Pursuit of Happiness

I am I in heaven 

or am in Miami?

    -Martin Mull

Castles made of sand

fall into the sea

eventually

   -Jim Hendrix

Greetings

             I started a new book today.  Its called "The Growth Fetish" by  Clive Hamilton.   He makes a number of interesting points.  One is that , the 21st century is different form all past history, in that now it is almost universally agreed that the pursuit of happiness is the same as the pursuit of money, and as DD puts it "driving around and buying shit."     Likewise it is universally accepted that the main purpose of government is to assure the growth of the economy, to enable the citizens to continue to make and spend money

   We hold these truths to be self evident.

       In years past, people had very different ideas about the happiness, the good life, and what one should strive for.  Various religious, philosophical  or political ideas held more sway..  But by and large, now, secular, sacred, capitalist or communist, the  mantra is the same "Show me the growth!"   

    Bearing that in mind, let's take a look at James Hanson's new paper here. (Robert Marston, does a great job of explaining the paper piece by piece here).  It has some interesting things to say about glacial melt, and sea rise, but for now, I want to look at the prescription.  Hanson says

"The task of achieving a reduction of atmospheric CO2 is formidable, but not impossible. Rapid transition to abundant aff ordable carbon-free electricity is the core requirement, as that would also permit production of net-zero-carbon liquid fuels from electricity. The rate at which CO2 emissions must be reduced is about 6%yr􀀀1 to reach 350 ppm atmospheric 5 CO2 by about 2100"

      Six percent does seem ambitious, but the US has actually been reducing its CO2 emissions lately, so perhaps it is achievable.   Which brings us to another paper  Drivers of the US CO2 emissions 2007 -2013.  Between 2007 and 2013, CO2 emissions declined by 11%.   This is good news!  All we need to do is figure out how we did it, and do more!   Unfortunately is clearly wasn't the increase in the construction of solar and wind facilities.  Even though that sector has grown  in absolute terms, when considered as a percentage of electrical generation is has remained stubboroly at 13% for over 10 years.   So what accounts for the decline in CO2?  One of the leuse of reduction was the recession. As the authors state:

   "Before 2007, rising emissions were primarily driven by economic growth. After 2007, decreasing emissions were largely a result of economic recession with changes in fuel mix (for example, substitution of natural gas for coal) playing a comparatively minor role. "

            As I read the study, the factors which had the most influence on the drop in emissions were  first the recession which reduced consumption, the off shoring of manufacturing, which reduced the "energy intensity of the GNP, and higher gas prices, which reduced driving around.   This  is hardly a platform any (sane)   politician can run on.  We must have growth!

      The authors conclude

     " Sustaining economic growth while also drastically reducing emissions to the levels targeted by the Obama administration²⁷ will depend upon large additional decreases in the energy intensity of the US economy as well as radical decarbonization of the energy sector (that is, very large changes in the fuel mix of the energy sector away from fossil fuels and toward renewables and/or nuclear energy)." 

    Happily at least one presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton, has called for "radical decarbinization" of the economy, by proposing a 700% increase in solar power over the next 15 years, to bring the percent of electricity produced by renewables  up from 13% to 33%.  see here for an analysis by Bra d Plummer at Vox.  Fossil fueled electric plants now provide 68% .  This proposal would reduce them to 48% in 15 years.   Using my limited math skills, this appears closer to a 2% reduction per year than 6%. 

    So, we come back to Miami, which is already experiencing the effects of the rising sea.  They aren't worried about several meters, or one meter.  One foot would be a problem.    According tomscientists at the University of Miami, the local sea rise is accelerating.     see here 

   "In low-lying Florida, the culprit is the rising sea level. Should the ocean crawl just one more foot up the edges of this peninsula – something that’s projected to happen in the next two decades, by some estimates – most of the canal systems that keep the saltwater out of the area’s drinking wells would cease to function. A few more feet, and entire towns suddenly turn neo-Venetian, the roads flooded, the infrastructure almost impossible to salvage."  from here

Movin' on

 No where to run

nowhere to hide
     - Martha and the Vandellas

Running on Empty
Running Blind
     - Jackson Brown

Greetings

      Every now and then I have an "oh shit!" moment .  My latest was when I found out that there are wild fires in the rain forest of the Olympic peninsula.       (or here)  I  mean,  they get like 12 feet of rain there.!!    Give me a break.  Out here in the coast range, we only get 7 feet !   Up to now, I think in the back of my mind, I thought that Oregon was a "safe" place climate wise.  Maybe a little more rain.in the winter, sun in the summer  But not fires in the rain forest..  

     Our friends at FEMA recommend having a "bug out bag" in case of emergencies.  The idea being that you can actually get to some place safer.  But,  I'm wondering where that place is.

      Interestingly it seems that climate scientists may be asking themselves the same question.  A recent article in Esquire highlighted this noting that Jason Box, noted glaciologist, among others  have moved out of the US.  He moved to Denmark

“In Denmark,” Box says, “we have the resilience, so I’m not that worried about my daughter’s livelihood going forward. But that doesn’t stop me from strategizing about how to safeguard her future—I’ve been looking at property in Greenland. As a possible bug-out scenario.”

       Jason Box, knows a lot more about climate change than I do, so I find that  a little unsettling.  

       Other folks are already fleeing climate related distress.  150,000  fled Africa between 20911 and 2014.  Another half a million are waiting to leave.    Should we call them climate refugees?    It turns out that by and large climate refugees don't only leave because of storms, droughts, or other direct climate impacts.  People generally hunker down and hope for better times.   One reason they do move, is civil unrest or civil war,  A recent study in Nature points to Climate Change as a significant factor in the current civil war in Syria:

"The study is the first of its kind to look at a modern, ongoing war. Kelley says that his team focused on the Syrian conflict because it was preceded by a well-documented series of events: the drought caused agriculture to collapse in the country’s northeastern ‘breadbasket’ region, displacing roughly 1.5 million people to urban areas that were already stressed by rapid population growth and an influx of refugees from Iraq.

The situation spawned discontent over mismanagement of ground water and agricultural policies that favoured water-intensive crops such as cotton. Although natural-resource mismanagement may not have been the primary grievance driving the uprising, “there was clearly significant social unrest because of the drought,” says Femia."

          This is not really unexpected.  It was predicted by a 2007 Department of Defense Report.  The World Bank noted the same.   Jim Yong Kim, the president of the World Bank

"... said he believes battles over food and water would begin within the next five to ten years as climate change begins to affect food production. He urged campaigners and scientists to work together to create a solution.

       So, am I packing for Greenland?   No, but things do feel a little different.  I guess I'd better get to work pruning and thinning our woodlot.  I don't want our piece of the rain forest to go up in smoke, if I can help it. ! 

FEMA - West of I-5 will be toast

I feel the earth move

under my feet
   - Carol  King

Fall mountains fall

Just don't fall on me

     -Jim Hendrix

   Greetings

       After all this talk about slow moving catastrophes, maybe it's time to change the pace a bit.   The New Yorker Magazine has a nice article about Cascadia subduction zone earthquakes.  Here   Here's the Oregonian's spin.  Here's  some good advice from OPB's "unprepared" series

       These earthquakes occur with some regularity in our region, and based on history,we are due,  actually over due by about 70 years.   As I understand it, being overdue could mean that the pent up pressure will be greater when it finally happens. Here's one assessment. 

" Kenneth Murphy, who directs FEMA’s Region X, the division responsible for Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska, says, “Our operating assumption is that everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast."

Not only will buildings and bridges fall down, there is a tsunami up to 50 feet high.  The result will be horrific

"FEMA projects that nearly thirteen thousand people will die in the Cascadia earthquake and tsunami. Another twenty-seven thousand people will die in the Cascadia earthquake and tsunami. Another twenty-seven thousand will be injured, and the agency expects that it will need to provide shelter for a million displaced people, and food and water for another two and a half million. “This is one time that I’m hoping all the science is wrong, and it won’t happen for another thousand years,” Murphy says.

   Unlike climate change, there is nothing we can do to prevent this disaster.   This one is all about " adaptstion",   which in this case means making your self, your family and your neighbors as resilient as possible.   

   We are all used to the occasional winter storm that knocks out the power, and makes transportation impossible.   Time break out the candles and flashlights.   Maybe the Coleman stove.   That's fine for a day or so, but how about a week?  Or two?    How about a month or two?

     

"...estimates that in the I-5 corridor it will take between one and three months after the earthquake to restore electricity, a month to a year to restore drinking water and sewer service, six months to a year to restore major highways, and eighteen months to restore health-care facilities. On the coast, those numbers go up. Whoever chooses or has no choice but to stay there will spend three to six months without electricity, one to three years without drinking water and sewage systems, and three or more years without hospitals. Those estimates do not apply to the tsunami-inundation zone, which will remain all but uninhabitable for year.

Of course emergency response will be be different in different locations.  Its likely that food water and services will be delivered to cities first. 

Here's some ideas for your emergency kit.  Note that it is only for 72 hours.   You may want to consider a longer period of time.   This may be a big emergency.   Bigger than Katrina and Sandy combined.  You may want to consider how long it will take for help to arrive.   Here are some reviews of how FEMA and the Red Cross handled prior emergencies..  Here  here and here

        Remember - in an emergency YOU are the first responder.

Atlantis

Way down
Under the ocean
 where I want to be
    -Donovan (Atlantis)
Six feet of water
in the streets of Evangenline
     - Randy Newman

Greetings

       When James Hanson says something, its probably worth listening.  Not only has been looking into these maters longer than most, but he is also willing to tell the unvarnished truth  see e.g Ballad of the sad climatoligists.
      So it was with some interest that I listened to an interview he gave in Australia earlier this year, which I found on Ecoshock).  Here is a transcript of part of it

"The paleoclimate evidence indicates the ice sheets are much more sensitive than the glaciologist, the modellers of ice sheets have indicated and furthermore we now have satellite data over the last 12 years that confirms that ice sheet disintegration is a non-linear process that should not have been surprising, and I have been saying that for 10 years, but now this satellite data confirms that.

The ice sheets are losing mass faster and faster with a doubling the of about 10 years. If that continues, we would get sea-level rises of several metres within 40 to 50 years."

Several meters?   40-50 years?

             This is not what I've been hearing from the IPCC, so it was kind of a rude shock.  But it turns out Hanson has been saying stuff like this for some time.  see here
           While the IPCC sees a sea rise in a gentle upslope,  Hanson sees it as accelerating much faster,..

(Global sea level rise since 1870. Image source: Dr. James Hansen.)

There may be some support for Hanson's view in recent work.  This from Robert Scribbler's blog (see below)

 For a recent study, headed by Shuang Yi and published on April 30 in Geophysical Research Letters provides evidence that, since 2010, annual rates of global sea level rise have shown a strong uptick. The study, entitled An Increase in the Rate of Global Mean Sea Level Rise Since 2010, notes:

The global mean sea level (GMSL) was reported to have dropped 5 mm due to the 2010/11 La Niña and have recovered in one year. With longer observations, it is shown that the GMSL went further up to a total amount of 11.6 mm by the end of 2012, excluding the 3.0 mm/yr background trend. A reconciled sea level budget, based on observations by Argo project, altimeter and gravity satellites, reveals that the true GMSL rise has been masked by ENSO-related fluctuations and its rate has increased since 2010. After extracting the influence of land water storage, it is shown that the GMSL have been rising at a rate of 4.4 ± 0.5 mm/yr for more than three years, due to an increase in the rate of both land ice loss and steric change.

In short, the study finds an average rate of sea level rise of 4.4 mm per year, or 30% faster than the annual rate from 1992 to 2009, during the period of 2010 to 2013."

    Sea level rise is a function  of both thermal expansion dues to increased temperature, and additional water flows dues to melting Glaciers.  Thermal expansion has been the major factor thus far, but by its nature is  generally slow.  Glaciers on the other hand, can melt rapidly. 

       It all comes down to doubling time.  But every exponential curve starts slow and accelerates.  It difficult at the beginning to see which curve the data is following.  It may be a slowly changing curve or a rapidly changing one.    Thus in one paper Hanson argues.

       The increasing Greenland mass loss ... can be fit just as well byexponentially increasing annual mass loss, a behavior that Hansen (2005, 2007) argues could occur because of multiple amplifying feedbacks as an ice sheet begins to disintegrate. A 10-year doubling time would lead to 1 meter sea level rise by 2067 ... 2045 ... for 5-year doubling time and 2055 ... for a 7-year doubling time.

Obviously we are not preparing for such rapid sea rises.   And it could mean a loss of a lot of coastal property.  See Here  One aspect that I hadn't given much though to, however, is the impact on commerce - the impacts on ports.
   Just to get a feel for how much goes through ports, here is what wiki says

American ports are responsible for moving over 99 percent of the country's overseas cargo.

U.S. ports handle a wide variety of goods that are critical to the global economy, including petroleum, grain, steel, automobiles, and containerized goods. Reports from individual ports indicate that approximately 4.6 million automobiles (imports and exports) passed through American ports in 2006.

The impacts of sea level rise to ports could be significant.  For instance one EPA report states.

The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) initiated another effort to examine the risk to transportation infrastructure from climate change along the Atlantic coast. The study is identifying the transportation infrastructure that, without protection, will regularly be inundated by the ocean or is at risk of periodic inundation due to storm surges. Phase 1 of the report, covering Washington D.C., Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia, was released in December 2007. In the state of Maryland, the study found that 28% of port acreage would be regularly inundated or at risk of periodic inundation if sea levels rose just 6 cm (2.4 inches)

However the Gulf Coast ports are more significant to the national economy. Noaa points out

"Along the Northern Gulf Coast, an estimated 2,400 miles of major roadway and 246 miles of freight rail lines are at risk of permanent flooding within 50 to 100 years as relative sea level is expected to rise in the range of 4 feet (Figure 1). The Gulf Coast is particularly at risk to service disruptions due to a transportation network that is interdependent and relies on minor roads and other low-lying infrastructure. The Gulf Coast is home to seven of the ten largest commercial ports (by tons of traffic) in the country. The region also hosts a significant portion of the U.S. oil and gas industry, with its offshore drilling platforms, refineries, and pipelines. Roughly two-thirds of all U.S. oil imports pass through the Gulf. Sea level rise would potentially affect commercial transportation activity valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually through inundation of area roads, railroads, airports, seaports, and pipelines (U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2009). Figure 1 shows the Gulf Coast area roads at risk from sea-level rise.

EPA says

"Looking particularly at the impact of storm surges, the Gulf Coast Study determines the percentage of marine transportation facilities in an area from Mobile, AL to Galveston, TX that would be affected by certain levels of storm surges. The study predicts that relative sea levels in the region will rise between 0.3 and 7 feet, depending on location, over the coming century. Average temperatures in the region are likely to increase between 0.9°F and 4.5°F over the next fifty years.11 The study provides probabilities for some impacts at the regional level. For example, if relative sea levels rise 4 feet, 72 percent of ports in the region will be at least partially inundated.

So, Hanson's conclusion looks pretty accurate.  

"So spell that out for us James before we move on, sea level rises of several meters in forty years, what would that look like in terms of our lives

The consequences are almost unthinkable. It would mean that all coastal cities would become dysfunctional, some parts of the cities would still be sticking above the water but they would not be habitable, so the economic implications are incalculable. We really cannot go down that path, this is an issue of intergenerational injustice.   It’s a moral issue because the current generation is burning the fossil fuel and getting the benefits and creating a situation that for young people, our children and grandchildren and future generations is going to have enormous consequences."

For an interesting interactive map of pontential flooding, see here 

Global Sea Level Rise Going Exponential? New Study Records Big Jump in Ocean Surface Height

From about a thousand years ago through to the mid 19th Century, global sea levels remained remarkably stable. Together with overall global temperatures, sea surface heights stayed at about the same levels until the late 1800s. At that time, an initiation of large-scale burning of oil, gas and coal dumped heavy volumes of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. The Earth System began to warm and seas began a slow upward climb.

(Global sea level rise since 1870. Image source: Dr. James Hansen.)

At first, the pace of sea level rise was minor — only hitting about 0.8 mm per year. But then, by around 1925, the rate of sea level rise more than doubled to 1.9 mm per year. The oceans, which at first only slowly accumulated heat, began a long term warming which eventually extended through almost every depth and region. This pace maintained until about 1992 when the oceans again hit a higher rate of rise at around 3.1 mm per year — a pace that then included a small but ominously growing portion of glacial melt.

Now, it appears that global warming is again pushing sea levels to rise even faster. As, over recent years, a number of ominous indicators pointed toward yet another surge in ocean surface levels.

In south Florida, the pace of  sea level rise at local tidal gauges, by last year, had gone exponential. Along the U.S. East Coast, a sudden jump in sea level during recent years was blamed on a slowing down of the Gulf Stream due to freshwater melt pulses hitting the North Atlantic.

All over the world’s frozen regions, the great land glaciers — especially in Greenland and Antarctica — have been destabilizing. Melting, cracking, and clamoring as their gargantuan, mountain-like forms assembled in an ever-speeding march to the seas. This great rush of freshwater melt and ice is already causing an ocean-threatening slow-down of Atlantic circulation. And in the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica an ominous bulge of water near the southern polar zone became an indicator of an increasing rate of melt from some of the largest glaciers on Earth. A bulge that was 2 centimeters higher than the global average along melting and thawing Antarctic shores.

Global Sea Level Rise On Upward Curve?

Recently, the global sea level rise measure — AVISO — also took an unsettling leap. With satellite captures of the world ocean showing a strong surge in sea level rise throughout 2014 and into 2015. A spike that displays vividly as a hockey-stick like jog at the tail end of the measure below:

(Big spike in sea level rise plainly visible in the AVISO measure. Image source: AVISO.)

It’s an upward jump representing nearly a 1 centimeter spike in the rate of sea level rise over the past six months.

By itself, this jump in sea level would be something to worry over. But new findings paint an even starker picture. For a recent study, headed by Shuang Yi and published on April 30 in Geophysical Research Letters provides evidence that, since 2010, annual rates of global sea level rise have shown a strong uptick. The study, entitled An Increase in the Rate of Global Mean Sea Level Rise Since 2010, notes:

The global mean sea level (GMSL) was reported to have dropped 5 mm due to the 2010/11 La Niña and have recovered in one year. With longer observations, it is shown that the GMSL went further up to a total amount of 11.6 mm by the end of 2012, excluding the 3.0 mm/yr background trend. A reconciled sea level budget, based on observations by Argo project, altimeter and gravity satellites, reveals that the true GMSL rise has been masked by ENSO-related fluctuations and its rate has increased since 2010. After extracting the influence of land water storage, it is shown that the GMSL have been rising at a rate of 4.4 ± 0.5 mm/yr for more than three years, due to an increase in the rate of both land ice loss and steric change.

In short, the study finds an average rate of sea level rise of 4.4 mm per year, or 30% faster than the annual rate from 1992 to 2009, during the period of 2010 to 2013. For these, more rapidly rising, sea levels the study identifies clear causes. The first is an increasing rate of land ice loss. The second is what is termed as ‘steric change’ — a scientific phrase that both identifies ocean thermal expansion due to warming combined with changes in ocean salinity, which also impacts sea surface height.

The April 30 study did not include the more recent sea level rise spike now showing up in the AVISO measure. So, at least for now, sea levels do appear to be sliding up some rather dangerous curves.

Hitting the More Difficult Rates of Sea Level Increase

Such a jump has stark implications for sea level by end century. A 4.4 mm per year rate of rise would equal just less than half a meter of increased sea level within one Century. This compares to the previous rate of rise which would have resulted in a 1 foot global jump within a one hundred year span.

A jump of this kind was, however, predicted with sea level rise by end of this Centuryexpected to hit between 0.5 and 1 meters of increase in the IPCC measure and between 5 and 6 feet in US Coast Guard studies (most studies find a range between 3-9 feet for this Century). The 4.4 mm per year increase is rather ominous in that it already puts annual rates of rise in the IPCC mid-range. An early ramp up with fully eight and a half decades left to go in a Century that will certainly see substantial further increases in global heat accumulation.

(South Florida 6 meters of sea level rise before [left frame] and after [right frame]. Note that second image is an artist’s rendering based on flood analysis showing what a 6 meter sea level rise would look like for South Florida, should it occur. Image source: Tropical Audobon Society.)

Many planners use the IPCC measure or even more conservative indicators to prepare for sea level rise at their city, county and state shores. And the fact is these indicators may fall well short of reality at the coastlines. A stark circumstance that will become more and more difficult to manage as time moves forward.

Overall, a 2010 ramping in the rate of sea level rise is a bit soon. Similar further jumps leading up to potential worst case 1-4 cm per year levels would initiate a combination of dangerous impacts including untenable rates of rise for coastal regions, severe shocks to ocean circulation systems and overall ocean health, and potentially very dangerous impacts to the world’s weather. To this point Hansen’s paper entitled ‘Greenland Ice Sheet Mass Loss, Exponential?‘ is well worth a (re)read.

Similar Climate Conditions Saw 20 Meter Surges in Sea Level Due to Glacial Melt

With current greenhouse gas levels now in the range of 400-405 parts per million coinciding with substantial jumps in glacial melt and sea level rise, it may be worth taking a look back at times in the geological past when atmospheric heating conditions were similar to those seen today. The last time heat trapping gasses were seen at such high concentrations was at the height of the Pliocene warming 3-5 million years ago. That time saw temperatures in the range of 2-3 degrees Celsius warmer than Holocene averages. It was also a geological period that saw Antarctic and Greenland melt events that pushed seas up to 20 meters higher.

We are exceeding maximum Pliocene atmospheric CO2 thresholds at this time (well exceeding if you count in a 485 CO2 equivalent forcing from all greenhouse gasses added by human beings). And we will almost certainly enter Pliocene warming levels this century. So the melt pressure we are putting on the world’s ice sheets is likely to at least be in the 20 meter range for the (hopefully) longer term.

https://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2015/05/04/global-sea-level-rise-going-exponential-new-study-records-big-jump-in-ocean-surface-height/

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sea-level-rise-locking-in-quickly-cities-threatened-16296

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-does-the-u-s-look-like-after-3-meters-of-sea-level-rise/

http://www.ecology.com/2012/03/05/effects-sea-level-rise/

http://www.businessinsider.com/1429-towns-destroyed-by-climate-change-2013-8