The Sea Level Projections Of USACE EC 1165-2-211 GEER 2010
-
Upload
kris-esterson -
Category
Documents
-
view
541 -
download
1
description
Transcript of The Sea Level Projections Of USACE EC 1165-2-211 GEER 2010
The Sea Level Projections of USACE EC 1165-2-211 in Context
Kris Esterson & Sergey GorlachevEverglades Project Joint Venture
GEER 2010Greater Everglades Ecosystem RestorationThe Greater Everglades: A Living Laboratory of ChangeJuly 14, 2010
OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATION
How are SLR projections are developed using USACE guidance (EC 1165-2-211)?
EC projections in the context of:
•Latest scientific literature on sea level rise•Other projections in use in the region•Related climate change effects•Role in decision support
HOW ARE THE PROJECTIONS DEVELOPED?
Naples Tide Station Record
Record exceeds 40yr minimum
High Rate Contribution (standard worldwide)
Intermediate Rate Contribution (standard worldwide)
EC’s projections connected to orthometric and tidal datums
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN THE
SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE
Responding to Changes in Sea Level:
Engineering Implications
NRC, 1987
The source of the EC’s
High and Intermediate
Curves
Sea Level Projections from the Literature
1.43m
0.18m
USACE EC 1165-2-211For Naples, FL
From Rahmstorf (2010)
OTHER PROJECTION METHODOLOGIES
2050 2100
0 ft
6 ft
1.09’ (34cm) for 2100 (Yellow Book, 1999)
3 ft
1.7’ by 2100 (CGM 16, 2004)
2030
?
?
2 ft
1 ft
4 ft
5 ft
2000
SFRPC 10% Worst Case
SFRPC 50% Moderate Case
SFRPC 90% Least Case
SLR Projections & Planning Standards for South Florida
>1.5’ for ~2059 (Miami-Dade., 2009)
0.5’ SFWMD Sensitivity Test (Trimble, 1998)
0.48’ (15cm) for 2050 (Yellow Book, 1999)
EC 11
65-2
-211
High
EC 1165-2-211 Intermediate
>3-5’ for ~2100 (Miami-Dade., 2009)
0.8’ by 2050 (CGM 16, 2004)
2.1” to 1’ for 2030 (Broward Co., 2009)
EC 1165-2-211 Historic
NRC 2nd Biennial Review (2008) “not much more than 3 feet”
?
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SCENARIOS
Drivers Stressors Impacts
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CO2Ocean
Acidification
Sea Level Rise
Hurricane Intensity
Precipitation Change
Increased Global
Temperature
Impacts to Natural and
Built Environments
Typical SLR Impact Assessment
Drivers Stressors Impacts
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CO2Ocean
Acidification
Sea Level Rise
Hurricane Intensity
Precipitation Change
Increased Global
Temperature
Impacts to Natural and
Built Environments
Exploring Causation
What GHG emissions scenario would produce this SLR?
Actual Emissions vs IPCC SRES Scenarios
Raupach et al. 2007, PNAS, updated; Le Quéré et al. 2009, Nature Geoscience; International Monetary Fund 2009
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Fo
ssil
Fu
el E
mis
sio
n (
GtC
y-1)
5
6
7
8
9
10
A1B
A1FI
A1T
A2
B1
B2
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
International Energy Agency
EC “High” SLR Projection
EC “Intermediate”
EC “Historic”
Source: Global Carbon Project
RELATED EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
What other climate change effects are related to this SLR scenario?
Drivers Stressors Impacts
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CO2Ocean
Acidification
Sea Level Rise
Hurricane Intensity
Precipitation Change
Increased Global
Temperature
Impacts to Natural and
Built Environments
What Climate Effects are Associated with a “High” SLR Scenario?
Accelerated SLR cannot occur in a vacuum
UTILITY AND LIMITATIONS IN DECISION SUPPORT
EC’s Projections & Decision Support
Scenarios- End of academic process and start of decision support.
Scenarios- Three scenarios with equal chance of occurrence.
Not probabilistic- No “most likely” projection. Not predictions/forecasts- They bound rather than hide
uncertainty. Multiple futures rather than single line forecasts.
No information on “surprises”- Smooth projections don’t describe potential surprises such as leaps in the rate of rise
EC’s Projections & Decision Support
Not probabilistic- Makes traditional risk assessment unclear. Calculation of traditional risk requires probabilities.
Not predictions/forecasts- Makes cost-benefit analysis difficult as benefits may vary depending on SLR scenario. Complicates engineering design.
No information on “surprises”- Management strategies (AM, SBP) based on SLR projections may not fully incorporate the range of potential outcomes.
Questions?