From Ice Apocalypse to Mega-Thunderstorms, Continuing to Burn Fossil Fuels Makes the World Scary as all Hell
24
November, 2017
Here’s
a smart guy. Probably a few years younger than me. A meteorologist by
degree and a climate journalist by trade. A guy with two kids
that, as
is clear from his twitter comments,
mean all the world to him. And he’s finally gotten to that point in
his study of climate change where he’s thrown his hands up and said
— this stuff scares the crap out of me, can we please all just do
something about it?
(The
calving front of the Pine Island Glacier as seen by a NASA DC-8
aircraft. Image source:Commons.)
For
him, as with any of us, the point of existential realization can come
through overexposure to a wide range of worsening climate problems.
Declining ocean health, rising extreme weather, how much faster we
are warming the world up than during the worst hothouse extinction,
can all weigh heavily on the heart and mind of any compassionate,
feeling person who takes these subjects seriously enough to actually
read the science. For Eric, the big deal, and it is a very, very big
deal, was sea level rise.
Ice
Apocalypse
Yesterday,
Eric penned this
seminal article on
the issue of ice cliff stability as explored by glacier scientist
Robert DeConto entitled Ice
Apocalypse.
Ice
cliff stability is a pretty technical term. One that may make the
eyes of your typical reader gloss over. But when we consider that the
glaciers of Greenland and Antarctica can be upwards of two miles
high, then the question of whether or not the cliffs of those great
ice mountains are stable may start to generate a flicker of warning.
May conjure up a phantom of the titanic roar set off when such ice
giants tumble away into the sea as has happened throughout the deep
history of Earth whenever the world warmed up by a certain amount.
When
I think of the words ice cliff stability, my mind’s eye pictures a
vast wall of numbing white-blue stretching hundreds of feet high. It
expands both left and right as far as I can see. And it looms over an
endless warming ocean. Waiting for a colossal fall if just that right
amount of extra heat is applied.
Ice
is fragile. It’s not like stone. It doesn’t flex much. It doesn’t
give much. And even minor stresses are enough to make it shatter. We
see this with ice cubes in a cup of water at home. Put an ice cube
into relatively warmer water, and that little 1×2 inch block will
snap and crack. Now just compound that fragility. Set it on the
massive scale of a mile-high glacier. Not too hard to image what can
happen.
(2012
filming of massive calving event at Jakobshavn Glacier.)
It’s
happened already at Jakobshavn Glacier in Greenland. The ocean
warmed. The ice shelf protecting the glacier dissolved. And the front
of the gigantic glacier fell like great, enormous, white dominoes.
We’ve seen it happening in films like Chasing
Ice.
And we’ve struggled to grasp the enormous scale of it.
Our
burning of fossil fuels did this.
Jakobshavn
is, even now, contributing to a more rapid rate of global sea level
rise. But the amount of ice held back by Jakobshavn is small when
compared to the vast volumes kept in check by the Pine Island and
Thwaites Glaciers of West Antarctica. What Robert DeConto did, and
what has apparently scared Eric Holthaus so much, was apply a
computer model based on observations of Jakobshavn ice sheet collapse
to these larger Antarctic ice masses.
A wholesale collapse of Pine Island and Thwaites would set off a catastrophe. Giant icebergs would stream away from Antarctica like a parade of frozen soldiers. All over the world, high tides would creep higher, slowly burying every shoreline on the planet, flooding coastal cities and creating hundreds of millions of climate refugees.
All this could play out in a mere 20 to 50 years — much too quickly for humanity to adapt…
Instead of a three-foot increase in ocean levels by the end of the century, six feet was more likely, according to DeConto and Pollard’s findings. But if carbon emissions continue to track on something resembling a worst-case scenario, the full 11 feet of ice locked in West Antarctica might be freed up, their study showed.
The
DeConto study is just one scientific exploration of what could happen
in West Antarctica this Century. And, already, reassurances to a
worried Eric Holthaus are forthcoming.
1. Over at Grist, @EricHolthaus has mega-piece on Antarctica’s Thwaites and Pine Island glaciers. My take: He’s right these are very worrying glaciers (esp. Thwaites), but I’m not sure about some of the dire sea level rise scenarios in the article.
But
the problem with the DeConto study, as with any other form of serious
climate risk, is that there are plausible scenarios in which terrible
catastrophic events are possible even if their degree of likelihood
is still somewhat debatable. And reasonable precaution would dictate
that even if there were just a 10-20 percent chance of DeConto like
events coming to pass, we would do everything we could to avoid them.
The risk of this scenario emerging, however, is probably a bit
higher. As numerous studies have identified the
potential for 6, 8, or
even 12
feet of sea level rise by as early as 2100.
The
Future of Mega-Thunderstorms Looks Grim if We Continue to Burn Fossil Fuels
Eric’s
appeals to his Twitter friends related to his article were touching
to me in that I feel like I go through similar shocks with each
passing week. And what should be a time of national thanksgiving even
as more than half of Puerto Rico’s population is still in the dark
63 days after the climate change amplified blow of Hurricane Maria is
no exception.
For
a model
study recently produced by Nature Climate Change and explored
by Bob Henson at Weather Underground has
found that the rate of rainfall in large thunderstorm clusters could
increase by 80 percent this Century if fossil fuel burning proceeds
along a business as usual pathway.
To
put this in context, an 80 percent increase in the amount of rain
that fell in the
Ellicott City Flood in
Maryland last year would have produced nearly ten inches of rain in
an hour and a half.
(The
rainfall intensity in large thunderstorm clusters was found to be
greatly enhanced under worst case fossil fuel burning scenarios [RCP
8.5] according to a recent Nature
Study.
Image source: NCAR, Nature, and Weather
Underground.)
As with ice cliff instability, we find ourselves faced with another scientific term in the new study — mesoscale convective systems (MCS). And to translate this term we can simply say that MCSs are gigantic clusters of thunderstorms. The study found that rainfall amounts in the largest of thunderstorm complexes were greatly enhanced as warming proceeded along a business as usual track.
From
the Study author’s statement to Weather Underground:
“These new simulations of future MCS rainfall are concerning, because they show very large increases in the amount of rain that a given MCS is likely to produce. The MCSs that we would today consider to be ‘extreme’ in terms of precipitation would become more commonplace in the future. There are also some regions that currently don’t see a lot of MCS activity that might start seeing some of these heavily raining MCSs in the future.”
These
increases are on top of already elevated rates of rainfall intensity
we presently see today in destructive events that our infrastructure
and disaster planning is clearly not prepared for (as seen during
Harvey). So as we take the time to give thanks for the great bounty
that many of us still have, perhaps we should also take the time to
think of the things we can do to keep safe what we have worked so
hard for and care so much about and to do our best to help those who
are less fortunate. Who have already fallen casualty to a time of
troubles.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.