Sea Level Rise Projections and Maps

[Sebastian Jones]

Theoretically, there is kind of progressions which have a limit but don't have a maximum.

You really think he meant that the human population will approach an asymptote?!

"Fortunately" we still have the catastrophic effects of the climate crisis to counter the potential for an asymptotic population trend....

[oren]

I think KK meant medical breakthroughs could modify the expected trajectory of human population, preventing the expected peaking, increasing pressure on the environment, and thus bringing about sharp sea level rise much sooner. Hope I understood correctly.
Population will off course peak due to the adverse results of climate change and the rest of the carrying capacity issues. The higher you fly, the faster you fall.

[bligh8]

Re:  The higher you fly, the faster you fall.

Terminal velocity for humans is about 240kph, so if one is falling over salt water with SLR in mind one would go splat somewhat sooner.

[Tom_Mazanec]

I'll repost my link to the model of Earth 3000 AD ("Dubia") here because I realized this is where it really belonged:
http://www.worlddreambank.org/D/DUBIA.HTM

[bbr2314]

I'll repost my link to the model of Earth 3000 AD ("Dubia") here because I realized this is where it really belonged:
http://www.worlddreambank.org/D/DUBIA.HTM

Melting 100% of Greenland by 3000AD would require approximately .1% losses each year (based on current mass balance). That would mean that the entirety of the SMB loss between 2002 and 2019, which I believe to be .1%, would be repeated EACH AND EVERY YEAR. That is a loss of 4,000 GT a year of ice, approximately 15X the mass loss we see each year today.

I feel like the impacts of such MASSIVE ice loss are always lost in these projections. If the changes since 2002 -- and 2012 in particular -- are enough to result in changes we have seen to date, a melt year where Greenland loses 2X the volume of its record loss year to date is going to potentially have exponentially worse impacts than what we have already witnessed. Even if the impacts aren't exponential, at what threshold does mass loss result in year without a summer for much of the NATL? 3X current worst to date? 4X? 5? 10X? 20X? Because if projections are correct we are going to hit each and every one of those numbers at some point in the relatively near future. And I do not believe that will be without dire consequence that temporarily halts or stalls the melting of the ice sheet (the only good result).