You write “Thus, for the 21st century sea level rise is an adaptation issue, not a mitigation issue.” That sounds like a very strong prioritization if you ask me. I agree that both are needed; that’s just not the message that I got from your post.

Because of the large inertia involved, mitigation should take the front seat though, as per my mopping analogy (where mopping is still needed as well of course). Arguably, we still have time to adapt, but mitigation should be a long term, continuous effort in order to keep the risks manageable (which we’ll still have to do; I’m not “anti-adaptation” by any means. Dean made a good point).

Mitigation is especially important with an issue like sea level rise, where adaptation to a SLR of a few tens of centimeters can probably be dealt with by most (though not all) countries, but where the absence of mitigation runs a high risk of an eventual SLR in excess of a metre, to which adaptation starts to be a lost battle for many densely populated coastal areas.

Bart

Probably because so many posters on this blog deny that humans have anything to mitigate. I think that Roger is right that we need to do both, and not try to make mitigation and adaptation fight with each other. Even if we can implement the strongest possible mitigation plans, there will be a lot to adapt to. But in order to do that, we have to move beyond the argument over whether there is anything to mitigate.

Rather tha prioritize mitigation over adaptation, I suggest that we focus on both at the same time. They address very different timescales, as you suggest, so why present them as trade offs as you have?

Your take on this paper seems to be different than the authors’. The title of the press release that you link to sais: “Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would Save Arctic Ice, Reduce Sea Level Rise” The lead author is quoted as saying: “This study provides some hope that we can avoid the worst impacts of climate change–if society can cut emissions substantially over the next several decades and continue major cuts through the century.”

One of their key results (last bullet point) is that as a result of strong mitigation “The climate system would stabilize by about 2100, instead of continuing to warm.” It’s unfortunate that they exclude the potentially most important (yet most uncertain) contributions to sea level rise (from melting of ice sheets), since these potentially have the biggest impact, especially in the longer term (multiple centuries). If through our future actions we commit the world to a sea level rise that could eventually be measured in meters rather than centimeters (cf. the Emian period as the first commenter pointed out), than to me that’s something worth trying to avoid. (I live in Holland, not Colorado)

Adaptation to sea level rise without mitigation is like mopping the floor while the tap is running. First order of business is to close the tap, than you start mopping.

Bart

You’re ignoring another possibility…preventing sea level rise, even while allowing emissions to proceed with “business as usual.”

“Even King Canute, a thousand years ago, knew that humans can’t stop the seas from rising and falling as nature wills.”

King Canute probably would have had a different opinion, if he’d died in 2035, instead of 1035.

I haven’t looked at the issue in tremendous detail, but based on a brief review, I think current technology and levels of wealth are sufficient to seriously consider the possibility of significantly reducing (by 50% or more) the rates of melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

Details to follow. (Lunch is almost over!) …or…:-(

This was exactly the message I took home from Solomon et al. recent PNAS article (http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704.full). There is very little that can be done (i.e. altering our emissions pathways) to make a sizeable dent in the magnitude of sea level rise that is to come—whatever that amount may be.

-Chip

Add the fact that sea levels have risen about 300 feet in the last 20,000 years; a few more inches doesn’t seem worth stopping the growth of the world’s economy.

And, as the data on previous interglacials shows, once the warmth and sea levels have reached their peak, we will move into a glacial period that last four or five times as long as the warm time. Warmer is always better than colder, even if it means higher oceans.

Even King Canute, a thousand years ago, knew that humans can’t stop the seas from rising and falling as nature wills. All we can do is cope, as we will.