Image from: wikimedia.org

Tony Soprano's Guide to Global Warming

Recently Tony Soprano held a meeting.

Tony invited some gamblers he knew to help him explain the latest IPCC policy maker's summary released in Paris in early February to his business partners and associates. The purpose of the meeting was to become aware of some of the possible business implications stemming from the summary.

Copies of the summary report were handed all attendees and also note pads with pencils. (Copies of the document from IPCC can be downloaded from the same place Tony Soprano got it:)

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_PlenaryApproved.pdf

Pitchers of ice water and glasses on place mats were placed before each attendee.

The barmaids left the room and Johnny Canetti and Willie Franks closed the double doors to the entrance of the meeting room and stood guard outside.

`
`

`

`
Image: IPCC

Image: NOAA

Tony Soprano (standing):

I want to introduce you all to our guests, and thank them for coming. Would our guests stand up? Please.

Tony Soprano:

Okay. This here is Dr. William G. Oringdolph.

We call him "Oreo" at the card games, and he is into us for 380K, and it don't look too good for him.

But since I know he is a Climate Scientist, when he isn't gambling, I knew he would be interested in working off some of what he owes me by explaining how this report, this "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers" might affect us and our businesses in the future. Oreo says this here report is the first of three reports that are coming out and we will meet back here again to discuss them at the right time.

Tony Soprano

And this other guy. He's also a player. His name is Dr. John R. Thatcher, and we call him "Johnny."

He's into us for 200K, give or take. Johnny is a Physical Scientist, but he has three Ph D's, that's three doctorate degree's, one in chemistry, and one in biology, in addition to his one in materials science.

Tony Soprano:
So look, we got at least a half a million worth of expertise and I can only say we are "lucky" to have them still here with us, if you know what I mean. So lets give 'em a big welcoming hand and have Oreo and Johnny tell us what's what.

`
Applause: (enthusiastic, clapping Stops when Tony stops.)
`

Tony Soprano sits and John Thatcher sits.
`

Dr. William G. Oringdolph: standing: (Big Wide Grin)

Thank you all for that warm welcome! I really, really appreciate Mr. Soprano providing me with this opportunity to address you. I hope you all enjoy this presentation and when we are done, both John and I will be happy to answer your questions. I have most of this in a PowerPoint presentation, and If I can direct your attention to the screen down there at the end of the table, we will begin.

Dr. William G. Oringdolph. "Oreo" turns on the display with a tap of the computer.

A formatted display comes on the screen.

[This panel shows the anticipated vanishing of the polar arctic summer sea ice by the end of the century]

Human and natural drivers of climate change.
--Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (see Figure SPM-1). That figure is on page 7. The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture."

--Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas (see Figure SPM-2). The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm(3) in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores. The annual carbon dioxide concentration growth-rate was larger during the last 10 years (1995 – 2005 average: 1.9 ppm per year), than it has been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960–2005 average: 1.4 ppm per year) although there is year-to-year variability in growth rates.

Bingo Patricioni:

Tony, Tony. I can't read that. What does it say?

Tony Soprano:

It's Okay, Bingo.

Oreo, he understands okay; Bingo just can't read.

Brain damage in a, uh, inter-family accident, forgot how to read.

So if you can read it to us.

Dr. William G. Oringdolph

Certainly, Certainly.

Dr. William G. Oringdolph reads from the screen.

Human and natural drivers of climate change . . . .

He reads the IPCC Text
He finishes the Text on screen.

Greek Poponopolus:

Pardon me, Doc.

Tony, What is this talking about? Antoth-pro-genic? Carbon dioxide? The boys use that carbon dioxide stuff, like in welding different kinds of metal stuff.

And methane? Like Cow's Farts?

And nitrous oxide? That's laughing gas. When the dentist uses it on me, one of the boys stands there and makes sure everything is OK. This gas gonna make everybody laugh a lot?

Ice cores? What are they and where they get those?

Tony Soprano:

Okay Greek, lets see what the answers are.

Oreo, Lets let Dr. Johnny answer those questions.
`

Dr. John Thatcher: (stands)

Sure. Glad to.

Good questions, all of them.

The word is "an-throw-po-gen-ic" and anthropogenic means generated by man, 'man-made', or because of man.
`

IMAGES: USGS-NICL

Dr. John Thatcher:

Ice cores.

Ice cores are long round cylindrical chunks of glacier ice drilled with hollow pipe coring bits to bring out of the drill hole, a core of ice, the long solid piece of ice the bit 'drills' around.

Cut plan for a typical
5.25-inch diameter core.

Dr. John Thatcher:

Before researchers begin to analyze the ice, they have reached agreement on how they are going to slice it up. If federal money has been in the acquisition of the ice core, like the drilling phase and such, the ice goes possibly to one of the federal sites like the National Ice Core Laboratory in Lakewood, Colorado near, Denver.

These cores have been drilled out of very old glaciers. Most of the ice cores have been drilled out of the huge glacial fields of Greenland, northeast of us and East of Canada. Uh. . . Canada is our neighbor to the north.

The "oldest ice" ever brought to the surface is from Antarctica, which is at the Earth's South Pole. The depth of the ice from which that ice core came was 10,700 feet. It was just above where the ice turns to 'slush' because of the Earth's internal heat, the heat that drives volcanoes. The ice brought up is thought to be 900,000 years old at the bottom, but people are still examining it to be sure.

Ice cores from Antarctica have been carefully examined through a length of time of more than 650,000 years.

What do we examine in those ice cores? One of the things we examine are the tiny 'air bubbles' that are trapped inside the ice in the ice core. These little bubbles in the ice cores, just like the tiny bubbles in the ice cubes in the glasses of water sitting on the table, have air, have gases from the period of time when they were frozen into the snowflakes and then into the ice. For example, if we took the "air" in one of the bubbles in any of the ice cubes in your drinks, and took it to the laboratory, we would find it contains at least 383 parts per million carbon dioxide. That "parts per million" we usually call "ppm" means that the time at which the ice cube was made was in the year 2007. If our measurements are very precise, we can even tell you that ice was made here, in New Jersey, in such and such month. Why can I say that? I have a lab nearby that reads and records the daily atmospheric concentrations of a variety of gases in the air -- and we could compare the values. By the way. The 383 is the 'background' value, northern hemisphere. Here around 'Jersey it is a little higher due to local emissions here and in other states, so we might see some local values of 385 or 390, but if the ice cubes were made within 50 miles of here we could determine the month.

These old cores show that carbon dioxide was always between 180 ppm and 300 ppm during the prior 650,000 years. However, now (2007) it is 383 ppm. Methane was never higher than 750 parts per billion (ppb) in this timescale, but now it stands at 1,780 ppb.

The rate of this gas change is even more dramatic. From the past, from the ice cores, we see increases in carbon dioxide never exceeding 30 ppm in 1,000 years -- and yet now carbon dioxide has risen by 30 ppm in the last 17 years.

`
[There are natural seasonal variations in the amount of methane. Since methane is 'lighter' than standard air, it floats to higher altitudes and accumulates. Natural chemical processes make methane in the higher atmosphere decay, but it's lifetime before decay has a substantial effect on climate through forcing. An excess of methane is growing and accumulating in the stratosphere and is now driven by anthropogenic methane release activities. These activities are extending the atmospheric lifetime of the gas far beyond the natural seasonal fluctuation and are forcing the climate.]

Carbon dioxide. The main anthropogenic contributions and rises in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes from our burning of fossil fuels, which are peat, coal, and oil and gasoline, diesel . . .

`
[Panel shows the mass of Carbon via CO2 in atmosphere]

Tommy Hossa:

That is why you can get killed in a garage with the motor running, isn't it?

Nicky Gocinni:

No, No. That's carbon monoxide.

The guy in the garage with the car running -- that was carbon MONoxide.

Carbon DIoxide is like that dude done with the plastic bag on his head.

That's carbon dioxide. Like his hands was tied. . . you know, that was carbon dioxide. . ? He exhaled carbon dioxide...Right . . ?

Dr. John Thatcher:

Yes. Urhm. Ah. . .

That's right. Uhhh . . . Probably asphyxiation. Uh . . . suffocation. . . When the partial pressure for oxygen drops below 17.5% -18%. . .

The carbon dioxide plays a very important part in warming the earth's climate because so much is produced. It is transparent to the shorter radiation frequencies of our Sun, and most of the Sun's energy output is in visible light, and carbon dioxide is transparent to those frequencies. So sunlight from a 5750 degree black body goes right through the air to the surface, and is absorbed and the energy stolen from it and degraded to a lower temperature and now it is infrared and it is blocked from escaping back to space by the carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

Carbon dioxide is absorptive and opaque to the longer infrared radiations. That is, the carbon dioxide absorbs the energy and the atmosphere with carbon dioxide in it heats up. The infrared, the longer frequencies are unable to get reflected back through the atmosphere to space, those infrared frequencies can't get through the carbon dioxide to spread away like light in space -- so it gets warm, globally warm.

The only way for an object in space, like a planet, or a star, or a hot piece of steel, to get rid of it's heat, to cool down, is to radiate it away. Space is a vacuum. It is like the entire Earth is contained in one of those thermos bottles for coffee. . .it stays warm, because the only way a body in a vacuum can cool off, is to radiate the heat away. With the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that solar energy heats up the atmosphere, and finally at some level, eventually, the infrared is radiated to space, but it comes from the infrared portion of the spectrum which does not carry away as much energy as the shorter frequencies.
It gets warm and stays warm for a long time, at least relative to a person’s lifespan.

For every ton of carbon consumed and combined with oxygen, the total weight of carbon dioxide dumped into the atmosphere is 3.67 tons. This really ads up. For example, Mr. Soprano's cement businesses release a lot of carbon dioxide as a by product...and even when you pour concrete, the cement sets and releases carbon dioxide for years. . .

Tony Soprano:

That’s kind of ironic. We got into the cement businesses to clean up the money, and it does a good job. But now we are having to spend money on them to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions. That is helping clean up more money. From that position, this Climate Change is helping us. What I hope you gonna tell us with this and the next reports is what other opportunities and costs we will have as a result, so you boys listen to these guys tell us what is happening here and keep open for investment ideas. Go ahead, sorry I interrupted you. . .

Dr. John Thatcher:

You make some really good points there, Mr. Soprano, so that is surely no interruption. Thank you!

Dr. John Thatcher:

Nitrous Oxide. Yes. That is laughing gas. We use some of it in whipped cream sprays as the propellant. It is a powerful greenhouse gas, and gets along in the presence of carbon dioxide and contributes as though there were 300 times as much carbon dioxide. 300 GWP means 300 times the Greenhouse Warming Potential of carbon dioxide.

Now methane, is not really cow flatulence, but belching. Each cow belches over half a cubic meter of methane every day, and methane is 20-some times as effective as carbon dioxide in heating the climate. Cows are four-stomached ruminants, and with the help of the bacteria in them can turn grass and even woody plants into food. The bacteria helping the digestion in cows produce the methane, and most of the methane produced by the bacteria is belched from the cow’s mouth.

This graphic here shows the change in the top 3000 meters of the ocean, nearly 9850 feet down in the ocean, the temperature is rising. It takes a lot of energy to heat the oceans--you know how long it takes to heat a gallon of water on the stove. But this tiny rise in temperature results in the ocean expanding a little, its volume increases from the heating.

The heat capacity of the oceans is immense, and it responds slowly. The reason this is of interest is in possible means of storing sequestered CO2 in the ocean. At the storage pressure, the temperature of the ocean has to stay low enough to assure the CO2 stays where we want to keep it, so the temperature of the deep ocean is important to the CO2 situation. Also, if it gets too warm, it will release the CO2 that is down there now.

Now. . . these diagrams and charts show some of the problems . . . and the ones we want to get to are the ones that show how the sea level is going to rise, and how much by the end of the century we are in. . .

Tommy Hossa

But what you said about the cement. Does this mean we gotta cut back on the cement we use for over shoes? We can still dump garbage like that offshore, can't we? You know, we feedin' the fishes.

Dr. John Thatcher:

Well, on those matters I think Mr. Soprano would have good advice with respect to climate.

Tony Soprano nods, smiles that little smile.

Dr. William G. Oringdolph.

And this brings us to the mechanisms which make these gases and others, "bad" to have in excessive amounts in the atmosphere -- how the greenhouse effect "works," in simple terms.
============================================================

`
`
`Carbon dioxide
`
`
`

`
`
`Methane
`
`
`
`

`
`Nitrous Oxide
`

=============================================================

Dr. William G. Oringdolph.

These are representations of the three main gases, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide that human activity caused to reach "climate forcing" values. That means, simply, that these gases have now reached atmospheric presence in quantities that "force" the climate of our planet to change.
`

`

Dr. William G. Oringdolph.

We keep putting on the screen this graphic from the IPCC to reinforce several things about the future. When you see the graphic it is weak on numbers, but strong on the lines and the time.

There are no numeric values associated with this graph -- except the 100 years and the 1000 year scales on the x-axis -- the horizontal axis -- of the graph. And what this indicates is that it is impossible to stop the man-caused climate change that our leadership and governments have ignored, and in some instances, are still ignoring. Of course, climate changes over long periods of time; geological events, volcanic activity, and how bright the Sun shines all contribute to the climate and the weather.

That is what "climate forcing" means. As you can see, there are no temperature values associated with the stabilization of carbon dioxide, though that is the most concerning and important part of this dilemma we have confronted our species and other species with on the planet. Denial works to rest some people's minds. But what we have are solid chunks of data, solid observational and indisputable measurements, reproducible for all to measure on their own 'til their hearts are content.

That graph is what the measurements lead to, and since there is nothing but marks on it for 100 years and 1000 years -- it is not a graphic in dispute.

The amounts of these gases being introduced into the air we breathe above their natural non-man made introductions are being studied continuously and measured around the world.

Although it has been fashionable to deny the man-caused portion of this forcing of climate -- the data, the observations -- point in the other direction. It is man-caused. And right now it is unstoppable because we are not developing the means to stop it, and it takes nature a long time to cleanse these excesses from the air.

In fact, this table contains a list of the most egregious, that is the uhh. . . "worst" of the problem emissions, the gases connected to man's activities.

a 100 year time horizon

b The methane GWP includes the direct effects and those indirect effects due to the production of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor. The indirect effect due to the production of CO2is not included.

Dr. William G. Oringdolph.

Many of these gases occur naturally, and some are not natural. For example, the HFC group of gases is man-made. These are the so-called Halocarbons, containing fluorine or chlorine. These seemed to be wonderful man-made gases that seemed inert and non toxic, but it turns out they were eating-up and destroying the ozone layer, the layer which shields us from the Sun's energetic ultraviolet the UV you hear about. The ozone layer stops most of that UV frequency which blinds us and destroys or damages many life process cellular functions. Bad sunburn.

The first column is the name of the gas.

The second column displays the average lifetime of any molecule of the gas, meaning how many years it takes for the right situation to come along to destroy or dissemble the particular gas molecule.

The third column shows how effective a greenhouse gas it is compared to the the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide, rated at "one."

That third column number is important in figuring out how much of the gas can be safely released into the atmosphere. In other words how much pollution we as a civilization or species can allow someone to dump into the atmosphere. Because of their effect on the protective ozone layer, many of those gases aren't allowed at all. You can also see that we really do not want to release excessive amounts of any of these.

It is also likely that the environmentally sane first international step, the Kyoto Accord, if implemented in an early incarnation form during the early 1990's -- would have made significant contributions to reducing this man-induced climate change.

Greek Poponopolus:

Who's fault, who's responsible, who's to blame, that the Teoyota thing is not being done. . . huh?

Dr. William G. Oringdolph.

That is Key-yo-toe.

Good question, and there is great blame to go around for all.

Per person, the US is by far the largest polluter on the planet.

You and I are to blame, in small part, and large part, for the current state of political affairs. We citizen's were remiss in letting large corporations have great economic power to engineer the destruction of our planet without regard to the environment or the life forms upon it as well as the citizens of nations, the people.

We have not enacted laws to control corporations through their formation of the corporation, their charter, their social responsibilities and their very existence within our civilization. We have allowed and expanded the profit making; sponsored the single-minded pursuit of money, and allowed this without a shred of social responsibility. He have allowed this to be concentrated in the hands of a very few people who exist without responsibility to the society which allows them to exist. That must change.

It is almost like these figures are top secret, but in 2005, the US emitted over 8.130 trillion kilograms of CO2. Worldwide the total emissions were over 30.0 trillion kilograms of CO2. That is, the US emitted 8.130 / 30.0 x 100% = 27.1 % of the total CO2 emissions. Okay that is 8.13 billion tons of carbon dioxide divided over 300 million people, and that is 27.1 "tons!" for each person. That is 5% of the worlds population produces more than a quarter of the pollution.

Since the US is now manufacturing cars in China we will see a large increases of pollution due to US technology sold abroad. Some of these gases that attack the ozone and are greenhouse gases are still being produced, and therefore released. But our species is making progress...

[This panel indicates some success in reducing both the greenhouse and ozone destroying manufactured chemicals that had been released until regulations were invoked. These regulations and laws have demonstrably pointed a way to begin attacking the global warming issue that is similarly occurring. It may require substantive and inventive regulation to even now begin to make a difference to the climate forcing now on hand.]

Dr. William G. Oringdolph:[b]

Without being one bit political -- in the United States, the blame is mainly on our overblown and now-unconstitutional, Federal Government, those in Congress and in the White house, and in the Federal Courts. Both political parties are to blame -- but mainly the Republicans, these last dozen years and more.

The Congress ignored and continues to ignore the structural law of our Constitution, namely, ignoring Article V, and the fact that All 50 States of the union have called for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, and Congress is, by the Constitution's Article V, required to return power to the people to hold their convention . . .

Tony Soprano:

You are telling us that all 50 States have called for Congress to hold a new "Constitutional" Convention? All of them? And even I know Article V -- and it hasn't been done?

Dr. William G. Oringdolph:

That is correct. And further, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Constitution and its laws have no authority over the government. With respect to government, the Constitution is null and void. Only a few people know this, though it is hard to believe that the Justices are not aware of it.

Tony Soprano:

You are sayin' that the government and government people are not required to follow the Constitution and the Constitution's Laws . . . ?

Dr. William G. Oringdolph:

That is correct. If you are government or government-affiliated, you are constrained by no legislated or constitutional laws whatever.

Tony Soprano:

I'll talk to you later about this.
You tell us about the climate.

Dr. William G. Oringdolph.

Of course. Of course.

Re-focusing our attention to Climate, and Climate Change. . .

The gases we are talking about have roles in the greenhouse-effect, forcing climate change completely disproportionate to their direct atmospheric concentrations. As gases, just like the air, they have weights that we can measure by determining how many parts, or molecules of them are in a sample of air. We assume for each altitude at which air is sampled, that the mixing is thorough, and each canister or bottle of air we take back to the lab an analyze is representative of the air at the altitude sampled. The air is a substantial part of Earth. The air has all the hurricanes, tornadoes, and distributes water over the land.

Dr. Thatcher, this is one is your parts, you should take over.

Dr. John Thatcher:

Sure.
The mass of the atmosphere, because it changes seasonally is about 5,000 trillion metric tons. The humidity, the wetness of the air is not constant, and the land area is different with respect to the water area in the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere -- so water in the atmosphere differs seasonally between northern and southern hemispheres. The variation amounts to plus or minus 300 cubic kilometers on top of the amount which is the general humidity.

Now, according to our friends at National Center for Atmospheric Research, The total mean mass of the atmosphere is 5.1480×1018 kilograms that changes with the amount of water in it.

The value we use for the over all water in the atmosphere changes seasonally. But the water suspended in the air is estimated as 1.278×1016 kg and the dry air mass as 5.1352 ±0.0003×1018 kg."

These numbers look formidable, but they aren't, and I'll show you what that means.

Dr. John Thatcher walks to the black board near the screen uses a piece of chalk and rapidly writes numbers on the blackboard.
`
Dr. John Thatcher:

"By the way, water vapor is a greenhouse gas! It helps keep the Earth warm, and cool. In Climate Science we treat this as a "result" component, not a "forcing component." The reason we do not treat it as a "forcing component" is that water vapor, the individual molecule, does not have any real 'lifetime' in the air. And energy is involved either as acquiring, absorbing energy, or giving energy off as it changes phase -- solid, liquid, vapor -- in the air.

Water cleanly evaporates into the dry air in quantity. As the air containing water vapor rises into higher atmosphere it cools and condenses and you can see the results in the mountains of vapor piling into visible clouds, or over parts of the ocean building into clouds. Sometimes those cloud drops are re-evaporated into the air, and that requires energy being transfered from the air to the water vapor.

Many times you can observe the droplets in the high fringes of a cloud just vanishing, turning back into vapor. But it doesn't last very long. While it is a vapor, visible light pretty much passes right through it. Water vapor is there, but you do not see it.

So when conditions are right, water evaporates, and floats around for a very short time, a few days at most to two weeks, before it rains, or fogs, or snows to Earth. Water vapor collects on tiny dust or salt particles, and aerosols, and thereby cleans the air. Also as the air warms it holds more and more humidity and makes more clouds. Water modulates the climate and responds to changes all near an equilibrium established in the air.

Do clouds, water clouds, warm or cool the Earth? Both! And it is a remarkable and fortuitous equilibrium. As the CO2 and other gaseous components with long atmospheric lives trap the longer wave radiations that would have carried energy to space, the atmosphere warms. It holds more water, more water vapor. Because water is in this ever variable equilibrium condition, we will have new equilibriums within the range of temperature conditions for which this can occur.

To point out the obvious, water vapor is beyond our ability to control; is not anthropogenic, and variations of concentrations in the air are a result of the air warming, not of the water vapor as a driving force in making the air warm!

We can say that, because if it were the case -- making the Earth warmer in a forcing condition-- we would be seeing the Earth losing its oceans to space. That will happen eventually, but not this round. It will require a great many more watts from the Sun than will be available until more than a billion years have passed.

Some areas really evaporate water into the air -- for example, about 3000 cubic miles of water evaporate from the Mediterranean every year. Makes a current at the straight of Gibraltar that could be exploited for power. But . . .

Dr. John Thatcher:

I haven't checked that out! Bill, have you? I did it in my head just now, and that is over 8 cubic kilometers a day through the Straits of Gibraltar if this were averaged over a year. . .I don't believe that. That would mean most of the evaporation would be in the summer and that would mean a lot more that 8 cubic kilometers... Well, gentlemen, before you invest in that project let me check it out.

Dr. William G. Oringdolph.

No, John. I'd heard it was a good place for a power plant. . .

Dr. John Thatcher:

Thanks. . .

Okay. A thousand kilograms of water is a cubic meter in size and is a metric ton in weight.

1000 kilograms of water = 1000 liters of water = 1 meter3 of water = 1 metric ton

Dr. John Thatcher:

A cubic kilometer of water weighs 1 trillion kilograms. . . . .

Imagine a box 1000 meters high, wide, and deep, full of water and it weighs . . . count the number of zero's ... 12 of them ...

1 kilometer3 = 1000m x 1000m x 1000m x 1000kg = 1 x 1012 kg, a trillion kilograms!

1 km3 = 1012kg of water.

Dr. John Thatcher:

These next two numbers with the "*" represent wet and dry air!

*5.1480 x1018 kg Wet air
*5.1352 x1018 kg Dry air
-0.0128 x1018 total water in air

The difference is a big number but we divide it by a trillion kilograms to find out how many cubic kilometers of water are in the air as our humidity and our weather . . .and here . . .

0.0128 x1018kg of water/1012kg of water =12,800 km3 of water afloat in the air

Or

3071.13 cubic miles of water in the air nearly all the time. On top of this, there could be +/- 60 to 70 cubic miles as additional regional humidity.

`

`
`

(fig)Changes in the area and volume of the two polar ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland are intricately linked to changes in global climate, and could result in sea-level changes that could severely affect the densely populated coastal regions on Earth. Melting of the West Antarctica part of the Antarctic ice sheet alone could cause a sea-level rise of approximately 6 m. The potential sea-level rise after melting of the entire Antarctic ice sheet is estimated to be 73 m. In spite of its importance, the mass balance (the net volumetric gain or loss) of the Antarctic ice sheet is poorly known; it is not known whether the ice sheet is growing or shrinking. As a result, measurement of changes in the Antarctic ice sheet has been given a very high priority in recommendations by the Polar Research Board of the National Research Council, by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), and by the National Science Foundation’s Office of Polar Programs.

`
`

`
`

=================

Figure 2. Wave-cut terraces on San Clemente
Island, California. Nearly horizontal surfaces, separated by step-like
cliffs, were created during former intervals of high sea level; the
highest terrace represents the oldest sea-level high stand. Because San
Clemente Island is slowly rising, terraces cut during an interglacial
continue to rise with the island during the following glacial interval.
When sea level rises during the next interglacial, a new wave-cut
terrace is eroded below the previous interglacial terrace. Geologists
can calculate the height of the former high sea levels by knowing the
tectonic uplift rate of the island. Photograph by Dan Muhs, USGS.

========================================================

Figure 3. Red shows areas along the Gulf
Coast and East Coast of the United States that would be flooded by a
10-meter rise in sea level. Population figures for 1996 (U.S. Bureau of
the Census, unpublished data, 1998) indicate that a 10-meter rise in
sea level would flood approximately 25 percent of the Nation's
population.

`
`

[This outline is Bangladesh, east of India, and depicts a sea level change of 1 and 3 meters.]

Dr. John Thatcher:

This panel above is crude, it is a rough outline. When typhoons make landfall here, there are often thousands of deaths from flooding. Rising sea level will make things much worse for peoples in this part of the world as well as elsewhere.

We have only a few more of the elements of the problem to cover, and some estimates.

`
`

Dr. William G. Oringdolph.

This panel we showed near the beginning of our talk on climate. I put it up again, so you can think about it once more in light of the few items we have touched upon.

This graphic tells the true story of the problem, and it actually hints at long term solutions. Because you can see temperature, and therefore, climate patterns stabilizing in the next few centuries according to this model from the IPCC, the question becomes, really, for the good of our species, and for the good of all the rest of the species with whom we share the Earth: Is this the best we can do? We do not yet know exactly where the stabilization will be.

Is this the best we can do?

Is there a way we might be able to make the place we live -- with all other forms of life -- a better place, a BETTER World? What are a few of the ways we can make the world BETTER?

``
Dr. William G. Oringdolph.

The answer to the Better World question has uncertainties and is fraught with changes that will affect the status of those who think their station in life is 'superior' to the rest of those sharing the world. We are going to address a few of the idealized but realizable options. This is not what the IPCC plans call for us . . . but we think you need to be aware of them.

The result of what we have produced as a species and a civilization are apparent -- in this graphic -- and we will take a short break and continue in 15 minutes.

Where is the restroom?

`
Tony Soprano:

Tommy, Take him and bring him back.

Johnny? You too?

Nicky, go with him.

--end part 1 of meeting-