posted
06/17/09 08:47 PM
|
updated
06/18/09 11:46 AM
Views:
921
|
Comments :
10
|
Seattle
US report: Sea-level rise to swamp Harbor Island, parts of Olympia
Save and Share this article
|
A Politcial Departure from the Scientific Consensus
|
|
|
This political report is at odds with all of the accepted science on this issue, both at the international and local level. For instance, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is the consensus science, argues that the most likely scenario for sea level rise worldwide is about 14 inches. The graphic above indicates that 2 feet is a "medium" estimate. This is at odds with the accepted science. A recent report by the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington backs that assessment up. The recent Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment, released this month, says the "medium" projection for sea level rise is 13 inches in the Puget Sound. The recent federal assessment is not based on new information and is simply a political departure from accepted science. We cannot both claim to support the "scientific consensus" while ignoring the data produced by that very consensus. If politicans and political appointees feel the need to exaggerate the science, what does it say about the validity of their policy prescriptions? |
|
|
Comment by
Todd Myers
June 19, 2009
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
|
Inundation of Harbor Island is only the beginning...
|
|
| It's not like we get 3 or 4 feet of sea level rise before the end of the century, adjust and we're good to go. Sea level rise will continue for centuries, even if we stopped all greenhouse gas emissions today.20 feet of sea level rise will inundate most of the Duwamish valley, and a goodly chunk of downtown Seattle, including Pioneer Square where those four new towers will be built on the north Qwest Field parking lot. Retrofitting the ferry terminal and the POS' facilities will be an absolute nightmare. We are like total deer in the headlights with respect to this issue. | |
|
Comment by
Mud Baby
June 19, 2009
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
|
RE: Inundation of Harbor Island is only the beginning...
|
|
|
Yes, sea level rise will continue for centuries...just like it has for centuries prior to ours. And it will recede at other times. The world will experience more ice ages too. The climate has been changing since the beginning of the earth. |
|
|
Comment by
John
June 19, 2009
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
|
|
Sea-level rise to swamp Seattle's Harbor Island
|
|
|
Thanks for starting this discussion, Todd. Prompted by your comment, I contacted Washington State Climatologist Philip Mote of UW's Climate Impacts Group, who said its latest sea-level report came out in 2008. He referred me to CIG's web site, where I found this report: http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/moteetalslr579.pdf It gives a couple of scenarios. If you figure in rising seas caused by loss of ice from Antarctica and Greenland and a couple other factors, the report says "a low-probability high-impact estimate" of local sea-level rise for the Puget Sound Basin by 2050 is 22 inches. By 2100, it's 50 inches. So that matches what you see in the maps in this story showing Harbor Island and parts of Olympia under water by century's end. If you don't figure in Antarctica's and Greenland's loss of sea ice and a couple other factors, then it's like you say -- the "medium” sea-level rise estimate in Puget Sound is 13 inches. Its "very high" estimate is 50 inches, according to what I see in the chart on page 10 of that PDF. |
|
|
Comment by
Sally Deneen
June 19, 2009
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
|
4 feet sea level rise this century
|
|
|
One more follow-up to Todd Myers' comment... I checked in with Daniel Huppert of UW's School of Marine Affairs. He says: "Basically, the analysis of sea level rise is based upon a series of 'Scenarios' involving rates of CO2 emissions that cause rates of climate warming, which expands sea water and causes melting of glaciers and Antarctic ice shelves. There are several scenarios, and the scientists don't say which are most likely. So, you just get a range of possibilities. "Most of the comments I have gotten from the scientists suggest that we are more likely to be near the higher end of the range -- closer to 4 feet than 9 inches of sea level rise over the next century." |
|
|
Comment by
Sally Deneen
June 19, 2009
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
|
Impact on Deep Bore Tunnel?
|
|
| I have long wondered about how the consequences of rising sea levels would impact the deep bore tunnel replacement for the viaduct - never have seen a realistic discussion. | |
|
Comment by
kellogg
June 21, 2009
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
|
Again Ignoring the Scientific Consensus
|
|
|
Sally, your comments are exemplary of my point. They are not based in the consensus. "Most of the comments" from scientists is neither published nor peer reviewed. The IPCC, on the other hand, bases its estimates on agree-upon science (the definition of "consensus"). They estimate about 14 inches for the mid-range. That does, in fact, include melt from Greenland and Antarctica. The IPCC report notes that "The projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica at the rates observed for 1993-2003." They do not include other hypothetical factors "because a basis in published literature is lacking." Thus, projections that go higher than these account for factors which are not grounded in good science and have been set aside by the IPCC. The comment that "There are several scenarios, and the scientists don't say which are most likely. So, you just get a range of possibilities," confirms the ambiguity that surrounds this issue. Graphics like the one above, however, ignore that ambiguity and attempt to reify a certain perception that is not scientifcally grounded. As such it draws more from a particular, political, calculus of risk tolerance rather than science and should be understood as such. |
|
|
Comment by
Todd Myers
June 21, 2009
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
|
Today is deadline: how would you fix global warming?
|
|
|
Today's the deadline to send an e-mail to the EPA to say whether you think greenhouse-gas pollutants emitted by vehicles are a threat to public health and should be regulated. Submission of comments can be done at Regulations.gov. Or send an e-mail to GHG-Endangerment-Docket@epa.gov. Note that your comments are regarding Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171. Read more about the issue in this earlier PostGlobe article: http://seattlepostglobe.org/2009/05/21/review-terminator-sal And this one: http://seattlepostglobe.org/2009/05/23/your-turn-to-speak-ho Get more info here: http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html |
|
|
Comment by
Sally Deneen
June 23, 2009
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
|
Poll: Most Americans think feds should regulation greenhouse gases
|
|
|
See poll results here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06 |
|
|
Comment by
Sally Deneen
June 25, 2009
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
|
RE: Todd Meyers' "A Politcial Departure from the Scientific Consensus"
|
|
|
The tidal chart for today shows a 4 foot tide at Los angeles and a 4+ "meter" tide for Olympia. Bays and inland waterways magnify tides. My question for you scientists: If Olympia's tide is 3+ times Los Angeles', wouldn't Todd's cited 13 inch increase be much higher in Olympia? |
|
|
Comment by
John
June 29, 2009
|
(
0
votes)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|