Sea Level Rise Maps for Oz

jjjnettie (Jeanette) · #1 22-12-2010, 09:28 AM

http://www.ozcoasts.org.au/climate/sd_visual.jsp

The three scenarios developed by CSIRO for sea level rise between 2030-2100 (relative to 1990) are presented below.
The low scenario (B1): considers sea-level rise in the context of a global agreement which brings about dramatic reductions in global emissions and represents the upper end of the range for sea-level rise by 2100 which is likely to be unavoidable.
The medium scenario (A1FI): Represents the upper end of IPCC's 4th Assessment Report (AR4) A1FI projections and is in line with recent global emissions and observations of sea-level rise.
The high-end scenario: considers the possible high end risk identified in the AR4 and more specifically in post IPCC AR4 research. This scenario factors in recent publications that explore the impacts of recent warming trends on ice sheet dynamics beyond those already included in the IPCC projections.

Kinda makes me glad I've moved inland.

pgc hunter · #2 22-12-2010, 03:01 PM

So they reckon sea levels will rise 50cm (LOW scenario) to 110cm (high scenario) in the next 90 years.

Another gem from the greens and the alarmists.

sauce: http://www.ozcoasts.org.au/climate/sd_fqa.jsp
http://www.ozcoasts.org.au/climate/M.../mapLevel2.jsp

Nice to see our taxpayer money going towards this fine cause.

jjjnettie (Jeanette) · #3 22-12-2010, 03:02 PM

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/envi...222-1952d.html

strongmanmike (Michael) · #4 22-12-2010, 03:22 PM

Regardless that there may be some evidence that predicts no effect from man made CO2, if there is plenty of good and reputable evidence that these climate/sea changes could indeed occur on such scales as a result of what we are doing why is it so hard to accept that it may be a good idea to try to do something to prevent at least some of it..?

Beats me, I think the

has gone

.

Mike

Trixie (Carey) · #5 22-12-2010, 03:38 PM

The geological record shows plenty of evidence of sea level rise and fall over the Earths history.

The big question is whether this time it is natural or human induced. What concerns me is the apparent increase in the rate of change over the past few hundred years which does appear to be related to human activity.

GeoffW1 (Geoff) · #6 22-12-2010, 04:43 PM

Hi,

I was fascinated to see that Sydney Airport could be submerged in the worst of these scenarios

.

Cheers

pmrid (Peter) · #7 22-12-2010, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeoffW1

Hi,

I was fascinated to see that Sydney Airport could be submerged in the worst of these scenarios

.

Cheers

Check out Brisbane airport too.
Peter

tlgerdes (Trevor) · #8 22-12-2010, 05:43 PM

A 1 metre rise and I still dont get a water front property, dam!

Can someone produce a 3 meter rise please, I would like water views at a minimum.

Waxing_Gibbous (Peter) · #9 22-12-2010, 09:54 PM

Again and I say again.."So What"? Global warming.... oh sorry, I meant climate change as even the most fanatical of proponents has to bow to the evidence that the Earth is NOT warming. Its now "Climate Change". Of course the climate is changing. Its always changing. Its been changing since there was a climate to change. Often with considerably more violence.
The geology, theground we walk on, is always changing. Can you imagine the IPCCs analysis of continental drift were we still Pangea?
One of my wife's colleagues, a teacher for heaven's sake, believed that 90% of the Carbon in the atmosphere came from humans!!!
Not even close:
80% comes from the oceans.
10-15% from Photosynthesis (she also didn't know that plants give off CO2)
5% comes from 'other sources', People, Vulcanism, seepage from the earth etc.
The eruption of the Tibetan Plateau some 10 million years ago released more CO2 into the air than humans have, are ,or will, for the rest of the time we are on the planet.
And yet...here we are!!!! Here lots of things are.
No doubt we have made some serious cock-ups with pollution and introduced species, but we have not ruined the atmosphere.

Everything I've seen generated by the IPCC has always been an 'estimate' or a 'model' with no explanation of the processes of these estimates and models. Too many people's carreers now depend on man-made climate change, it reminds me of the Cold War, where every second-rate theoretician could make a living out of 'Strategic Analysis'. Even with the multicore , parrallel processing power of supercomputers, its next to impossible to accurately model a dynamic sytem. You can't artificially impose constraints if you want an honest outcome. But you have to if you are going to get ANY data at all.
By their very nature climate models are going to give you a wrong answer.

Nothing. Not one single doomsday scenario that has been predicted since this claptrap started making the rounds in the '70s has come to pass. The icecaps have NOT melted. Forests continue to grow. Animal species continue to breed and thrive. The Ozone layer remains intact.
The original IPCC report sparked numerous 'viable scenarios' of the worlds coasts being flooded by 2010. Low lying areas like the Netherlands, Bangeladesh and the the Missisippi Delta were regularly flattened by storms and floods 200 years before anyone cranked the first automobile.
Then, it was considered to be "God's Wrath". Now those who would have become flagellants or suicide bombers have found Climate Change as their casus belli.

This past winter & autumn were supposed to be the warmest and driest on record in Australia according to climate change analysts at the BoM. Not in my part of the world.
Has anyone bothered to notice that the 'estimates' of daily deforestation since the '90s far exceed the world's combined forest area. According to the IPCC, we should all be living in deserts by know choking on our own CO2.
There simply isn't any real honest-to-goodness 'hard' science going on here. Its all "IF-THEN" with no "UNLESS" or "NOT" to temper the findings.
I'm all for minimising our 'footprints' so to speek. I think its appalling that vast stretches of productive or natural land are given over to ghettos full of energy-sucking McMansions. I'd love to drive a car that runs on Hydrogen and I'd be happy to flick a lightswitch generated by nuclear power.

But I'm also happy to admit I wan't someone else to make the first sacrifices.
I wan't Mom & Pop who live in Albert Park and vote 'Green' to start growing their own food without pesticides and stop driving the kids to school. I want them to make there own clothes fron recycled rags and hemp. I want them to cut out ALL plastic, nylon, rayon or other synthetic materials from their lives. I want them to be powered entirely by solar and wind power units erected in or on THEIR property.
I want Politicians to share solar-powered cars and cut off the air-con in Canberra. No more jets. No more junkets abroad to climate conferences that suck-up Jet A by the ton. I want the DoE to start using only recycled water and the rest of the government to be powered by entirely non-polluting power, locally generated.
THEN, those that are so inclined, can start preaching about what the rest of us can do.

7thcrewmember (Brett) · #10 22-12-2010, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeoffW1

Hi,

I was fascinated to see that Sydney Airport could be submerged in the worst of these scenarios

.

Cheers

Imagine, that could do millions of dollars worth of improvements to the airport there

strongmanmike (Michael) · #11 22-12-2010, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waxing_Gibbous

....I'm all for minimising our 'footprints' so to speek. I think its appalling that vast stretches of productive or natural land are given over to ghettos full of energy-sucking McMansions. I'd love to drive a car that runs on Hydrogen and I'd be happy to flick a lightswitch generated by nuclear power..

Hmm?...an intersting conundrum Peter..... if mankind is not contributing to CO2 rises or climate change and there is in fact no problem at all, why do anything, just let things go as they are...? Ah, I see, conservation and energy efficiency for no good reason...hmmm? an interesting concept, that's Tony Abbotts view too, makes a lot of sense

Maybe your signature quote has something in it....for our sakes I hope not

Mike

GeoffW1 (Geoff) · #12 22-12-2010, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pmrid

Check out Brisbane airport too.
Peter

Nah,

No loss there

Gold Coast airport, hmmmmm, maybe need to keep that

Nightshift · #13 22-12-2010, 11:33 PM

LOL, another bunch of overpaid scientists with a wacky computer model fed with the variables that suit the scenario.

Maybe someone could explain where this magical 1 meter of water is going to come from? 1 Meter over the entire surface of the oceans is a huge amount of water.

Yawn.... its all so boring now.

Trixie (Carey) · #14 23-12-2010, 12:02 AM

Quote:

80% comes from the oceans.
10-15% from Photosynthesis (she also didn't know that plants give off CO2)
5% comes from 'other sources', People, Vulcanism, seepage from the earth etc.
......
And yet...here we are!!!! Here lots of things are.

Yes that is true but this is within a balanced ecosystem. Once again, it is more about the rate of change in CO2 not the absolute amounts. It doesnt take much of an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere to effect the balance. I dont have the numbers at hand but I believe it is a single digit percentage change.

One possible theory for the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event is an increase in C02 in the atmosphere (extrusion of massive flood basalts in what is now the India region as well as release of ocean CO2 triggered by this) which triggered a runaway greenhouse effect. The atmosphere eventually regained its equilibrium once the CO2 emission stopped but not in time for 90-something percent of the earths species.

The problem here is CO2 emmission is on the increase and fast. At the rate at which the CO2 amounts are increasing there is very little time for ecosystems to adapt further compounding the issue.

I was reading an interesting article the other day in the latest Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia (PESA) magazine. I thought the Geothermal work adds some new material to the usual debate around the recent history temperature data.

http://www.pnronline.com.au/article.php/105/990

Trixie (Carey) · #15 23-12-2010, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Maybe someone could explain where this magical 1 meter of water is going to come from? 1 Meter over the entire surface of the oceans is a huge amount of water.

A huge amount of water is sitting frozen at the earths polar ice caps. Melt them and you get a bit of sea level rise.

pgc hunter · #16 23-12-2010, 03:04 AM

Apparently, if the Icesheets in Greenland Melted, the global sea level would rise 7.2m.

As if

pgc hunter · #17 23-12-2010, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7thcrewmember

Imagine, that could do millions of dollars worth of improvements to the airport there

It would certainly do us a favour by removing Melbourne Airport's ugly 1970's patchwork terminal and forcing us to build a new one!

tlgerdes (Trevor) · #18 23-12-2010, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgc hunter

Apparently, if the Icesheets in Greenland Melted, the global sea level would rise 7.2m.

As if

Maybe then I get my water front property.

PeterM · #19 23-12-2010, 09:46 AM

A whole new income stream for Governments and companies sprooking "we are green". Keeping some scientists in good employ no doubt. Man made global warming now conveniently called climate change (nature at work) as the original slogan didn't work.
Is Tuvalu underwater yet (now that's worth researching as to why and it has nothing to do with sea level rise)? they were to be among the first recipients of global funding from this all out global fraud. There is a mountain of scientific evidence debunking this fraud.
Are we nearly locked yet?
PeterM.

jjjnettie (Jeanette) · #20 23-12-2010, 09:53 AM

Funny you should mention Tuvalu Peter, I was watching the movie " Heaven Knows Mr Alison" (rob mitchum, deb kerr) the other day, it was filmed there.
Off topic, but who cares, it's my thread. ( are we locking it yet? I know you want to....)

From Wiki
As low-lying islands, lacking a surrounding shallow shelf, the island communities of Tuvalu are especially susceptible to changes in sea level and storm patterns that hit the island undissipated. It is estimated that a sea level rise of 20–40 centimetres (8–16 inches) in the next 100 years could make Tuvalu uninhabitable.[4][5] The South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC) suggests that while Tuvalu is vulnerable to climate change there are additional environmental problems such as population growth and poor coastal management that are affecting sustainable development on the island. SOPAC ranks the country as extremely vulnerable using the Environmental Vulnerability Index.[6]