Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Mitrovica redux


A prior post refers, regarding some law professor wasting time in Congress by saying Mitrovica's work - showing reduced sea level within 2000 km of melting ice caps, because gravity - means there's nothing to worry about. The professor was unable to read the next sentence in Mitrovica's work that the effect means more water ends up further away from the ice cap after melting occurs.

What I couldn't figure out from the limited information in the magazine article was whether no sea level rise at 2000km was a net effect that considered the effect of added meltwater or was just the tipping point for the gravitational effect.

Tamino did a great post on the same issue linking to a video from Dr. Mitrovica, and above is a screencap. It's hard to read the legend, but the video itself is clear: his analysis is a net effect that includes meltwater volume. The legend measures the net effect of an ice melt amount sufficient to raise seas one meter, and only the darker oranges and red are above average. If Greenland melted, and only Greenland melted but nowhere else, then northwestern Europe wouldn't be too badly affected, and a few parts of Norway, Scotland, and Ireland would have no effect. Europe in general doesn't escape unscathed from Greenland's melt, however, and that ignores the other effects like Antarctica and thermal expansion.

6 comments:

Fernando Leanme said...

Im going to show this to the condominium nomenklatura so they can relax and stop worrying about sea level rise around here.

BBD said...

relax and stop worrying about sea level rise around here.

And sod the rest of humanity around the globe, eh?

Also, perhaps you should consider the simulation carefully before waving it around, FL. I have a... sinking feeling that you are forgetting to average the three results and looking only at GrIS melt. Antarctica is melting too, as is much of the general cryosphere, and of course there's thermal expansion.

What you are doing isn't 'scepticsim', it's silly, physics-denying wittering. You could almost certainly do better if you tried.

Fernando Leanme said...

BBD, the lowest point in the condominium property is at least 5 meters above sea level. Given medium term projections the least they need to worry about is sea level rise. I'd rather buy the gardener electric lawnmower, air blower, and weedwacker. There's so much baloney being written about sea level we got people fretting and forgetting to brush their teeth.

BBD said...

There's so much baloney being written about sea level we got people fretting and forgetting to brush their teeth.

The stupidest thing I have ever seen written about sea level is that it is of no concern because condos are build at minimum 5m above the datum (itself not in fact true).

jrkrideau said...


Five metres? Nothing to worry about. I'm at 93m.

I'm looking for investors for my new container port in Kathmandu. Anyone interested?

Alastair said...

If all the ice on Greenland melts, sea level will rise by 7 m, so Fernando your condominium is not safe.

Better move to Greenland where sea level will only rise by 3.5m because of isostatic rebound. (Ice has only half the density of rock.)

But, will a 7m rise destabilize the West Antarctic ice shelves, and how much more sea level rise will that cause?