If a Country Sinks Beneath the Sea, Is It Still a Country?

http://current.com/news/92551184_indian-ocean-levels-rising-study-shows.htm

Indian Ocean sea levels are rising unevenly, posing a threat to residents in some densely populated coastal areas and islands, a new study says. The study, led by researchers at the University of Colorado in Boulder and the National Center for Atmospheric Research, attributes the sea-level rise in part to climate change.

Along the coasts of the northern Indian Ocean, seas have risen by an average of about 0.5 inches a decade, the research shows. The increases are particularly noted along the coastlines of the Bay of Bengal, the Arabian Sea, Sri Lanka, Sumatra and Java.

Such rises in sea level could aggravate monsoon flooding in Bangladesh and India, the study says, and could impact global climate change on both regional and global levels.

The Indian Ocean's complex circulation patterns could also affect precipitation by forcing even more atmospheric air than normal down to the surface in subtropical regions.

"This may favor a weakening of atmospheric convection in subtropics, which may increase rainfall in the eastern tropical regions of the Indian Ocean and drought in the western equatorial Indian Ocean region, including east Africa," said the study's lead author Weiqing Han of the University of Colorado's atmospheric and oceanic sciences department.

To carry out their research, the scientists combined sea surface measurements dating back to the 1960s, along with satellite observations.

The researchers point to the Indo-Pacific "warm pool," a massive bathtub-shaped area extending from the east coast of Africa west to the International Date Line in the Pacific. This area has increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past 50 years, believed mostly to be caused by human-generated increases of greenhouse gases.

"Our new results show that human-caused changes of atmospheric and oceanic circulation over the Indian Ocean region -- which have not been studied previously -- are the major cause for the regional variability of sea level change," the authors wrote in Nature Geoscience magazine.

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2255
excerpt:

"When he first heard about this idea, says Stouffer, “it was one of those ‘duh’ moments for me. I said, ‘Yeah, that makes sense.’” He ended up co-authoring a paper that appeared in Nature Geoscience last March, laying out the argument.

Then, however, Stouffer experienced another “duh” moment. “I’m somewhat embarrassed by that paper,” he says, “because here we were focused on this relatively little problem, and there’s this great big gorilla in the room, and I missed it. But I had a lot of company.” (This last point is crucial: Stouffer is among the most experienced and respected modelers in the world, so a “duh” moment for him means the surprise is widespread.)

The gorilla Stouffer refers to — an effect so large that it overwhelms the others — is something called the geoid. It’s an imaginary surface that maps
If the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melts and loses mass, its pull on the surrounding ocean will lessen.the strength of Earth’s gravitational field, and it’s as bumpy as the surface of the actual planet. Orbiting satellites don’t move around the Earth in perfect circles, or even perfect ellipses; their height changes when they go over the extra gravity exerted by a mountain range, and changes again when they orbit over a valley.

And because water is a liquid, the surface of the sea is also warped to follow the contours of the geoid. The extra gravitational attraction of an undersea mountain range pulls water toward it, creating a literal, permanent bump on the surface of the sea, while the deficit of gravity near an undersea valley creates a depression in the water up above.

The same sort of thing happens when there’s an excess of mass on land that lies near the ocean. A coastal mountain range pulls the water in its direction, raising sea level nearby. So do the massive icecaps that smother Greenland and Antarctica. Indeed, Antarctica’s polar ice sheet is so massive that it is three miles thick in places and covers an area one-and-one-half times the size of the United States, including Alaska.

These polar ice caps are Stouffer’s gorillas. They keep sea level higher than it would otherwise be for thousands of kilometers around both land masses, and correspondingly lower elsewhere.

If the polar ice sheets shrink, though — as they’re currently doing, especially in Grenland and West Antarctica — their gravitational pull weakens and so does their hold on the surrounding water. About a year ago, Jerry Mitrovica, a geophysicist who teaches an entire course on sea level at Harvard, co-authored a paper in Science that laid out what would likely happen if the West Antarctic ice sheet, the smaller of the two sheets that cover the Antarctic continent, were to melt. (Like a complete shutdown of the Gulf Stream, this is not considered likely anytime soon. But recent satellite measurements have shown that glaciers that drain the ice sheet have begun moving faster toward the sea).

If you simply spread the resulting increase in sea level evenly around the world, it would amount to about 5 meters’ worth. But the ice sheet’s gravity is currently keeping sea level artificially low in the Northern Hemisphere, so if it disappeared, the actual increase along the U.S. mid-Atlantic coast would be more like 6.3 meters. In other words, as the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melts and loses mass, its pull on the surrounding ocean will lessen. Seas will drop around Antarctica and parts of the Southern Hemisphere, and that water will be displaced to more northerly areas, such as the east coast of the U.S.

Now that the gorilla has made its presence known, Stouffer is working with Mitrovica to understand its effects in greater detail. A joint paper, due out in a few months, will look into the gravitationally driven sea-level changes a melting Greenland could trigger. “The signal is so large,” says Stouffer, “that if you own beachfront property in Iceland, and all of the ice on Greenland melts and adds seven meters to average sea level, you end up with more beach. But in Hawaii, you get your seven meters of sea-level rise plus an extra two or three on top of that. It’s phenomenal to me that it matters that much.”

Mitrovica agrees.

“When I give talks about this, people don’t believe me,” says Mitrovica. He doesn’t blame them, either. “It’s just wacky when you think about it, completely counterintuitive,” he says. “But it’s true.”

How High Will Seas Rise?
Get Ready for Seven Feet

As governments, businesses, and homeowners plan for the future, they should assume that the world’s oceans will rise by at least two meters — roughly seven feet — this century.
READ MORE

It’s even measurable, despite the fact that the melting of the ice sheets has barely begun. Even when you correct for other effects, says Mitrovica, you can still see that Europe’s sea level rise is less than you’d expect. “It’s profoundly puzzling,” he says, “until you realize you’re seeing the gravitational signal of Greenland melting.”

When he started looking at regional effects, Mitrovica recalls, some climate-change deniers were noting that sea-level rise was happening at different rates in different regions, arguing that this proved there was no global trend, and thus no global warming. That was already a bogus argument, but now that he and others have begun investigating the gorilla in the living room, it’s even more absurd. The science is so straightforward, he says, that “if you saw that sea level was rising uniformly around the world, it would be proof that the big ice sheets are not melting.”
_____
Gravitational pull of ice sheets as they melt can also contribute to sea level rise in some areas even above predictions, and below in others. However, in places like New Orleans subsidence can be deadly when put up against higher and stronger storm surges, so that is also a threat as well. I also don't recall myself or anyone stating that sea level rise would inundate and drown the entire planet by today or tomorrow. However, it is only moral and prudent that based on scientific evidence and climate trends, ice melt, etc. that we as a species prepare ourselves for what will be our fate if current trends continue. There is absolutely nothing wrong, extremist, or alarmist about having a plan in place to deal with what has already happened to other islands, especially considering the unpredictability of events based on our own behavior. Decreasing our Co 2 emissions, sequestering carbon in soil, reforesting, and diversifying much more aggressively into renewable energy sources (which would also decrease subsidence due to overextraction of oil and gas) can actually help stave off some of the effects of sea level rise that have already been put into motion. Being cognizant of the threats and the possible outcomes and preparing for them is simply being responsible stewards of this planet and each other

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Visual-depictions-of-Sea-Level-Rise.html
Excerpt:
'Even many critics would agree that global sea levels are currently rising, regardless of recent scrutiny and revision of estimates of predicted sea level rise. As pointed out previously, predicting sea level rise is tough. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) puts it neatly, “To make predictions, we need knowledge. To gain knowledge we need observations”. However a recent claim disputes that current sea levels are rising significantly. Is it possible to verify or falsify this statement by looking at observations and data from the scientific community concerned with measuring sea level?

The answer is yes. Measuring sea level is now a multidisciplinary effort involving integration of observations from several global networks of hundreds of tidal stations, calibrated with vertical reference data from nearby GPS (Global Positioning System, which now use the American GPS, Russian GLONASS and European Galileo constellations of satellites) or DORIS (Doppler Orbitography Integrated by Satellite) stations, and data from several independent satellite based radar altimeters (recently Jason I, Jason II, and Envisat) which give complete global coverage, data on sea temperature and pressure from the ARGO floating sensors (which give information on temperature and salinity related variations in Oceanic volume), and most recently data from the satellite based gravity sensor GRACE (Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment), which can give direct measurements of changes in mass of oceanic and land based water.

A 2009 review by Merrifield et al of the GLOSS (Global Sea Level Observing System) gives some indication of the large number and variety of organizations and workers involved. These measurements are complementary as well as providing independent cross validation checks on any individual data set, and many teams independently process raw observations to derive sea level data. This has enormously improved our knowledge of estimated sea level rise at global and regional level over the past 20 years, with continual refinements of estimates, as well as reductions in uncertainties from the centimetric level to sub mm level.

What are the conclusions from these efforts? Recent reviews (Cazenave et al 2009, Cazenave and Llovel 2010) show that the most up to date estimates of mean rate of sea level rise for the 20th century are converging on around 1.7 to 1.8mm/year, with uncertainties of around 0.2 to 0.3mm. (Ablain 2009, Church 2008, Engelhart 2009, Jevrejeva 2008, Leulette 2009, Merrifield 2009, Woppelmann 2009). The small differences between reported figures are mainly due to the different Glacial-Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) model or GPS based corrections that are used for the tidal stations, and extrapolating current knowledge of these vertical velocity corrections backwards to before the absolute GPS corrected data was available.

Figure 1: Global corrected tidal station data (Church 2006 updated to 2009-dark blue, and Jevrejeva 2008- red)

Most recently, corrected tidal station data from the satellite altimeter period of 1993 to 2010 is in good agreement (within the error budget) with the satellite altimeter data, which gives 3.3mm/year ±0.4mm once GIA corrections are added. These values are considered “robust”.

The overall message is clear. Sea levels are rising.

Figure 2: Data from all satellite altimeters and 3 month composite average. The seasonal variations have been retained (trend 2.83mm/year, GIA correction would add another 0.2 to 0.5mm/yr)

Both tidal station data and altimeter data show decadal and shorter term variations in the rate of rise, but there is a significant weight of evidence of a recent acceleration in rate of sea level rise towards the end of the last century (Jevrejeva 2008, Merrifield 2009, Vermeer 2009), whilst the “slowing down” reported by some observers (around 2008) has proved short lived (judging from 2009/2010 data).

It has also now become possible to attempt to “close” the sea level budget, which has components of reported thermal expansion of the volume of water due to increase in accumulated heat energy, and also an increased component from melting ice from land based sources. Again refinements and corrections of recent datasets from GRACE (with GPS) and ARGO resolve previous and relatively recent difficulties, so that the sum of these climate-related contributions (2.85 ± 0.35 mm per year) is now comparable with the altimetry-based sea level rise (3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year) over the 1993 to 2007 period (Cazenave 2010, reporting a consensus of the Ocean Observing Community).

Using these datasets it is estimated that around 30% of the observed rate of rise over the satellite altimeter time period is due to ocean thermal expansion and 55% results from accumulated melting land ice. There is evidence that the land ice melt contribution has increased significantly over the past five years.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/368892.stm

Luckily, these two islands were uninhabited.

Excerpt:

"Islands disappear under rising seas

Rising waters threaten small island states

Two South Pacific islands have disappeared beneath the waves, as climate change raises sea levels to new heights.

They are Tebua Tarawa and Abanuea - which ironically means "the beach which is long-lasting" - in the island state of Kiribati.

Neither island was inhabited, though Tebua Tarawa was used by fishermen.

Swamped by the sea

The news is reported in the Independent on Sunday newspaper, which says predictions of the danger are coming true more quickly than anyone had expected.

The South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) says other islands are at risk, both in Kiribati and in nearby Tuvalu.

It says most of the coastline of the 29 atolls of the Marshall Islands is suffering erosion.

On one, second world war graves are being washed away.

Pressure on people

All three island groups have experienced severe flooding by storms and high tides, and populated islands are now being affected.

And even where the seawater is not a direct threat, livelihoods are being damaged as salt poisons the soil.

The small island states of the world contribute only 0.6% of all global warming pollution, but they are suffering disproportionately.

They cannot afford to protect themselves. To build a temporary sea wall for one Marshall Island atoll would cost $100 million, more than twice the wealth the country produces annually.

Warm water problems

In the Indian Ocean, the beaches of a third of the 200 inhabited islands of the Maldives are being swept away.

President Gayoom of the Maldives says: "Sea-level rise is not a fashionable scientific hypothesis. It is a fact".

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

Ozone depletion describes two distinct, but related observations: a slow, steady decline of about 4 percent per decade in the total volume of ozone in Earth's stratosphere (the ozone layer) since the late 1970s, and a much larger, but seasonal, decrease in stratospheric ozone over Earth's polar regions during the same period. The latter phenomenon is commonly referred to as the ozone hole. In addition to this well-known stratospheric ozone depletion, there are also tropospheric ozone depletion events, which occur near the surface in polar regions during spring.

The detailed mechanism by which the polar ozone holes form is different from that for the mid-latitude thinning, but the most important process in both trends is catalytic destruction of ozone by atomic chlorine and bromine.[1] The main source of these halogen atoms in the stratosphere is photodissociation of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) compounds, commonly called freons, and of bromofluorocarbon compounds known as halons. These compounds are transported into the stratosphere after being emitted at the surface.[2] Both ozone depletion mechanisms strengthened as emissions of CFCs and halons increased.

CFCs and other contributory substances are commonly referred to as ozone-depleting substances (ODS). Since the ozone layer prevents most harmful UVB wavelengths (270–315 nm) of ultraviolet light (UV light) from passing through the Earth's atmosphere, observed and projected decreases in ozone have generated worldwide concern leading to adoption of the Montreal Protocol that bans the production of CFCs and halons as well as related ozone depleting chemicals such as carbon tetrachloride and trichloroethane. It is suspected that a variety of biological consequences such as increases in skin cancer, cataracts,[3] damage to plants, and reduction of plankton populations in the ocean's photic zone may result from the increased UV exposure due to ozone depletion.

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

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had mixed support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the twentieth century.[1]

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Oct 5, 2007 ... Fears of "global cooling" then changed suddenly to "global warming .... because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. ...

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/ar...

World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year.
Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100824092408.htm

'Sea Level to Rise Even With Aggressive Geo-Engineering and Greenhouse Gas Control, Study Finds

ScienceDaily (Aug. 24, 2010) — New findings by international research group of scientists from England, China and Denmark just published suggest that sea level will likely be 30-70 centimetres higher by 2100 than at the start of the century even if all but the most aggressive geo-engineering schemes are undertaken to mitigate the effects of global warming and greenhouse gas emissions are stringently controlled.

"Rising sea levels caused by global warming are likely to affect around 150 million people living in low-lying coastal areas, including some of the world's largest cities," explained Dr Svetlana Jevrejeva of the National Oceanography Centre.

Most scientists agree that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions contribute greatly to global warming, and that these emissions need to be controlled if damaging future impacts such as sea-level rise are to be averted. But if we fail to do so, is there a 'Plan B'?

Scientists have proposed ways of 'geo-engineering' the Earth system to tackle global warming, thereby reducing its impact on both the main contributors of sea level rise: thermal expansion of ocean water and melting of glaciers and ice sheets. Jevrejeva and her colleagues have modelled sea level over the 21st century under various geo-engineering schemes and carbon dioxide emission scenarios.

"We used 300 years of tide gauge measurements to reconstruct how sea level responded historically to changes in the amount of heat reaching the Earth from the Sun, the cooling effects of volcanic eruptions, and past human activities," said Jevrejeva. "We then used this information to simulate sea level under geo-engineering schemes over the next 100 years."

Changes in temperature predicted to result from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or geo-engineering are large compared with those caused by volcanism over the last 100,000 years or by changes in the amount of the Sun's energy reaching the Earth over the last 8000 years.

"Natural sea-level variations caused by extreme events such as severe volcanic eruptions over the past several thousand years were generally much smaller than those caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions or predicted under effective geo-engineering schemes," said Jevrejeva.

The researcher's simulations show that injections of sulfur dioxide particles into the upper atmosphere, equivalent to a major volcanic eruption such as that of Mt Pinatubo every 18 months, would reduce temperature and delay sea-level rise by 40-80 years. Maintaining such an aerosol cloak could keep sea level close to what it was in 1990.

However, use of sulfur dioxide injection would be costly and also risky because its effects on ecosystems and the climate system are poorly understood.

"We simply do not know how the Earth system would deal with such large-scale geo-engineering action," said Jevrejeva.'

"Rising sea levels caused by global warming..."

All this talk of global warming... so here's a temperature chart from Kiribati.
Spot the warming!