Global Warming: Earth 10,000 AD

[zaphod2016]

I am trying to visualize what the Earth will look like circa 10,000 AD assuming present models of global warming are correct.

For example:

Here we see North America divided into three smaller continents.

I am looking for more like this, ideally a world map of what we would expect Earth to look like in 10,000 AD, specifically: where would the coastlines be?

I realize it is not an exact science, but the more accurate, the better.

Thanks in advance.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I don't think you'll find a model that dares to predict that far in the future.

 

[macdoc]

From NPR an animated version.

http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2008/jan/flooding/index.html

This is excellent as you can zoom in on any area and adjust the level rise by meter from 0 to 4

http://flood.firetree.net/

another similar

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Special:SeaLevel

http://westcoastclimateequity.org/2...o-inspire-immediate-action-on-global-warming/

Just google
global warming interactive coastline map

 

[GreyArea]

If you melt all ice on Earth, sea level would rise about 80 meters. See Table 1 here: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/ Someone made maps of what 100 m would look like here: http://vrstudio.buffalo.edu/~depape/warming/index.html .

Of course in 10,000 CE, things may yet be different. Lack of the weight of ice would lead to isostatic rebound. Antarctica, for example, would slowly rise. However, I don't know how quickly it would happen or how much it would change the world's coastlines.

Eight thousand years from now, I don't think we'd be in another ice age (not for another 7,000 years after that), so the Pape map is probably closest to the coastline you're looking for. But I Am Not A Scientist in any of the relevant fields (and neither is he).

 

[shadron]

I don't think that by any reach of the imagination will you see NA cut by an inland water way. At the very worst, the oceans will rise by a little over 200 feet. That's pretty gruesome for Florida and teh Gulf Coats, but the Great Plains are from a 1000 to 5000 feet in elevation. 8K years isn't going to make any great difference in elevations anywhere, or even outlines. You have it looking like the Cretaceous, before the Rockys started to grow.

 

[macdoc]

We are drifting slowly into an orbital configuration that would normally result in an ice age many thousand years out. A slow drift down from the Holocene optimum global temps started to reverse about 300 years ago as the industrial age arrived.

Explanation of orbital here....

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

Expectation now is that the next one is delayed or cancelled

Next Ice Age Delayed By Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels
ScienceDaily (Aug. 30, 2007) — Future ice ages may be delayed by up to half a million years by our burning of fossil fuels. That is the implication of recent work by Dr Toby Tyrrell of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton.

ttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070829193436.htm

from the same article

Humanity has to date burnt about 300 Gt C of fossil fuels. This work suggests that even if only 1000 Gt C (gigatonnes of carbon) are eventually burnt (out of total reserves of about 4000 Gt C) then it is likely that the next ice age will be skipped. Burning all recoverable fossil fuels could lead to avoidance of the next five ice ages.

and another more recent look

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/09/090903-arctic-warming-ice-age.html

It always make me feel a tad concerned every time I turn the ignition on.....the consequences remain for a very long time.

Consequences of our industrial civilization are are starting to arrive here and there with some very severe consequences to those that happen to get hit with a strong anomaly.

Those anomalies with increase in frequency.

Arguably sea level rise is not a near term concern.

Arguably see level rise long term is a very severe challenge to civilization as we know it as the maps indicate.

 

[mhaze]

I am trying to visualize what the Earth will look like circa 10,000 AD assuming present models of global warming are correct.

For example:

Here we see North America divided into three smaller continents.

I am looking for more like this, ideally a world map of what we would expect Earth to look like in 10,000 AD, specifically: where would the coastlines be?

I realize it is not an exact science, but the more accurate, the better.

Thanks in advance.

Good question.

We are considered overdue or nearly due for another ice age right now. So in 10,000 years we should be in the middle of one, and the configuration of the ice creeping toward the equator would be similar to what has occurred in the past.

Unless of course we figure out how to prevent this. Probably the best way would for every homeowner to have a special advanced twelve gigawatt ray gun and get up every morning and greet the oncoming glacier..


"Want some, bubba? Make my day. Just come one inch closer..."

 

[macdoc]

We are considered overdue or nearly due for another ice age right now.

Talk is cheap...have a climate science source for that speculation?

on the other hand - real scientists with hands on ....

The interglacial stage following Termination V was exceptionally long—28,000 years compared to, for example, the 12,000 years recorded so far in the present interglacial period. Given the similarities between this earlier warm period and today, our results may imply that without human intervention, a climate similar to the present one would extend well into the future.

good paper
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6992/full/nature02599.html

note even without human intervention.....

and quite a baseline

Here we report the recovery of a deep ice core from Dome C, Antarctica, that provides a climate record for the past 740,000 years.

 

[bit_pattern]

 

[ThermionicScott]

Time to invest in boat-making companies...

 

[macdoc]

see Water World

 

[Nosi]

Master the water...My son

 

[Dinwar]

I am trying to visualize what the Earth will look like circa 10,000 AD assuming present models of global warming are correct.

10,000 years ago I doubt we could have predicted today's globe. In a gross sense, yeah, we could, but the specifics (and the specifics are quite large) would be very difficult to predict with anything close to resembling accuracy. The thing is, such maps are just an altitude and a topo map. If the sea level will rise 200 feet you find the 200 foot topo line next to the ocean and color in everything below it with a colored pencil. This method has its uses, but it has its limitations as well.

For example, humans have this nasty habit of not liking to be drowned. We tend to protect things from water (all be it with only partial success). And a 200 foot tall wall isn't really all that big. 20 stories or so.

Another thing these maps never factor in is delta formation. If deposition exceeds sea level rise you'll get some pretty impressive deltas forming. And by "impressive" I mean "potentially the size of some states" (Louisiana is, essentially, just a number of deltas put together). Problem is, to predict what those would look like you need to know sediment load, sea level, current direction, and a number of other factors that these models can't really deal with all that well.

You also have fun things like depressions that are dammed somehow, and which cut loose all at once (happened a few times with the Mediterranean Sea). You'll note that the map in the OP doesn't show the Great Valley underwater. Is that because the artist didn't remember it, or because the San Joaquin River is blocked? And if that dam is breached....

Humans could further alter things by altering the water cycle. Well, not so much altering it as changing how much is in each reservoir. We know we have some pretty big underground reservoirs of water--I could see us looking for more, and storing water in them. It's got some advantages. It could help save some towns and cities, it'd keep the water from evaporating, it'd stabilize some land, etc. I'm not saying we WILL do something like that, but 10,000 years ago we couldn't have guessed (assuming someone back then was thinking about such things) that we'd have a major impact on the carbon cycle. A hundred years ago we didn't have any clue about it. We may change something about the water cycle, by intent or accident, which would affect the sea level, is all I'm saying.

I think the most accurate you can get is to do the topo-map-and-colored-pencil thing (obviously with computers and such), and fudge in the deltas and the like. Planing where to buy property may be a tad premature.

You have it looking like the Cretaceous, before the Rockys started to grow.

A very bad Cretaceous map (the Great Valley had water in it until fairly recently, certainly Cenozoic times). The Great Lakes are also missing, as is the St. Laurence Seaway. Oddly enough, the Mississippi River Delta is still there and the Hudson Bay (a bay in part because of isostatic depression) looks like its modern counterpart.

 

[zaphod2016]

Let me see if I have this right:

If 100% of polar ice melts, sea levels would rise about 80 meters (262 feet).

This image shows what Earth would look like following a 100 meter rise in sea level. Not nearly as dramatic as the first image I posted; surprisingly (to me) North and South America would stay connected above sea level.

Macdoc- those interactive maps are neat but most don't go up to 80+ meters. Does this map (above link) look accurate to you?

Also, if I understand you (Macdoc) correctly, global warming has already interrupted the next ice age, and even if we stopped all human activity right this moment, this cycle of warming is already in process and won't be easily stopped.

Does this mean the Earth will continue to warm until all polar ice is sea water? Far in the future (i.e. 10,000 AD) will the sea level be 80 meters higher than it is today?

Something else that confuses me- when the process reverses, and things start freezing again, will the ocean levels decrease again? Why? Is this because rain/sleet/snow will freeze into glaciers, which will stay above sea level on land? How quick/slow is this process compared will melting ice?

It seems freezing back into a glacier over land will take far, far longer than the ice caps melting. Am I completely wrong here?

Side note: according to the interactive map, my house will be underwater once sea levels rise 5-6 meters, and probably abandoned long before then. From what I understand, we can expect a 1-meter rise in the next 100 years. Does this mean I have 500-600 years to move? Assuming the doomsayers are right, when should we expect to abandon Florida?*

* the first person to joke about abandoning Florida right now forfeits all rights to orange juice and Disney World for the next decade

 

[zaphod2016]

10,000 years ago I doubt we could have predicted today's globe. In a gross sense, yeah, we could, but the specifics (and the specifics are quite large) would be very difficult to predict with anything close to resembling accuracy.

Understood. I am looking for the best educated guess we have at this moment, and fully accept the shortcomings of modern science.

The thing is, such maps are just an altitude and a topo map. If the sea level will rise 200 feet you find the 200 foot topo line next to the ocean and color in everything below it with a colored pencil. This method has its uses, but it has its limitations as well.

Closer to ~250 feet, which is about 1/3rd the height of the Hoover Dam. To put this in perspective, we would need a wall or dam more than 10 times taller than the New Orleans levees, and to protect everything through Miami, Florida would require a wall more than a thousand miles long.

You know how people say building a border fence is a pipe dream due to the length of the border? Now imagine building one 250+ feet tall, strong enough to hold back the ocean.

 

[Furcifer]

I think you need to clarify your question a little.

10000 years from now we should be off this rock and wrecking other planets

We should be able to control the weather well before then as well.

Are you assuming some sort of stagnation in technology? Or do human just die out naturally in 1000 years and the planet just coasts for 9000?

Within the next 100 years we should be a zero carbon Earth and have the technology to pull all of the CO2 out of the atmosphere, returning it to a pre-industrial revolution state.

I think you need to give more details for the predictions to be more detailed.

 

[Pixel42]

Something else that confuses me- when the process reverses, and things start freezing again, will the ocean levels decrease again? Why? Is this because rain/sleet/snow will freeze into glaciers, which will stay above sea level on land? How quick/slow is this process compared will melting ice?

AIUI most of the change in sea level when global temperatures change is due to thermal expansion and contraction of the water, rather than adding or subtracting water from melting/freezing ice.

 

[macdoc]

Also, if I understand you (Macdoc) correctly, global warming has already interrupted the next ice age, and even if we stopped all human activity right this moment, this cycle of warming is already in process and won't be easily stopped.

Note it says delayed and the articles do extrapolate if all extractable fossil fuel is burned -

Does this mean the Earth will continue to warm until all polar ice is sea water? Far in the future (i.e. 10,000 AD) will the sea level be 80 meters higher than it is today?

Unlikely - continuous warmth - there is a considerable hysteresis - for instance assessments are that if we stopped cold turkey with fossil carbon extraction/injection the warming would continue for a few decades until radiative balance was reached - another .6C or so.
This is one reason climate scientists tried to target a 2C maximium for this century to reduce impact.

It would take far longer than 10k years to reduce the ice on Antarctica to zero.A more realistic and potential scenario would be loss of all mid-latitude, Greenland and West Antarctica.
You'd have to look but I think Greenalnd alone is some 8m.

Something else that confuses me- when the process reverses, and things start freezing again, will the ocean levels decrease again? Why? Is this because rain/sleet/snow will freeze into glaciers, which will stay above sea level on land? How quick/slow is this process compared will melting ice?

Yes - that process of building ice on glaciers goes on even now - interior Antarctica is building glacial mass as area few others due to increases in atmospheric water vapour load.
But the balance between loss and gain has tipped sharply to the loss column in the last 30-40 years globally - you can see the graphs here
http://climaticidechronicles.org/20...-shows-continuation-of-long-term-melt-trends/

It seems freezing back into a glacier over land will take far, far longer than the ice caps melting. Am I completely wrong here?

no you are not wrong - there is asymmetry in the cycle as show here
http://www.authorstream.com/Present...ational-pull-as-Entertainment-ppt-powerpoint/

One reason for that is when warming water gets under ice - the ice breaks off and floats and breaks up. This is very true of western Antarctica where some grounded ice is kms below current sea level.....when warm ocean penetrates huge shelves break off and float and are dispersed.

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

But realize these are in time scales far far beyond your 10k years. Peaks and troughs in major ice events are in the 100k range.

Side note: according to the interactive map, my house will be underwater once sea levels rise 5-6 meters, and probably abandoned long before then. From what I understand, we can expect a 1-meter rise in the next 100 years. Does this mean I have 500-600 years to move? Assuming the doomsayers are right, when should we expect to abandon Florida?*

The problem with Florida is several fold.

It is flat so 1 meter is magnified in terms of area.
It has vulnerable fresh water aquifers
It has frequent hurricanes with storm surges to 5m.

AGW is seen to increase the strength of hurricanes tho not the frequency and it's strength that determines storm surge height.

Already insurance companies use this reality in their calculations.
http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/52411

In addition sealevel rise is not uniform worldwide and east coast US is early vulnerable.
This article shows the variations in the impacts and gives some of the reasons for the variations
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE54Q4SY20090527

Here is a good article on the uncertain aspects and points out how conservative the IPCC estimates are

http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1004/full/climate.2010.29.html

However once more sea level rise threat is distant in terms of AGW threat compared to the early anomalies emerging now in Russia, Pakistan and other vulnerable regions. More extremes more often.
It's not the averages that are of concern- it's the increasing frequency of extreme events.

That would be your concern in Florida as well.

 

[shadron]

Something else that confuses me- when the process reverses, and things start freezing again, will the ocean levels decrease again? Why? Is this because rain/sleet/snow will freeze into glaciers, which will stay above sea level on land? How quick/slow is this process compared will melting ice?

Glaciers and ice caps are, of course, built up of compacted snow, and later one by their creeping down hill. That snow never makes it back to the oceans until the glacier melts. Given the necessarily cold temperatures to cause one, building up is probably faster than melting, although this has been given the lie, to some extent, by the last 30 years.

Snow compacts about 9:1 into ice, so a foot of snow (might be a good yearly average in polar desert conditions) is about an 1.25" of glacial ice. Thicknesses of thousands of feet take tens of thousands of years.

 

[GreyArea]

It would take far longer than 10k years to reduce the ice on Antarctica to zero.A more realistic and potential scenario would be loss of all mid-latitude, Greenland and West Antarctica.

This article from Reuters doesn't precisely give a timeframe for all of Antarctica melting, but only suggests "over thousands of years". http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-32211120080229

Meanwhile, looking at only West Antarctica, "Pollard's study indicates that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet won't melt away too rapidly. He figures that will take at least 1,000 years, and more likely 2,000 to 3,000 years." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102066621

You'd have to look but I think Greenalnd alone is some 8m.

According to the USGS article I cited above, Greenland could give us 6.55 m. The Met Office says "around 7m", citing a chapter in a book from 2001: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/adcc/BookCh4Jan2006.pdf

They also look at how long it would take at particular temperatures to get different sea-level rises out of Greenland. See pages 30-31 of the Met report linked above. They don't seem to look beyond 1,000 years, however.

Regarding a complete melting of Greenland, in 2005 the Independent (British newspaper) reported "Computer models suggest that this would take at least 1,000 years...." I couldn't find that article in the Independent's website, but a copy can be found here.

AIUI most of the change in sea level when global temperatures change is due to thermal expansion and contraction of the water, rather than adding or subtracting water from melting/freezing ice.

As I understand it, most of the warming so far has led to thermal expansion of the ocean. But the ocean is reaching its limit, and the heat will have to go elsewhere. But that's just going from memory, not a citation.