Girt by sea, to underwater: See Australia post-warming

The final installment of the Garnaut Review this week didn’t raise anyone’s hopes. As the professor himself said, “If we fail, the failure of our generation will haunt humanity till the end of time.”

Heavy stuff. But what does failure really mean for Australia?

Given that 80% of Australians live in coastal areas, rising sea levels are an important issue. According to Garnaut, if we get the international community on board we’ll only see a 59cm rise. But that’s the best case scenario, Garnaut says a more realistic outcome is a target of 550ppm.

Here’s what our resident climate change scientist Dr Andrew Glikson had to say about what this means for sea levels:

  1. Based on a climate sensitivity of 3 degrees for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels, at 550 ppm CO2 which is twice the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm CO2, mean global temperatures will rise to about 3 degrees Celsius.
  2. A rise of global temperature of 3 degrees Celsius implies sea level rise of about 25 metres +/- 12 metres, as recorded from the mid-Pliocene (3 million years ago) and consistent with sea level rise/temperature relations during glacial terminations.
  3. Temperature rises to 3 degrees Celsius imply widespread desertification of mid-latitudes, the agricultural centres of the world.
  4. Natural sequestration of greenhouse gases occurs over time frames of centuries to millennia and no atmospheric mechanism is known that will stabilize CO2 levels over shorter periods.
  5. In terms of the longevity of civilization, allowing CO2 levels to rise further than they already are (387 ppm) would prove to be a unidirectional process.
  6. A target of 450 ppm is dangerous, being the atmospheric greenhouse gas level at which the ice sheets began to form in the late Eocene some 34 million years ago. A target of 550 ppm CO2 is a recipe for disaster.

Since neither Glikson or Garnaut gave us a visual aid, Crikey thought we’d check out what exactly 25 metres of rising sea will look like for Australia on this cool flood map. Alex Tingle of Fire Tree created these maps using raw data from NASA and google maps.

Unfortunately it only goes as far as 14 metres  — some would argue that’s scary enough. Below are some nice pictures of each capital city 14 metres below sea level, and a few positive points about flooding on a national level.

Sydney

Malcolm Turnbull would be able to appeal to a different Australian demographic — the homeless — as his waterside mansion gets swallowed by Sydney Harbour…

Melbourne

The Grand Prix will be forced to become a submarine race, allowing water to absorb the sounds of engines roaring and make the bikini clad babes appear rather sensible.

Brisbane

The beautiful river running through the city just got bigger! How lovely.

Hobart

The Tasmanian Parliament will be underwater. That can only be a good thing.

Darwin

We don’t know a lot about landmark location in Darwin, but if anyone does, send us an email!

Canberra

Canberra will be fine. That’s no silver lining.

Adelaide

Sport in Adelaide will come to an end, with Port Adelaide Park, Football Park, Cheltenham and Morphettville racecourses all submerged  — and since both the airports will be inoperable due to excess fluid, no one will be able to escape except via the Nullabor.

Perth

Perth’s riverside suburbs will be underwater, plus Burswood Casino (gambling problem solved), Rottnest Island (goodbye quokkas) and the home of the SAS at Cottesloe.

14 Comments

  1. MichaelT
    Posted Friday, 3 October 2008 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    Entertaining projections (aka wild guesses).

    Compare this from CSIRO: “Recent observations show the observed sea levels from tide gauges and satellites are tracking near the upper bound of the IPCC 2001 projections since the start of the projections in 1990 (Rahmstorf et al. 2007). This upper limit leads to a global-averaged sea-level rise by 2100 of **88 cm** compared to 1990 values.”

    So how do we get from 88 cm to 25 metres? That’s more than a 2,500% jump!

    I like the crack about the Tasmanian Parliament though.

  2. Andrew
    Posted Sunday, 5 October 2008 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    I know that everyone has to bag Canberra as a catharsis for whatever indignities they were forced to endure on some school excursion during their spotty years. Its not our fault you didn’t get any on the excursion, OK. You were repulsive at that age, you would not have gotten any in Sydney, Melbourne, New York or Paris either. Let it go.

    To the point. Canberra might not be under water, but it will not be fine because it will be close to a desert. Not a good thing for us territorians.

  3. JamesK
    Posted Saturday, 4 October 2008 at 8:48 am | Permalink

    I think Dave Liberts has hit the nail on the head.
    It’s all an evil real estate scam.

    AGW denialists are Lex Luthor to Rudd’s Superman. But I’m not sure I want to be saved….my lowbrow suburb may become beachfront realestate ……”sooner than you think” as Tim Flannery is wont to repeat but evidently not soon enough for me…..

    Oh and Bill….a significant number of Port Power supporters are already homeless…..

  4. Craig
    Posted Monday, 6 October 2008 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    These maps are very interesting, but I suspect that at least for Melbourne they underestimate the areas under threat.

    A rise of 2m will flood half of Flinders Street and nearly all of Southbank and Docklands.

    See these contour maps of Melbourne http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/info.cfm?top=94&pa=756&pg=3978 and get your highlighters out for some do-it-yourself flood prediction fun!

  5. reeksy
    Posted Friday, 3 October 2008 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    I think you’re onto something here Eleris / Chris … we don’t need pipelines and dams to get water to the capitals, we just need some way of diverting all this extra sea to Canberra.

  6. Ann Kempe
    Posted Friday, 3 October 2008 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    Oi what happened to the Sydney map?
    Ann

  7. JohnG
    Posted Friday, 3 October 2008 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    These global warming alarmists delight in scaring the pants off everyone.

    Given that the increase in CO2 levels since 1850 has averaged 0.68 ppm interpolated forward, and if nothing changes, by 2050 the atmospheric ccncentration will be 416 ppm. Associated with that the increase in sea levels at 2 cm per year will result in a rise of 8 cm by 2050.

    Even if the total increase in CO2 can be proved to be man-made, and that is a long way off yet, Australia’s share is only 1% of 7gt which is only 0.003% of total CO2 emissions. If we reduce our emissions to zero or, more importantly, even if we double our emissions it will make absolutely no difference at all. Our total annual CO2 emissions are equal to about one day of emissions in China. We are going to be slugged with huge price rises in energy et al for no man-made change in the climate at all

  8. Dave Liberts
    Posted Friday, 3 October 2008 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    Ooh, with a bit of luck our place will be beachfront. Hopefully not 1 metre underwater. Looks pretty close either way.

  9. ANDREW
    Posted Monday, 6 October 2008 at 11:13 pm | Permalink

    I gather that a lot of the uncertainty about the amount of rise comes from factoring in the fate of large ice sheets. If the antarctic or greenland sheets melt then there is certainly enough water to raise sea level by several meters.These do seem to be melting quite a bit faster than was anticipated in earlier predictions, an they probably don’t melt in a linear fashion since the melting accellerates more melting until large chunks just break off and float away to warmer climes.

    As an aside re the venom directed a Garnault for authoring the report - he is really just the messenger for a whole lot of science. He could be the most puffed up, the most highly paid, the most annoying of bureaucrats and it would not make one whit of diffrence to the findings. Its not just false prophets that used to get stoned, it was anyone with a new idea.

  10. Ted O'Brien
    Posted Friday, 3 October 2008 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

    How much has the sea level risen at Fort Denison during the last two decades? How much of that last year?

  11. JohnG
    Posted Friday, 3 October 2008 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    Sorry, there is a typo im my previous post.

    The increase in sea levels is calculated at 2mm per year NOT 2cm.

  12. JamesK
    Posted Saturday, 4 October 2008 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    Or it could be a double whammy confidence trick. IPCC members could be buying up cheap real estate 20m above sea level in coastal cities around the world……. induce panic buying and selling amongst the natives and then sell knowing all the while that sea levels are actually rising minuscule increments…..then buy beachfront….

  13. Bill
    Posted Friday, 3 October 2008 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

    How good is this? If the prediction is correct a significant number of Port Power supporters will be drowned and or homeless.

  14. Petert
    Posted Friday, 3 October 2008 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

    The best news is that it’s Garnaut’s final instralment. How much have we paid this inflated mandarin to tell us nothing we haven’t already heard ad nauseum?

    And I presume he will be paying it back with interest when his predictions fail to eventuate?

    In the good old days they used to stone the false prophets!