Makes no difference whether you believe in AGW or think Algore is a pathological liar. Makes no difference if you're a vegan bicyclist with an organic farm or a barbecue chef who grows his own cows and drives a Humvee to cross the street. Makes no difference if you're an oil baron or a homeless drunk. There is no place on Earth to hide from what's coming.

In spades.

From the article:

I was under the impression that it was a very mixed bag--some projections were too high and some too low. Air temperature projections were certainly too high, and I think sea level projections were pretty much spot on. Which measurements are you referring to when you say "models consistently understate the gravity of the situation"?

Yes, the paper was published in 2011, but in analyzing the difference between observations and predictions it quotes mostly from papers published in the 2004-2009 time frame. Given that it is fairly easy to compare global temperature predictions to observations, I'm not sure if I trust a paper written in 2011 that doesn't even mention the pause in air temperature increases. They quote from a 2009 study that found that model predictions of global air temperatures were consistent with observations. However, by 2011 it was becoming obvious that the models were running hot, and the divergence has only increased since then.

Thanks though. For some reason I had thought that sea level predictions were pretty accurate, but it turns out they were way too low. I thought there were more examples of things where projections were more pessimistic than observations, but it seems that only applies to predictions of increased extreme weather and predictions of global temperatures.

Then the sudden increase of sea level of up to 20 feet MAY get people's attention so that they demand action. Till then nothing will happen except talk.

Because we have fuck-all at our disposal in our wonderful bag of technology to do much of anything except global triage if we see another "Madhouse Century" in our lifetimes. It would be a mad scramble for land and resources by the strongest surviving nations, hundreds of millions of casualties be damned.

You have to understand most oil refineries are on the coast, thus even if we can still pump oil (More and more oil is from deep off shore locations), could we refine the oil? Shipping of oil also comes into play, not so much as to actual sailing the ocean, but loading and unloading the tankers. If the West Antarctic Ice Sheet does a full collapse and world wide sea levels raise 20 feet, some of this ability will survive but at a much reduced rate. Russia, whose refineries would be the least affected, would have all the fuel it wants to do what ever it wants. Europe will have to turn to Russia for its fuel, for the Middle East would be a mess.

The US, whose oil production has increased in recent years, do to not only fracking oil but deep sea oil, will be the most affected. The US refineries are the one most threatened by any sea level raise (That is the problem having a coast line that is retreating from a center, you end up with low coast lines).

Sidenote: The West Coast of the US tends to raise very quickly, do to the fact it is being push up as the North American Plate floats over the Pacific Plate. Southern Europe tends to have a coast much like the US West Coast, do to the North African Plate pushing northward. In any sea level raise, London and the Netherlands would be the most affected, to far from Southern Europe to be lifted by the African Plate, and to far from Norway to be affected by that raise in mountains (The Highlands of Scotland is the remains of that part of the Appalachians Mountains that stayed with Europe, when Europe and North America broke apart).

Appalachian Mountains side note: The Appalachian Mountains are believed to have been one of the tallest mountain ranges ever, but then all but eroded away just before Europe and North America broke apart. The mountains were raised again at that time period, by mechanism not yet understood, but then divided itself since that time, first with the Highlands of Scotland going along with Europe and then the Ozarks separating itself from the rest with the raise of the Mississippi river.

If you want to see what happens with a 20 foot (about 7 meters) raise is world wide sea levels:

http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/

Just look at the above map for Lousianna and Texas and then look at the following map:



And Chart:



And you will see just under 50% of US oil refining capacities is on the coast in areas that would be affected by a 20 foot increase in world wide sea levels:

http://oilrefinerysystemoftheworld.blogspot.com/2012/05/us-oil-refineries-map.html

If the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would collapse, the US would be under pressure within about a month. At first the US will have to force all the refineries on the coast to refine as much oil as possible, till they are under water, this may reduce prices for about a month. Then those refineries will have to close and there goes just under 50% of US refining capacity. Price will then jump (Prices may jump from day one based on speculators buying up all the refined oil they can, a lot of people will be filling gas cans for later use).

It will take years to rebuild that capacity (and it may never be rebuilt, much of that capacity goes to refining oil that is shipped back overseas mostly to Mexico and South America, thus it may be more profitable to rebuilt the refineries in Venezuela, where the heavy crude of the future is).

Now, the world has survived at least one other period where the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapsed, thus it may be what we need as a signal before we really do ourselves harm.

Because even without fuel to travel across oceans, it's fully within our capabilities to hack/shoot/club millions of our fellow humans to death in the next city/state/nation over as the global system of trade collapses.

Lack of fuel as refineries go under might be the least of our concerns, as we lose ports that transport massive quantities of grain, machinery, and other goods that keep people alive today.

For example, one of the main problems with Sub Sahara Africa is the dumping of excess food from Europe and North America. Such dumping is so bad, that local farmers can NOT produce food at the same price people can buy food.

This is compounded by the demand for Africa and other third world countries to produce items on their farms that have no local market, but it is demand in the US and Europe. Thus you have farms producing crops for export, but the same countries are importing grain for their people to eat.

Several of the recent famines can be traced to this problem. The drought reduced the production of what ever the export crop was (which tend to be more dependent on water then native food sources) at the same time do to the low prices for grain and other food crops, not enough are planted to feed the country. Thus the country loses its export, and the ability to pay for the food it imports, but can not replace that food with domestic production. Worse, when just famine hit, Europe and the US export even more food for free, so the local farmers can not even break even in producing food during the famine and you return to the exportation of cash crops and importation of grains for food.

The collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) would lead to a massive reduction of such food imports, and for a long period of time not the months of recent famines. You will have some fighting, but sooner or later stabilizing food production will become a prime concern for even the rebels fighting today in Africa. I can see some fighting, but then stability for without stability no food production.

Similar situation will occur in South America, but I see actually no real fighting in South America (unlike Africa where real fighting will occur within months of the Collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS)).

Russia will see a huge boom, for it will be the least affected by the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), almost all of its refineries are well above sea level and thus not threatned by the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS).

North America is a different story. just under 50% of US oil refining capacity in located within the 20 feet raise of sea level a complete West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) would produce.

Here is a map of US Refineries along with a chart showing just under 50% of US refinining capacity is located in Texas and Louisiana:




http://oilrefinerysystemoftheworld.blogspot.com/2012/05/us-oil-refineries-map.html

Here is a map showing world wide affect of a 20 feet (about 7 meters) rise is sea levels:

http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/

Thus the US, will be hit hard. Even if the US can continue to produce oil, the ability to refine it is a bigger restriction. Now, some of the US refining capacity is used to refine oil for overseas use (Mexico and Venezuela ship a huge amount of oil to Texas to be refined and re imported for local use). The shipments along the coast tend to be by ocean going barges, so shipments up the Mississippi river could continue (unlike sea going tankers, which are restricted to deeper ports).

Side note: how this will affect traffic on the Mississippi river is unknown. The Mississippi River's BOTTOM is already below present sea level when it crosses the Missouri Border. thus you are looking at increase levels of that rivers AND even slower flow of that river. The flow is enough to keep salt water out of the river, but the flow will still slow down do to the increase amount of sea water the flow has to push out of its way to make it into the Gulf of Mexico. At present Ocean going ships can make it to Baton Rouge, but sea going barges can go even further up stream. The problem is the refineries are all below Baton Rouge.

Thus North America will see a massive reduction of REFINED oil, even if crude oil production is stable (and given MOST of the recent increase in crude oil production has been off shore production, that is open to question, but Fracking may out do the deep sea production during any period of massive increase in sea levels).

North America (both the US and Canada) is the most car dependent area of the world. North America has no real alternative to use of the Automobile to go to and from work, to go shopping, go to and from school (There are exceptions to this rule, New York City is the biggest, 80% of all movement is NON car related in New York City, but that is the exception to the general rule in North America). How does the US adjust to NOT having adequate fuel. During the 1970s you saw panic in the gas stations as to fuel shortages and talk of rationing, and that was do to a less then 10% reduction in oil, what about an almost 50% decrease? I see a lot of people in North America seeing a massive increase in the price of oil so that it becomes a choice between Rent (or mortgage payments), food or gasoline to go to and from work. The price will be rapid and massive, so that it will absorb all other income to families till the family has to choose to quit they for they decided to eat and pay their rent rather then buy gasoline to go to and from work (Some people will opt to give up housing, others wills starve but it will be a "Choice&quot .

Europe I see less of a problem for, while it is dependent on Middle Eastern Oil, it can also import oil from Russia via pipelines, train and trucks. Europe has always had high taxes on Gasoline. A side affect of the high price is that other alternative means of transportation stayed competitive. Thus a massive increase in the price of oil, will just force Europeans to look at other means of transportation. For people in North America, this also permit Europe to reserve fuel for use in places where it is willing to pay what ever the market will bring. i.e. $50 to $100 a gallon (the prices of gasoline smuggled into Sarajevo during the Balkan Wars of the 1990s). I do NOT see the price of oil reaching that level, but I mention it to show WHAT people will pay for fuel for high priority situations.

A good rule of thumb is that people will stop buying gasoline when it reaches their hourly income on a per gallon basis. Thus in 2008 as the price of oil reached the then US minimum wage of $5.25 per hour, it peaked and then dropped. To many minimum wage workers opt to walk, bike or quit they jobs rather then pay $4 a gallon of gasoline.

Side note: Speculators in oil took the price of oil to that height, but when it peaked it peaked for you started to see a drop in demand for oil at that high price, then speculators drove the price down, to a point where the marginal producers of oil stopped pumping, for the price was below they cost of production. After about a year price stabilized and has in the last year or so started a slow increase. My point is that the price peaked when minimum wage earners stopped buying, not hat speculators took it to that height.

North America is the least prepared to handle any shortage of oil. Mexico and Venezuela may be the only countries in a worse situation, mostly do to their refusal to increase the local price of oil AND they dependence of US refining of their oil. I expect unrest in both countries.

In North America, unrest will simmer as the price of oil goes through the roof. If Congress does what is required the US will survive with just unrest, but if Congress does NOT do what it needs to do, revolution is possible. Congress has to provide alternatives means of transportation, for subsiding the price of oil will NOT resolve the problem (such subsidize will delay and make worse the situation). Congress first has to make it clear that if one quit his job do to the price of oil, that is grounds to get unemployment. Second Congress has to provide support for biking to work and having people live close to work. That is about all Congress can do on a short term basis. Congress will also have to tell the Military that it has to reduce fuel usage to Zero, so that fuel can be used by other segments of the Economy (The Army will have to learn to March to training sites, and the Navy will have to learn to have its Nuclear Carriers haul their Escourt to where we want them, and in most situation that will be to stay in port to save fuel).

On a long term Basis Congress will have to pass laws to increase mass transit and electrical vehicles, but those are long term that will NOT affect people till after oil production and refining is restored in 2-3 years after the Collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS).

China and Japan is much like the Wet Coast of the US, you have a rapid increase in height do to the fact the North American Plate is raising over the Pacific Plate (Unlike the East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico, where you have a more gradual increase in height, for the North American Plate is retreating from both South America and Europe, thus no push upwards in that part of North America). Thus the affect on actual people on the coast will be minimal in both countries. Fuel shortage will be a factor, but China can import from Russia (Russia is building a new pipeline to China). Japan and Korea will be hurt, but it appears to be manageable, but like Europe both will pay way more the low income Americans for whatever oil is available.

India is similar to the East Coast of the US, low coast lands, that would be heavy affected by the increase in sea level.

The big concern is the Persian Gulf. This area imports food from North America, and exports oil. Do to the affect of the India subcontinent driving into China, Iran is much higher then the rest of the Persian Gulf states, thus the increase in world wide sea level will affect in only minimally. The rest of the Gulf States are much lower and will see massive lost of land near the seas. This will affect not only their ability to export oil, but import grain. That is a recipe for civil unrest. Iran also has the ability to import grain from Russia by truck and train, thus lower levels of unrest in Iran (While Iran is a net oil exporter, Iran imports most of its refined oil products, which will be cut off do to the increase in sea levels). Thus refined fuel will become short in Iran, which will require imports from Russia (That is if Russia has any to export after Europe and China). The Government of Iran is considered honest and effective, thus it can handle most civil unrest without having to resort to excessive violence (The Government has massive support in the more rural areas of Iran, it has support even in the Urban areas, but the opposition has its greatest support in such urban areas).

AS to Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf States, with exports of oil down, and the import of grain down, I see massive Civil Unrest. Unrest that may lead to the US asking Iran and Russia to intervene. Yes, the US may have to turn to Russia and Iran, for they will be the countries best able to move into the Persian Gulf for Russia will have a secure food and fuel situation, Iran will have a secure food and with Russia help fuel Situation and thus able to go into Saudi Arabia. The US, do to massive shortage of fuel may not be even able to send in a Nuclear Carrier for the simple fact the US may NOT have the fuel for the Jets on the Carrier.

Yes, the US will be the country most hurt by the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, and Russia would be the least affected. China will be in between, hurt on its coast, but not much inland and that will be off set by the ability to import fuel from Russia. IT is the middle east that will be the biggest mess, and a mess that may have to resolved with a massive Iranian/Russian Invasion.

It's been clear to anyone paying attention for years now that 2 degrees of warming was never a safe limit, only something to pacify the masses that we still had time to act while industry kept pumping out emissions.

"Don't worry, we have DECADES left to address the issue and get all sorts of fancy tech fixes in place. And in the meantime, it's PERFECTLY fine to burn a few gigatons more coal and oil, cause we got this."

... is probably to blame for the most deaths ...

The imminent collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet was first reported in a newspaper in 1922.

Furthermore, in early 2014, geologists concluded that the melting of the ice sheet is from below, not above. The good news is that it means global warming has nothing to do with it. The bad news is that the heat from within the earth melting from below reduces the friction of the ice against the earth's surface by introducing liquid water.

I'd love to read it!

The heat from "global warming" has indeed not caused much temperature change in the atmosphere, but that is because the majority of the heat has been warming the oceans raising their temperatures. I wonder if warmer oceans might have anything to do with melting glaciers from below.