|Fig. 1 You can say "overdue now!"|
(PS.the CO2 now is >400 PPM).
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)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 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%
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.