Thermosteric sea level rise is larger than ground water factors, both will be eclipsed by ice melt in the upcoming century.
I would note the authors pointedly do not call it the leading driver of sea level rise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they are effective in reducing emissions.
I love the first world perspective. It pretends to be erudite while being completely inhuman. As if "emissions" are something you could ever get rid of. Any excuse to avoid making their own lives more efficient or the distribution of resources more fair.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quote from the paper: "the continents are now the leading contributor (44%) to mass-driven GMSL rise". As regards to non-mass-driven rise, another article[0] states, "Ice-mass loss—predominantly from glaciers—has caused twice as much sea-level rise since 1900 as has thermal expansion". I think the findings about sea level rise are as interesting as the ones about fresh water disappearance. [0] https://www.nature.com/…
The study you cite is talking about sea level rise since 1900 which is a very different story. The IPCC section “9.6.1.1 Global Mean Sea Level Change Budget in the Pre-satellite Era” says Since SROCC, a new ocean heat content reconstruction (Section 2.3.3.1; Zanna et al., 2019) has allowed global thermosteric sea level change to be estimated over the 20th century. As a result, the sea level budget for the 20th centur…
Unlike climate change, this is a self correcting problem. We'll tap the last of the fresh water, and then no more sea level rise (from that source). Problem solved, once and for all.
It’s a good reminder that “climate change” will be a minor inconvenience for the rich, and an existential crisis for everyone else. And that most of the inconvience will be needing to deploy robots to keep the poor away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The study you cite is talking about sea level rise since 1900 which is a very different story. The IPCC section “9.6.1.1 Global Mean Sea Level Change Budget in the Pre-satellite Era” says Since SROCC, a new ocean heat content reconstruction (Section 2.3.3.1; Zanna et al., 2019) has allowed global thermosteric sea level change to be estimated over the 20th century. As a result, the sea level budget for the 20th centur…
See table 9.5 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-9/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quote from the paper: "the continents are now the leading contributor (44%) to mass-driven GMSL rise". As regards to non-mass-driven rise, another article[0] states, "Ice-mass loss—predominantly from glaciers—has caused twice as much sea-level rise since 1900 as has thermal expansion". I think the findings about sea level rise are as interesting as the ones about fresh water disappearance. [0] https://www.nature.com/…
The study you cite is talking about sea level rise since 1900 which is a very different story. The IPCC section “9.6.1.1 Global Mean Sea Level Change Budget in the Pre-satellite Era” says Since SROCC, a new ocean heat content reconstruction (Section 2.3.3.1; Zanna et al., 2019) has allowed global thermosteric sea level change to be estimated over the 20th century. As a result, the sea level budget for the 20th centur…
- sea level is formally referred to as Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL)
- its change is segmented into two subcategories in literature(?), mass-driven (e.g. ice melting?, freshwater runoff?, freshwater water cycle stuff?) and non-mass-driven (e.g. thermal expansion?)
- freshwater loss from land was found to be at present the lead driver of the mass-driven change as per the paper (over what timeframe?)
- title says it's the primary driver for GMSL change overall, which this alone doesn't support (i.e. the title is a lie)
- @ornel (the person posting) points to another study that claims mass-driven change is the leading change, hence the title [0, this doesn't pass my smell test but i see the logic]
- you point out that that's glossing over that that other study is counting from 1900, but if one shrunk the evaluation window, the non-mass-driven causes would be the drivers now [1, this doesn't pass my smell test either, but i see the logic here as well]
The latter point then begs the question though, what is the time window in this case then, and how stable that result is? What would be an "appropriate" time window to choose, and how would one derive that?
Regarding my non-passing smell tests, imagine the following scenario for some event:
- category A: 51% of the total
- cause A1: 26% of the total
- cause A2: 25% of the total
- category B: 49% of the total
- cause B1: 27% of the total
- cause B2: 22% of the total
In this case, category A will be the lead contributor, but individually none of its contributing causes will be, addressing [0]. The causes will be ordered like so instead: B1 > A1 > A2 > B2. More elaborate variations are possible of course. For [1], you can imagine the same scenario just in reverse.
Did I get all this right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The study you cite is talking about sea level rise since 1900 which is a very different story. The IPCC section “9.6.1.1 Global Mean Sea Level Change Budget in the Pre-satellite Era” says Since SROCC, a new ocean heat content reconstruction (Section 2.3.3.1; Zanna et al., 2019) has allowed global thermosteric sea level change to be estimated over the 20th century. As a result, the sea level budget for the 20th centur…
So let me get this straight: - sea level is formally referred to as Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) - its change is segmented into two subcategories in literature(?), mass-driven (e.g. ice melting?, freshwater runoff?, freshwater water cycle stuff?) and non-mass-driven (e.g. thermal expansion?) - freshwater loss from land was found to be at present the lead driver of the mass-driven change as per the paper (over what ti…
I appreciate the effort in your comment. I think upon further reflection my simpler objection is calling freshwater loss the main driver of sea level rise when the journal article and news article don’t. Also I would note this is only one study.
I’m not sure this title is completely correct “The researchers identified the type of water loss on land, and for the first time, found that 68% came from groundwater alone — contributing more to sea level rise than glaciers and ice caps on land.” They are saying the leading loss of water loss is from ground water. The largest contributor to sea level rise I would guess is still thermosteric sea level rise due to the…