Lumpy Ocean

If there's one thing you thought you could count on, it's that sea level is sea level. Maybe it will rise and fall with time; but surely it's evenly distributed at any one time, like the surface of a bowl of water. I was disturbed by the news that this isn't true. From Der Spiegel:

"In reality, the water in the oceans wobbles all over the place," says oceanographer Detlef Stammer. He isn't talking about waves, but large-scale bulges and bumps in the sea level.

Stammer, who is the director of the Center for Marine and Climate Research at the University of Hamburg, is familiar with the incorrect notions that lay people have, which is why he likes to present them with two numbers to shatter their illusions. "In the Indian Ocean, the sea level is about 100 meters (330 feet) below the average, while the waters around Iceland are 60 meters above the average."

The ocean is lumpy! It's like bad gravy. This gives you some idea of how challenging it is to predict the effects of climate change. Most of the reporting seems to assume that as temperatures go up, ice well melt and waters will rise evenly across the globe. Not so.

The flood of data from the orbiting satellite has produced all kinds of surprises for scientists in recent years. For instance, while seas have risen by about 15 centimeters in the tropical Western Pacific, the ocean near San Francisco has fallen by about the same amount. "On the German coast, on the other hand, the sea level today is a few centimeters higher than it was 15 years ago," says Claus Böning of the Kiel-based excellence cluster "The Future Ocean."

I am not sure what an "excellence-cluster" is, but I am sure this is good news for a lot of high-priced Bay Area real estate.

Sea level rise is one of the scary things that global warming is supposed to do, but how scary is it, exactly? Al Gore showed us photo shopped images of most of New York City under water, which might count as an unparalleled disaster or as urban renewal, depending on your view of Manhattan. Again from Der Spiegel:

If the Greenland ice sheet, which is 3 kilometers (1.88 miles) thick in some places, were to melt completely, sea levels would rise by 7 meters on average. It would take many centuries before the 3 million cubic kilometers of glaciers ended up in the ocean. But people living near Germany's North Sea coast would hardly even notice, because the sea level there would remain virtually unchanged. The water would even subside off the coast of Norway. "And, purely theoretically, the sea level would actually fall by several meters off the coast of Greenland," Stammer explains.

Of course, a seven meter rise "on average" would dunk someone.

The nations bordering the entire Indian Ocean and the Pacific, as well as the countries of South America and Africa, would be the true victims of a global rise in sea levels.

In those regions, the oceans would not just rise by the average of 7 meters, but by as much as 8 or even 10 meters. "Of course, this is only a theoretical model," says Stammer, the oceanographer.

Ten meters up is a lot of meters in. Atolls barely visible above the waves would be history.

That is something we have to worry about "centuries" from now, according to theoretical models, which tells us what we need to know. There are many serious problems for policy makers to worry about. Sea level rise is not one of them. It has been rising for a very long time. It isn't at all clear that it is rising at present. We haven't much noticed sea level rise in the past and most of us won't notice it for the foreseeable future. The Germans, apparently, will never notice it, but they might have to start feeling guilty about the damage global warming is doing to Chile in 3075 or maybe 4075.

That's assuming, of course, the historical trajectory remains unchanged. The odds of that are very low. If the present world civilization survives the next several centuries and continues to progress, the technological challenges presented by global warming will be child's play. We will figure out how to charge our iPods without heating up Greenland. If not, well, that will solve the problem in another way.

It is delusional to think that we can base our policy on theoretical projections centuries into the future. I think we should take climate change seriously. I think it is absurd to believe that we can accomplish serious reductions in global greenhouse emissions over the near future without a dramatic contraction of world economic growth. That means that we should focus on dealing with the consequences of climate change. Some of these may be serious. Sea level rise is not likely to be at the top of the list.

Comments

[larry kurtz]

Had the flood waters that the Big Sioux sent to the Gulf of Mexico been collected in 2010, eastern South Dakota's irrigation needs would have largely been met. If rainwater catchments filled cisterns, spikes in environmental contaminants might heal watersheds.

What else you got, Doc?

[larry kurtz]

eliminating spikes might heal watersheds

[KB]

Yeah, Larry. But I look so good in heels.

[Jimi]

Larry says, " eliminating spikes in environmental contaminants might heal watersheds."

What watersheds and contaminants are you refering to? What irrigation problems exist that you know of?

[Donald Pay]

Maybe you should ask the Marshall Islanders about this. They are about to go under.

[William]

Donald,

If that's truly the case, they should seriously consider relocating.

[Donald Pay]

Oh, it is the case, and this is one of the issues facing the international community. Where do you relocate people that have been displaced by global warming, and who pays?

[KB]

Donald: I have sympathy for people living on marginally viable real estate. I'm in South Dakota. There just isn't anything we can do to keep the Marshall Islanders above water, if indeed sea levels are rising. Wringing our hands and expressing concern won't give them an extra inch.

The last question you ask is the one we ought to be addressing. No one is because the entire world bureaucracy continues to dwell on the fantasy that we can stop breathing out.

[unicorn4711]

Interesting article. I accept that future projections of water levels are really difficult science, but tell it to the Maldives. It shouldn't surprise anyone that places like the Maldives would be more willing to sacrifice economic vitality to aggressively combat climate change than Midwesterners who are only affected by raising sea levels in Hollywood disaster films. My problem with pointing out that there is a great deal of uncertainty with the affects of climate change is that it implies to most people that we should do nothing, or at least wait and see until we have better data. This wastes opportunities to act that have advantages far beyond quelling paranoia about sea levels. The real advantage of climate change legislation is in cutting Western dependency on Middle East oil. Without global legislation reducing GHGs, India and China are going to develop just like Australia, Canada, and the US with high levels of oil used per person. We already see oil money from Saudi oligarchs trickle its way into the hands of extremest groups at current price levels. Won't this just be worse when even more consumers want Middle East oil? Isn't it in America's interest to go along with the climate change paranoia if for no other reason than to influence growth in China and India and affect future demand for Middle Eastern oil? Add to that the very real likelihood that the US and Western Europe will be the innovation centers for new "green" energy technologies that can be exported around the world, and I'm willing to cheer on Al Gore and overlook bad science in Britain in order to push for very aggressive GHG legislation at a global scale. We need to get China and India signed up before we lose all leverage in negotiations with them. The longer we delay, the less negotiating strength we have. Finally, many Western European economies are doing quite fine with cap-and-trade systems in place. Doesn't capitalist America borrow from socialist Sweden? The manufacturing sectors in green Sweden and Germany don't appear to have been hurt too badly by cap-and-trade. The global recession caused by Wall Street tomfoolery and overindulgence did more to harm European manufacturing than cap-and-trade ever did. The Eurozone is a nightmare, but it has more to do with creating a unified monetary policy while maintaining separate fiscal policies and then assuming no one will use the advantages of cheap credit created by the prior to overindulge the latter. Not that cap-and-trade has been a complete success in Europe, but it certainly isn't the massive job killer American politicians seem to think it is.

[William]

Donald, there IS no "international community".

Unicorn4711, we can't "legislate our way into innovation" and the "green technology" you desire we convert to can't possibly meet our current energy needs. A rational society will NOT destroy its economy in order to resolve an ill-defined and ultimately unresolvable problem. Global climate WILL change, no matter what mankind does. To think that mankind will ever control global climate like a "thermostat" is beyond arrogance. We'll either adapt to climate change, or we won't, but we'll never "master it".

The very idea that you feel the uncertainty requires us to act NOW is bureaucratic thinking "we should do SOMETHING; THIS is SOMETHING; therefore, we should do THIS..."

[duggersd]

So if Denver is listed at being 5280 feet above sea level, what sea level is being used?

[Donald Pay]

William,

There most certainly is an international community. It consists of all humans. You, however, are an ostrich.

[William]

Donald,

I'm a realist. In order to have a community, you must have commonality as more than a shared species. Not all humans choose to live within the bounds of a "community". Not all nations are our friends, nor will they be. Appeals to the "international community" are generally viewed as a peculiar weakness of ours, by our enemies.

[larry kurtz]

Jimi: Meidinger? Think harder.

The Red River is in the news. http://www.startribune.com/local/111569159.html

Irrigators are decimating fossil water supplies when they could be impounding the water that they have poisoned. Make them pay to remediate that water rather than dumping it into oceans.

[unicorn4711]

William,

The precautionary principle as applied to human caused global climate change has its logic. I'm not sure whether it should be a guiding principle in how we address climate change, but the reverse, that we shouldn't try to prevent anything that could occur until it actually occurs is self-destructive. It's TSA security procedures stupid. Everyone knows we can't prevent all climate change. No one wants to control nature. This issue is what, if anything, should we do about man-caused climate change. The precautionary principle implies that we should do a lot. If you don't buy that logic, I think that even without climate issues, there are strong reasons to take dramatic steps to move away from fossil fuels, especially petroleum. Mainly, I think our energy policies are so asinine that they are slowly sapping US influence and respectability while making life more dangerous at home and abroad. Climate change gives a way to address this in a holistic way while also giving us a way to promote that everyone else, especially the next big economies in India and China do the same. If it turns out that man-made climate change is hog wash, all we've done is decouple ourselves from being dependent on the whims of the House of Saud, Russia, and weakened the revenue streams of Iran and Venezuela. Not to mention we've lowered air pollution and promoted domestic industry.

Yes, green technology is infant and currently not cost effective. That's why people want a price on GHGs, to make the development of new energy technologies more profitable. Doing so creates inefficiencies. There'd be a shaded spot on some economists graph to demonstrate how much. But inefficiencies are already created by giving oil production tax breaks at every step in the process (as we do now), requiring our leaders to bow before Mid East dictators, and fighting terrorists funded by money that trickles down from oil oligarchs we made rich by being the largest consumer of oil. Fighting both sides of the war on terrorism seems far more inefficient than creating an artificial profit for US companies. This doesn't even begin to consider how the wars are destroying American power, respectability, and moral force around the world. Men like Julian Assange that seem to honestly believe that destroying the US's ability to project influence is a sacred cause are not uncommon, even among America's so-called allies like Australia. When good natured Aussies who claim to be for freedom of the press vehemently hate you, I think it is worth wondering if there isn't maybe a grain of truth in their delusional rants (and yes, Assange is delusional, not to mention a megalomaniac). Honestly, for the money, the Swedish approach of mandating (although unrealistically) that 50% of energy comes from renewable by 2020 while making sure oil costs about 9 dollars a gallon makes far more sense to me in the long term than the US's policy of keeping oil prices low through tax breaks and promoting stability at any costs in the Middle East. At least currently, the policy doesn't seem to be destroying their economy or even weakening their core industries. I don't think I'm out of line in thinking that US politicians that really call cap-and-trade the "job killer of all job killers" overly dramatic.

[William]

By all means, let's double our nuclear output and set a goal of achieving 40% of our energy needs through nuclear power.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf42.html
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html

I believe the best energy policy would eliminate government favoritism and support to the greatest extent possible and allow markets to actually work.

As a general rule, when governments "pick winners" in any industry, the consumer loses.

[Donald Pay]

William,

In every country nuclear power depends on massive government subsidies, and requires an international bureaucracy that tries to assure that nuclear material used for nuclear energy is not diverted to military purposes. Nuclear power is Exhibit A for government "picking winners." It is far worse than fossil fuels, and should be phased out completely.

[KB]

I am with William on the "world community". The human world is a collection of communities, with diverse interests and irreconcilable views.

As for nuclear power, Donald is right that it gets large subsidies, compared to coal and oil. A large part of that involves subsides for research and development, which is more critical with nuclear power than other energy sources.

Yet again, Donald seems to ignore the most basic fact. Like coal and oil, nuclear power produces far more energy than is consumed in producing it. That's where the wealth comes from that is used to subsidize all the "green" and "renewable" energy sources. The latter consume more than they produce and will do so for the foreseeable future. Nuclear power is the only non-fossil, non-carbon producing energy source. Donald doesn't like it because he doesn't like the idea of it, just as he likes the idea of green energy. See my post above on the costs of an idea-driven energy policy.

[William]

Bottom line, as I see it, is in order to revive and sustain our economy (and keep our citizens working, with food, shelter, etc) we require lots of energy. We will not willingly destroy our economy in order to fulfill an ideology based on immature energy sources. Our best path is to allow markets to work, in order to maintain the requirements we already have and to spark any true innovation in energy production. Some "subsidies" include tax breaks for R&D and government use of imminent domain in order to provide access for pipelines and resources, which are defensible uses of government support in providing an energy infrastructure on a national scale.

[Bill Fleming]

I saw a report the other day about a scientist at MIT who has figured out how to efficiently separate hydrogen and oxygen from water on a mass production scale. I think there will someday be a paradigm shift concerning energy not unlike what has happened to information technology via the internet. Gone are the days when big telecommunications companies could hold us all hostage and charge exorbitant long distance fees These days you can talk to your kids who are in Spain for the holidays on your computer, complete with live video so you can see the grandkids... for free (or should I say "almost free.") We need to start thinking about energy that way. Hey, it all basically comes from the sun, and costs nothing. We will only move toward that when the energy companies either wake up and embrace the new paradigm, or get eclipsed by new companies (or governments) who do.

[William]

BF,

We're in agreement here, I think that we will see a paradigm change, probably relatively soon (10-20 years, maybe sooner).

[Donald Pay]

A nuclear power plant subsidized more through market manipulation than research and development. Federal loan guarantees (essentially an a prior bailout) are necessary because there would be zero money available through the private market for nuclear power without such guarantees. Nuclear energy has a demonstrated history as a bad investment. One of two nuclear plants is abandoned before operating. Essentially, a private investor can assume that half the money put up will never be paid back.

The nuclear fuel is considered cheap, but it is cheap becasue it is highly subsidized all through the chain from mining to processing to fuel fabrication to storage. Of course, there is no solution to long-term disposal, which is a cost the nuclear industry has been passing on to future generations.

Then there are the costs associated with security, both at all the steps in the fuel cycle and nuclear plant. It takes a big government apparatus to assure the safety and security of these fuels.

[larry kurtz]

Drill into the Earth's crust and pump Spring flood water into the opening:

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Geothermal_Electric_Power_Plants?topic=54482

[KB]

Bill: like William, I am with you on this one.

Donald: I agree with you on the liability issue, but that is a government imposed cost remedied by government subsidies. Nuclear power has a status similar to that of the airline industry: its big and vulnerable to disasters.

It remains the case that nuclear power is a net energy producer. If it weren't, no nation would be maintaining nuclear plants. The Chinese are building hundreds of them. It is silly to bark at them. We ought to be investing more in making them as safe and efficient as possible.

[Donald Pay]

The Chinese can build nuclear power plants because this part of its economy is socialized and not based on markets, and its government is authoritarian. It takes an authoritarian regime to force the long-term and short-term costs onto the public. You can see where nuclear power is being promoted most is in countries where authoritarianism holds sway. US society has been moving in the authoritarin direction for 10 years, so it is not surprising that nuclear energy has gained a foothold again.

[duggersd]

Donald, do you mean kind of like i where the authoritarian regime is telling power plants if they build coal burning plants they will be put into bankruptcy and requiring power companies to produce a certain portion of their energy by renewable sources? The regime uses a subsidy taken by force in the form of taxes to make it profitable and forcing the long-term and short-term costs onto the public.

[Donald Pay]

The renewable energy portfolio requirements are state-level laws or rules that are placed on power providers that operate as a monopoly in most states. The requirements are meant to assure that monopolies do not squeeze out competition.

[unicorn4711]

I have no quarrel with nuclear energy, as it accomplishes what I believe are important goals regarding dependency on foreign sources of energy and decreased use of fossil fuels.

[Haruna]

How does math, software and links all tie into SEO? Well Google's Algorithm is cetplomely based on math, a very high level mix of calculus, statistics, and some geometry I think while the software is the program that drives it all and the links are the physical representation of the mathematical calculations. Make any sense? I'm not sure it if does or not but Math is the underlying structure to online marketing

[Mamen]

Hollywood has already been there:The Sum of All Fears is a 2002 film diretced by Phil Alden Robinson, from a screenplay by Paul Attanasio and Tom Clancy, based on the book of the same name by Tom Clancy. During the Yom Kippur War in 1973, an Israeli A-4 jet carrying a nuclear bomb gets shot down over the desert in the Middle East. In 2002, the bomb is found by a man named Olson, he sells it to an Austrian neo-fascist named Richard Dressler for 50 million dollars on the black market. Meanwhile, the United States becomes concerned when Nemerov becomes president of the Russian Federation, because of his strong military control. Jack Ryan and the CIA Director William Cabot go to Russia to inspect their nuclear weapons program.When Ryan notices that three Russian nuclear scientists are missing, Cabot tells Ryan that the Russians don't know where they are. Cabot sends John Clark to track down those missing scientists. Those scientists are repairing the nuclear bomb Dressler bought in Ukraine. When President Nemerov takes responsibility for an unauthorized gas-warfare attack on the capital of Chechnya, Grozny, it concerns American President J. Robert Fowler and his administration, in response he sends peacekeeping troops to Chechnya. The nuclear bomb arrives in a crate in Baltimore, Maryland, and is placed at an American football stadium secreted in a cigarette vending machine. Meanwhile, President Fowler and Cabot are attending a game at the stadium. Ryan calls Cabot to tell him that the bomb is in Baltimore. Cabot realizes that the bomb is at the stadium and evacuates the President, before it explodes. The bomb does explode, destroying a significant portion of the city of Baltimore.After the disaster, President Fowler is rescued by United States Marine Corps troops, and taken airborne on a Boeing E-4B Advanced Airborne Command Post with his cabinet. Immediately, they fear that the bomb was Russian. Ryan and his girlfriend Dr. Catherine Muller survive the blast, but Cabot dies later at a hosptial. After learning about the explosion, Dressler calls his neo-fascist friend who is a general in the Russian Air Force. The general orders his Tu-22M Backfire pilots to strike an American aircraft carrier in the Black Sea under the false information that the United States had launched an ICBM attack on Moscow. The strike is successful, in response President Fowler orders three United States Air Force F-16s to attack a Russian air base. Then, the President orders SNAPCOUNT, a strike using B-2 Spirit stealth bombers and ICBMs that would use nuclear weapons to destroy Russian missiles and planes. This would initiate a Russian counterstrike and possibly World War III. When the B-2 stealth bombers are discovered over Poland, President Nemerov orders to shoot them down.Jack Ryan tries to stop the nuclear war, by going to The Pentagon and telling Nemerov that the nuclear bombing of Baltimore was a terrorist attack by a group of neo-fascists. Nemerov proposes a plan to Fowler to a stand down, preventing a nuclear war. Days later, both presidents sign a pact to reduce weapons of mass destruction. Later still, John Clark and Russian agents assassinate all the individuals responsible for the the explosion in Baltimore. At the end, Ryan and his girlfriend Cathy Muller get engaged.

[Kauko]

Kamsahamnida SSF staffs for pnutitg the weekly wrap together for S♥NEs to read and get caught up. You surely are amazing and so hard working always, thank you. Jung sisters so freaking adorable and beautiful♥♥♥! Taengoo deserve the #1 spot for most sort after for duets, because she's freaking great like that. Seobaby cute! I love that Christmas wallpaper of the angels, so cute. Gobne Chicken is a shrewd business, that's the best idea to have a successful business. Angels going to kill 100million Quiz Show, don't mess with them. Foxy Leggies very cute! SNSD are a gold mine for SM, it seems every year since Gee success they've been raising SM,s stocks♥. Goodness they've even manage to sweep a Taiwanese music chart and beating out Taiwan's popular stars. ONLY SNSD♥♥♥! #4 and #9 on Japan's 10 best list and also #1 for a kpop group selling kpop album on Japan's charts. ONLY SNSD♥♥♥! Global Generation in da hizzo♥! Angels very sweet always giving support and cheers to programs. Sica is so smexy and hot in her outfit and look she's in W Korea again. Love S♥NEs pic this week, so cool. I think this was the biggest order that Soshified ever get like they tweeted some time back. Good job SGS♥NEs! Have a blast, show the angels some love and be safe always. :)