## Monday, February 1, 2016

### The Ghost-Water Constant - 3

 Fig. 1 You can say "overdue now!" (PS.the CO2 now is >400 PPM).
At the moment when the ghost-water phenomenon arose in my cognition, I did not fully grasp its import.

Yes, I had calculated a while back that 1.14% of ice sheet and glacial melt would cause catastrophe.

It would develop the equivalent of a global mean average sea level rise of 1 meter, according to experts I quoted, who also indicated that such a rise would be catastrophic to civilization  (Why Sea Level Rise May Be The Greatest Threat To Civilization - 3).

(As regular readers know, some places would have more than that, some less, because the 1m is a global mean average.)

Then, I noticed that there was ocean water that I was not taking account of, and neither were some others , so I called it "ghost-water."

Then, I went about calculating its significance (The Ghost-Water Constant, 2).

Earlier today, while doing some blogger chores and tidying up on the Series Post page, I remembered the 1.14% value once again.

Then at about the same time or shortly thereafter, it dawned on me that the 1.14% figure is now too much (in light of the ghost-water phenomenon).

I remembered that the ghost-water constant is 13.95% at this time, so I realized that the ghost-water constant also had to be applied to the 1.14% figure.

The calculation goes like this:
The 1.14% comes from "The delicacy of the issue can be seen ... by realizing that only 1.14% of the global ice volume needs to melt to get us there (3 ft ÷ 263.5 ft. = 0.011385 = 1.14%)" (quoting the post: A Paper From Hansen et al. Is Now Open For Discussion)

The ghost-water constant is now calculated as 13.95%, so:

13.95% of 263.5 ft. = 36.7583
263.5 + 36.7583 = 300.2583
3 ft. ÷ 300.2583 = 0.009991397 = 1%
So, the take home from this is that it takes less, percentage wise, to get to the damaging global mean average sea level of 1m.

The old 1.14% threshold as it turns out, is now re-calculated as 1% of the ice sheet mass needing to melt or calve to result in that ~1m sea level position.

The reality from this is that we are WAY OVERDUE for serious impact from sea level rise, and the current pace is more than the scientific commentariat grasps.

I think it is here now, but the use of "king tides", "el nino", "la nina", "coastal wind flooding", "thermal expansion", and other descriptions, are (probably inadvertently) covering up the impact of sea level rise that is flowing under our door now (e.g. El Ninos are not all the same).

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.

1. Link to Wa Po articles that mentions(finally) 'gravity', thermal expansion (again),the AMOC (ventilation) and proximity to C emission as being a real factor as to why the Atlantic, and in particular, the US east coast is in a whole lotta trouble.

Emerging truth. Makes me think of how a chick prepares to leave the egg. Once begun, there's no way to stop the process.
'They' are reading, learning and sharing Dredd! Great work!
Acceleration of anything is impressive!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/01/why-the-u-s-east-coast-could-be-a-major-hotspot-for-sea-level-rise/?postshare=2701454353259045&tid=ss_tw

1. Mark,

Any progress is appreciated.

But less so in extremis, compared to timely progress.

Like finding one lifeboat as the Titanic submerges.

Mooney mentions more reality than the bulk of the scientific commentariat does these daze.

Still, he links to a questionable scientific paper steeped in the "thermal expansion is a major factor" trance (Nature).

The researchers who did that paper quote, then parrot, the IPCC error (ibid @ fn. 1).

Nevertheless, I can say that the WaPo information is at least clearly going in the proper direction.

To my way of thinking, the Hanson et. al. (2015) paper is more professionally aware (A Paper From Hansen et al. Is Now Open For Discussion, 2, 3).

To be clear, I am going to do a post about this WaPo event, because it may be something that is going to begin to show up in other main stream media outlets.

Which is a good thing.

You of course will get an honorable mention sir.

2. Many thanks Dredd!
I sent a thank you email to Chris at WaPo for his work and encouraged him to 'drop by' your lab to amplify his understanding and therefore, that of his large readership.

3. Mark,

Meanwhile: 'Climate Snow Job'? Scientists Respond to Attack on Evidence (Op-Ed) - Live Science

2. You converted the 13.95% figure to a decimal but didn't convert the 1.14%. Why? You're taking a percent of a percent, which is confusing enough, but wouldn't it be .0114 x .1395 =.0015903 and 1.14 - .0015903 = 1.1384, so that the change is only slightly below what it was?

Tom

1. Tom,

Good to hear from you eagle eye!

This is more of the kind of criticism we all need.

I appreciate it!

Thank you!

The 1.14% comes from "The delicacy of the issue can be seen ... by realizing that only 1.14% of the global ice volume needs to melt to get us there (3 ft ÷ 263.5 ft. = 0.011385 = 1.14%)" quoting the post: A Paper From Hansen et al. Is Now Open For Discussion.

The ghost-water constant is now calculated as 13.95%.

13.95% of 263.5 ft. is 3.675825 ft, which sums to 267.18 ft.

3 ft ÷ 267.18 ft. = 0.011228561 = 1.12% (not 0.98%)

I changed the post to reflect that.

I should not have changed the technique as I did.

3. "13.95% of 263.5 ft. is 3.675825 ft"
No, off by a decimal point. The result is 36.75825 ft if it is 13.95%. The new total would be 300.525 ft slr with all ice melt plus the ghost water increase. You get your new % of bad slr by just dividing the 3 ft into the total once. So the .98% or just over one hundredth of the total land ice melting is bad.

1. I changed it to 1% ....

The point is ... it won't take much (0.98% ... 1.12% ... 1%)

Let's just say 3 ft. of SLR is not far away in time.

Thanks again.