The rising fortunes of coal

The title should rather be called "The melting fortunes of coal", just as this news has come in:

Ice shelf 'hangs by a thread'

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/ice-shelf-hangs-by-a-thread/2008/...

Once the ice shelf has gone, next in line is the ice sheet itself, sliding freely into the ocean, causing immediate sea level rise.


http://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/wais/articles/eos.html

Almost to the day a year ago, NASA climatologist James Hansen had this to say:
".....and even of more concern is West Antarctica because it's now losing mass at about the same rate as Greenland, and West Antarctica, the ice sheet is sitting on rock that is below sea level. So it is potentially much more in danger of collapsing and so we have both the evidence on the ice sheets and from the history of the Earth and it tells us that we're pretty close to a tipping point, so we've got to be very concerned about the ice sheets."
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1870955.htm

The latest research by the Hansen lab indicates that at about 450 ppm of carbon dioxide we should expect an Earth free of ice, which would raise sea levels by about 80 meters (ca. 250 ft).

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080317.pdf

"Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3°C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6°C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and icefree Antarctica. Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 425±75 ppm, a level that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm."

Since peak fossil fuels will still let us go to 450 ppm, our goal should be to keep as much in the ground as possible. Instead we have an essay bemoaning the lack of capacity to use it up!

Personally, I could adjust to life with little and intermittent electricity and am totally willing to accept that if it is necessary to keep the Earth system fairly habitable for me, my descendants and other forms of life.

If climate change scientists and the educated lay people are "strident" it is because we prefer to live rather than have a die off that looks like the movie "Soylent Green."

Instead we have an essay bemoaning the lack of capacity to use it up!

I do not think that is the intent of the essay at all. I think he is bemoaning the fact that rather than build nuclear and renewables, the people who are trying to build power plants are assuming that coal will solve the problem. However, politicians in the west are blocking the building of coal plants, too, so that we will soon have power shortages. He does not even mention that there is good reason to believe that coal production will peak in about 15 years.

Conservation can mitigate the decline of fossil fuels but it cannot solve our future needs. The only thing that can is to build capacity of sources that have assured fuel and do not contribute to global warming. Those are nuclear, wind and solar.

He shouldn't be concerened. While the Arctic is warming Antartica is mainly unaffected by global warming. The only bit warming is the West Antarctic Penninsula. That has only a small area.

Ah, Hansen is an expert in paleoclimatology and the implications for ice.

He is talking about a complete loss of ice from the entire continent of Antarctica at 450 ppm or so.

If W. Antarctica ice alone goes that's ca. 5 m (16 ft) sea level rise.

Never mind, no need for concern (sarcasm alert).

He shouldn't be concerened. While the Arctic is warming Antartica is mainly unaffected by global warming. The only bit warming is the West Antarctic Penninsula. That has only a small area.

Antarctica temperature trend is very uncertain due to big interannual oscillations and short timeseries anyway recent data shows warming over most antarctica :
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=1...

Sorry, but that's a little misleading. Last southern winter the Antarctic had record maximum ice (since satelitte photos started). Active volcanoes have been found under the ice and under the Ross Sea ice. That's why West Antarctica is melting whilst the rest of Antarctica is cooling and ice is spreading.

Note the red hotspots in the temperature trends map at:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/surprise-theres-an-activ...

From http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2008/03/massive-ice-shelf-collapses-but...
Already in the approaching winter, Antarctic ice is running an amazing 60% ahead (4.0 vs 2.5 million square km extent) of last year when it set a new record. The ice extent is already approaching the second highest level for extent since the measurements began by satellite in 1979 and just a few days into the Southern Hemisphere winter and 6 months ahead of the peak.

In fact the southern hemisphere has cooled slightly over the last 70+ years, so these reports by Hansen et al with no balancing comments is very misleading!

The above link leads to following articles:

This image shows temperature trends for the icy continent from 1982 to 2004. Red indicates areas where temperatures generally increased during that period, and blue shows where temperatures predominantly decreased..
Although Antarctica warmed around the perimeter from 1982 to 2004, where huge icebergs calved and some ice shelves disintegrated, it cooled closer to the pole.

Why is Antarctica getting colder in the middle when it’s warming up around the edge? One possible explanation is that the warmer temperatures in the surrounding ocean have produced more precipitation in the continent’s interior, and this increased snowfall has cooled the high-altitude region around the pole. Another possible explanation involves ozone. Ozone in the Earth’s stratosphere absorbs ultraviolet radiation, and absorbing this energy warms the stratosphere. Loss of UV-absorbing ozone may have cooled the stratosphere and strengthened the polar vortex, a pattern of spinning winds around the South Pole. The vortex acts like an atmospheric barrier, preventing warmer, coastal air from moving in to the continent’s interior. A stronger polar vortex might explain the cooling trend in the interior of Antarctica.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=1...

In Sciencedaily Jan 22nd, /2008

The first evidence of a volcanic eruption from beneath Antarctica's most rapidly changing ice sheet has been reported. The volcano on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet erupted 2000 years ago (325BC) and remains active.
Co-author Professor David Vaughan (BAS) says,"This eruption occurred close to Pine Island Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. The flow of this glacier towards the coast has speeded up in recent decades and it may be possible that heat from the volcano has caused some of that acceleration. However, it cannot explain the more widespread thinning of West Antarctic glaciers that together are contributing nearly 0.2mm per year to sea-level rise. This wider change most probably has its origin in warming ocean waters."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080120160720.htm

Then, on March 4th 2008

"Could Volcanic Activity In West Antarctic Rift Destabilize Ice Sheet? The West Antarctic rift is a region of volcanic activity and crustal stretching that is roughly the size of the western United States (from Salt Lake City to the Pacific Ocean).
It is interesting nevertheless, because volcanic eruptions beneath the ice could destabilize the ice sheet, leading to as much as 25 feet of sea-level rise. How likely is it that this could happen is a question scientists have debated for over a decade. LeMasurier addresses the question by comparing the West Antarctic rift with similar areas of crustal stretching elsewhere in the world.

The comparison shows that volcanic activity in rifts is most common where the land is a mile or more above sea level, and rising, which can readily be seen in Antarctica along the Transantarctic Mountains, and in the Pacific coast mountains of Marie Byrd Land. The large sub-sea-level interior of the rift does not, therefore, seem to be a likely place for present-day volcanic activity.

This is good news, because the sub-sea-level base of the West Antarctic ice sheet is already especially vulnerable to warming of the atmosphere and surrounding seas. However, this study also shows that the land in West Antarctica has been rising beneath the ice sheet in some areas and subsiding beneath it in others, over roughly the past 25 million years."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080229183818.htm

Hansen said he will soon publish a paper on Antarctica

Furthermore that image is old(1982-2004 trend), the new one is available here(1981-2007 trend):
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=1...

Just three more years changed drammatically temperature trends inside antarctica due to strong short term fluctuations.
That's why antarctica trend are so uncertain.
Anyway there's no doubt antarctica peninsula warmed at a fast rate during last 50 years and ice shelves respond to long term temperature variations, it's not sea ice.