<Can US Natural Gas Production Be Ramped Up? The Oil Drum UK Energy Flow Chart 2007>
<DrumBeat: September 4, 2008 DrumBeat DrumBeat: September 6, 2008>

293 comments on DrumBeat: September 5, 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Marco on September 5, 2008 - 10:43am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

It's happened VERy abrupty in the past and it could well happen again! I don't know if the mechanisms are fully understood:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm

This event happened near the end of the last Ice Age, a period of de-glaciation that lasted from about 21,000 years ago to 12,000 years ago," Clark said. "The average sea level rise during that period was about eight millimeters per year. But during this meltwater pulse there was an extremely rapid disintegration of an ice sheet and sea levels rose much faster than average."

The amount of sea level rise that occurred during a single year of that period, Clark said, is more than the total sea level rise that has occurred in the past 100 years.

I'm going to do a bit more research and see how they got to the single year conclusion.

Marco.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Consumer on September 5, 2008 - 10:49am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

8mm per year = 3 feet (0.9 M) by 2100

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Marco on September 5, 2008 - 10:55am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yes, but the pulse was within this 8mm per year period:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5613/1709?siteid=sci&...

which led to a sea-level rise of ~20 meters in less than 500 years

Thats 40mm per year during the pulse (1A)

heres a good one: finding the source of meltwater pulse 1A
http://records.viu.ca/~earles/mwp1a-mar02.htm

Marco.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
PeakOil Tarzan on September 5, 2008 - 11:03am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I think we're all wringing our hands needlessly, here. If we were to ring our coastlines with storm drains located, say, just above the current mean high tide, we could control sea level rise. This is the same principal that keeps my bathroom sink from overflowing.

Worry warts...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Marco on September 5, 2008 - 11:07am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Stop spoiling my doom;-)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Consumer on September 5, 2008 - 11:35am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hey, I like that idea. Put in the storm drains, route the seawater through your wastewater treatment plant, then pump it safely out to sea.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
phreephallin on September 5, 2008 - 12:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

You really should indicate that you are trying to be sarcastic, otherwise people might get the impression that you are making a very idiotic suggestion ;-)

Let me demonstrate:

<sarcanol>
Instead of trying to build a 'space elevator', let's start with a 'space staircase'. Once we've built one of these, we can move onto a 'space escalator'.
</sarcanol>

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Consumer on September 5, 2008 - 12:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Noted.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mikeB on September 5, 2008 - 1:12pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Actually, that takes the fun out. Some of us get it without having to be prompted.

But as to your suggestion for the drain...

Who gets to clean the hair out of it?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Peatey on September 5, 2008 - 11:40am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

... except bathroom sinks and storm drains drain to a lower water mark. When water levels rise because of ice-melt, then where are you going to find a lower water level that'll take all that tidal displacement?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Black_Dog on September 5, 2008 - 2:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Well, for California, there's Death Valley...

E. Swanson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Marco on September 5, 2008 - 11:06am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

To take things a little further lets put things in perspective here:

Sea level is currently at about its lowest level in about 250M Years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png

Lets hope we don't return to those days as I suspect we would all be living somewhere around the Hymalias! (Slight exageration)

Also lets hope we don't dig up and burn as much oil as that economist hopes there is still in the ground! otherwise its goodbye New York, hello waterworld. (Great film).

Marco.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
super390 on September 5, 2008 - 11:35am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Florida is on loan from the sea.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Marco on September 5, 2008 - 12:03pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

So was Atlantis!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Marco on September 5, 2008 - 1:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

But.. over the past 10 Millenia or so there have also been fairly large movements in sea level (not neccesarily abrupt) During the mid-holocene warm period circa 7000BP sea levels were up to 17m higher than they are now!

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUFMGC21B0153M

Stable sea-levels are identified at 17-13 m asl during 7,000-5,500 yrBP

at 11-9 m during 5,000-4,500 14C yr BP, and at < 6 m after 4,000 14C yr BP

The rapid regression occurring between 5,400 yBP (4,100 calib. yrBP) and 4,000 yBP (2,700 calib. yrBP) suggests that some glacial loading had removed around here before 5,400 yBP (4,100 calib. yrBP).

Basically we went from 17m asl (above sea level) to 6m bsl (below sea level) at 4000yBP That is a decrease or change in sea level of 7.6mm per year! In fact it is astounding that sea levels were 17m ABOVE what they are now, not so long ago: 5000BC!

Marco.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Marco on September 5, 2008 - 1:27pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

oops, this study has it at 6m above current sea level!

http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jul10/articles29.htm

The one above I think is talking about a relative sea level change from some datum that I don't know! The change in sea level is correct, just not the datum!

Marco.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
JeremyD on September 5, 2008 - 1:18pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The amount that sea levels can change is mind blowing. At the lowest point in the last ice age sea level was 120m (meters not centimetres) below its current level. That was only 20,000 years ago.

If you look at the Global Warming Art http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level_png, it shows that sea levels have been very stable (2m change) for the last 5,000 years. This allowed us to establish settlements close to water without the need to periodically rebuild. I don't know if this has been researched, but I would guess that stable sea levels are critical to building the ports that allow trade to be established.

When people say that the climate has always been changing and that there is no need to worry now, they forget just how big the changes were compared to the tiny changes we have had during the entire existence of civilisation. Our current infrastructure was built using cheap energy. We have never experienced a mass migration of the infrastructure we use to support our existence, and I think we will find it very difficult in an era of scarce and expensive energy.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Marco on September 5, 2008 - 1:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

This allowed us to establish settlements close to water

I whole heartedly agree. It is no coincidence that the rise of man has been during our brief interglacial maximum which up till now has been relatively satble. So do we have a God given right to the continuance of that satble period knowing fine well it has not been the norm? (referring to earths flip-flops through glacial-interglacial periods where the glacial periods have been far longer than the interglacials - like that which we live in now)

Looking at the very long term, man is either going to flip earth into unstoppable warming (which may trigger some other response) or we dive back down into a glacial period [regardless or not if we have 1000yrs or 10000yrs of the current interglacial still to play out]. From where i'm standing the glacial periods don't look too cosy from a supporting 6.5BN people point of view! Either way we are fairly doomed unless we can geo-engineer ourselves a long interglacial - and I already pointed out yesterday what I thought of that!!

Marco.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gwydion on September 5, 2008 - 2:45pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The estimates are what, maybe 30k neanderthals alive at any give time who lived during the last glaciation? First city to reach ~1 million population was Rome in 30 AD. After the collapse of the Roman empire, no other city equaled that population until London in the 1800s. As of 2003 there are more than 400 cities with at least one million population. 6.5 bn is an aberration.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Drizzt on September 5, 2008 - 5:11pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"From where i'm standing the glacial periods don't look too cosy from a supporting 6.5BN people point of view!"

Assumeing that in 3500 AD (wild guess in fact most of my numbers are arbritrary) humanity is still around AND we have MASSIVE solar, geothermal, hydro etc. to equal the total energy used now but with 100% renuables. Another assumption is that at that point a new ice age ensues that lowers sea levels to 75? meters below the current level.

Given those two assumptions; humanity could certainly have a population of 6.5 billion in 3500 AD. This is far enough in the future that even a worst case scenerio of a dieoff to 250 miillion occurs by 2150 could be recovered from population wise. In good times human population will double in aprox 50 years unless there are artificial social methods to hold population stable. 250 million to 6.5 billion is only 4 1/2 doublings so ONLY around 2 centuries...

I don't know how to link; google undersea topographic maps NEAR continents and islands. 75 meter lowering of sea levels would add HUGE amounts of new land worldwide that could be farmed. Even 10 meters would add a nontrivial ammount which is obvious if youve swam near a coastline.

Not two cents...my nine cents;)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Drizzt on September 5, 2008 - 5:18pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Ummm, forgot something.
The NEW land exposed from sea level lowering might just equal the new useless areas of glaciers. IMO a mile thick glacier is useless for most things except specialist scientists. I love science BTW;) My point is the useable land would be different and in different locations, however I doubt it would be superior to current conditions. I welcome a real scientist perspective on my oppinions;)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
memmel on September 5, 2008 - 6:13pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Well the land covered by Glaciers would be in the Northern and mountainous regions while the land exposed by a sea level drop would be across all climates and sedimentary soils. So no its not and equal exchange. Of course the arable belt would also shrink. Given the current positions of our continents with the large land masses near the north pole its a net loss but the effect itself i.e lower sea levels would be directly a gain.

Buuuut :)

More importantly Northern Africa and India along with Arabia would be wetter so this would offset some of the loss in Asia and North America. Same with the American Southwest it was much wetter during the glacial periods.

Soooo :)

Probably a net gain actually :)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Drizzt on September 5, 2008 - 6:49pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Thanks Memmel!

IMO even an expert with a team and large budget would have to make a fair amount of reasoned guesses RE the effects of a serious Ice Age. It is probably just theory without short term usefullness IE I think an ice age in the next 5 centuries is reasonably unlikely.

Global Warming is another story; Canada & Russia would be big winners with Global Warming. With both there is a massive excess of potable water; even reducing rainfall by 60% in Canada & Russia they would have plenty for most uses. What I am curious about is what other countries would benefit from Global Warming. I expect if I'm alive in 2050 I will have witnessed firsthand the effects of Global Warming. Possible as I would be 77 then.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on September 5, 2008 - 11:19am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

As previously posted on this topic recently, there was also a very fast melt of the Northern European Ice Sheet.

I hope to do a somewhat in-depth overview of the cryosphere changes going on soon... Anyone want to pay their own way here and babysit my 8mo. old Hurricane Conor for a day or two?

;)

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mcgowanmc on September 5, 2008 - 11:28am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I've seen the report.

It goes along with that mastodon found with grass in it's mouth.

But the reverse.

Using period volcanic ashes, fossils, and ice cores.

"Now scientists believe they've pinpointed the exact time the northern hemisphere was plunged back into a deep freeze. Examining sediments preserved at the bottom of a remote lake in western Germany, they found that what's known as the Younger Dryas cold period took just a year to sweep across the continent, starting in the autumn, 12,679 years ago."

http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2008/08/younger-dryas-deep-f...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on September 5, 2008 - 11:47am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Now that's a scary thought. But, hey, don't worry! PO is the only REAL concern,... climate change ain't and can't gonna happen any time soon!

I'll gladly pay you on Friday for ten acres today....

*sigh*

An object lesson: During the Beijing Olympics the air here in Korea got nearly crystal clear. The only time that ever happens here, thanks to all the imported pollution and and dust from China (those of you inland from LA will understand this phenomenon), is just after a rain. The rest of the time there is a gray haze in the short, medium and long distances. The Haze was back within a few days after the Olympics ended.

Also, there was a study in So Cal back in the late '70's or early '80's that deduced the air quality in So Cal would be well below unhealthy levels after just three days of no cars on the road. That's right. They found 70% of smog in LA comes from car emissions.

Cleaning the air is that simple. (Though perhaps not easy.)

Point? We can change it. But we aren't. If we don't, don't be surprised if you find yourself either a Walking French Fry or Walking Human Popsicle in **possibly** very short order.

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mcgowanmc on September 5, 2008 - 2:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

About that cars and clean air in days.

A report in NW AR, don't know by who, said that one benefit
of all the poultry being raised in the area is that the Ammonia
emitted chemically combines with auto exhaust in a benign way
to clear the air.

Have to look that one up though.

8D

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
snag07 on September 6, 2008 - 9:55am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

You also may be interested to know that after 9/11 the US atmosphere was discernibly cleaner nationwide due to the widescale grounding of planes here in USA.
Jets especially are gross polluters and their effects are enormous and often understated. In particular day/night temperature variations rapidly increased

www.iac.ethz.ch/people/thcorti/stratos/backgrounder_air_travel.pdf

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
totoneila on September 5, 2008 - 11:40am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

http://www.iafi.org/
------------------------
The Ice Age Floods
----------------------
Mentally multiply similar events occurring in Greenland, and across the other continents plus jokulhlaups, maybe also a volcanic caldera eruption under the Western Antarctic blowing an ice sheet larger than Mexico--> Google Bentley Subglacial Trench.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_lake_outburst_flood

I posted a very detailed and weblinked text on this back when I first joined TOD--it was deleted for length. :(

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on September 5, 2008 - 11:59am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

It was deleted (and not by me) because the complaints started pouring in as soon as you posted it.

The comment section of someone else's blog is not the place to post a dissertation. It's basic netiquette. If you have that much to say, you should get your own blog, post it there, and link to it.

It just works much better that way. It's much easier to refer back to it later, share the link, etc. And of course, you then have complete control over your writing.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on September 5, 2008 - 12:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Leanan, as an editor, no head-bonking necessary, whatsoever.

;)

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

293 comments on DrumBeat: September 5, 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version