At the United Nations climate conference in Poland this week, a coalition of over 40 island nations called for extremely ambitious reductions in world greenhouse-gas emissions, fearing the effects of rising seas. The nations proposed that industrialized countries slash their emissions more than 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and more than 95 percent by 2050. "We are not prepared to sign a suicide agreement that causes small island states to disappear," said Selwin Hart of Barbados.
source: Reuters
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Flat
Delay And Deny Posted 9:37 am
03 Dec 2008
I've been running the numbers on "sea ice" and something doesn't add up.
Ok, start with the radius of the Earth...according to Google, its 6378.1 km. That makes the volume 1086832411937 km^3. Now, a one millimeter increase in radius, changes the volume by ~ 511 km~3.
The total sea ice volume according to NOAA
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_untersteiner.html
is 175000.000000 km^3.
For these calculations, let's say the Earth is entirely covered in water. Let's also ignore the change in volume as ice turns to water ( the water would be 92 percent less in volume)
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/122Adensityice.htm ...
That means if every bit of Arctic Ice melted, at most it would create something like a .3 meter ocean rise.
Yes, 1/3 of a meter, which is about 1 foot.
Permalink
ironivy Posted 1:37 pm
03 Dec 2008
Secondly, water would not be 92% less in volume once it had melted from an ice cube. You have the equation backwards--the ice would be about 9% larger than the water. Have you ever known a block of ice to melt down to 92% of the ice's volume?
Thirdly, and most importantly, the water would be added to the volume of the water that sits above the crust of the Earth--not the Earth's entire voulme. The volume of the oceans is about 1.35 billion km^3 and thus the melted ice would have a much higher effect.
Permalink
naught101 Posted 2:38 pm
03 Dec 2008
Jabailo: that article is about artic sea ice, it doesn't include the Arctic, Greenland, or glaciers elsewhere. And I don't think there would be much sea level rise from the arctic, considering that most of that ice is floating.
Also, you haven't considered thermal expansion.
Here's an article from an AGW skeptic that seems to have decent calculations: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.ht ...
Permalink
Alison Wiley Posted 4:09 pm
03 Dec 2008
I suggest starting with travel, a huge carbon emitter: http://www.diamondcutlife.org/rethinking-the-entitlement- ...
Alison Wiley at Diamond-Cut Life
Portland, Oregon
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:39 pm
03 Dec 2008
Islands depend on dwindling ocean life for food. Eco-friendly fishing and aquaculture are really good examples they could set. Renewably powered desalinization systems would address water conservation.
Waste recycling,organic fertilizer, and biogas backup energy production would help use limited farming space to the best advantage.
Wealthier island states and nations should be leading these efforts. And helping the poorer islands to adopt these GHG saving technologies.
Come on New Zealand. A manufacturing hub for green energy island economies? There's a plan Hillary could encourage, Hawaii could play a big part.
Permalink