Sea level rise by 2100, "nailed"! Between 7 and 82 centimeters

New predictions for sea level rise

Sea level graph from the University of Colorado is shown below:

uc_seallevel_2009r2

University of Bristol Press release issued 26 July 2009

Fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements have been used to place better constraints on future sea level rise, and to test sea level projections.

The results are published today in Nature Geoscience and predict that the amount of sea level rise by the end of this century will be between 7- 82 cm (0.22 to 2.69 feet)

– depending on the amount of warming that occurs – a figure similar to that projected by the IPCC report of 2007.

Placing limits on the amount of sea level rise over the next century is one of the most pressing challenges for climate scientists. The uncertainties around different methods to achieve accurate predictions are highly contentious because the response of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to warming is not well understood.

Dr Mark Siddall from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, together with colleagues from Switzerland and the US, used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements to reconstruct sea level fluctuations in response to changing climate for the past 22,000 years, a period that covers the transition from glacial maximum to the warm Holocene interglacial period.

By considering how sea level has responded to temperature since the end of the last glacial period, Siddall and colleagues predict that the amount of sea level rise by the end of this century will be similar to that projected by the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Dr Siddall said: “Given that the two approaches are entirely independent of each other, this result strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results. It is of vital importance that this semi-empirical result, based on a wealth of data from fossil corals, converges so closely with the IPCC estimates.

“Furthermore, as the time constant of the sea level response is 2,900 years, our model indicates that the impact of twentieth-century warming on sea level will continue for many centuries into the future. It will therefore constitute an important component of climate change in the future.”

The IPCC used sophisticated climate models to carry out their analysis, whereas Siddall and colleagues used a simple, conceptual model which is trained to match the sea level changes that have occurred since the end of the last ice age.

The new model explains much of the variability observed over the past 22,000 years and, in response to the minimum (1.1 oC) and maximum (6.4 oC) warming projected for AD 2100 by the IPCC model, this new model predicts, respectively, 7 and 82 cm of sea-level rise by the end of this century. The IPCC model predicted a slightly narrower range of sea level rise – between 18 and 76 cm.

The researchers emphasise that because we will be at least 200 years into a perturbed climate state by the end of this century, the lessons of long-term change in the past may be key to understanding future change.

Please contact Cherry Lewis for further information.

Further information:

The paper: Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level reconstructions. Mark Siddall, Thomas F. Stocker and Peter U. Clark. Nature Geoscience .

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
crosspatch

“The researchers emphasise that because we will be at least 200 years into a perturbed climate state by the end of this century”
So let me get this straight … they consider recover from the Little Ice Age a “perturbation”?

tokyoboy

“Between 7- 82 cm” is little more than a child’s guess.
None of the bastard prophets is alive in the year 2100.

CodeTech

Sounds like a real catastrope… Oh, the humanity! Why, at this rate, half of Florida will be underwater by the time we’re fixing all the computers for the Y10k bug!

Pieter F

“. . . predict that the amount of sea level rise by the end of this century will be between 7- 82 cm – depending on the amount of warming that occurs . . .”
That’s what we like—precision! Though I was hoping for something closer to just one order of magnitude variance from the low estimate to the high.
I’m glad too that they reminded us that it all depends on the amount of warming that occurs. Thank you Captain Obvious.

rbateman

“Furthermore, as the time constant of the sea level response is 2,900 years, our model indicates that the impact of twentieth-century warming on sea level will continue for many centuries into the future. It will therefore constitute an important component of climate change in the future.”
That’s what I call really tootin’ the horn over unproven predictions.
And how valueable is that model once a major cooling event hits?
About as valuable as “It’s never been a better time to buy a home” and Mortgage Backed Securities a sure thing.

Sandy

I predict that sea-levels will be lower in 2100 because a 60 year cooling warming cycle gives this century two cools and a warm.

savethesharks

Uh huh so sea levels fluctuate.
I run regularly through “hills” on the sandy, clayey coastal plain of Virginia where there are no hills.
Yet running through this forest at points you forget you are near the Atlantic and the Gulf Stream because hardwoods like beech and maple and then seasonal wild blueberries predominate. Then you cross a “hill” and the tupelos, bald cypress and spanish moss are staring you in the face.
Reality sets in as you are running along near one of the boundaries of the worlds’ great oceans and the hills thereto are not tectonic or volcanic.
They are sand dunes [now forested] which formed at an ancient ocean boundary during the Holocene Climatic Optimum…
Climate changes….that’s what it does.
And so does sea level….
No f-ing big deal….
SEA LEVEL CHANGE HAPPENS.
If we are smart we will learn to adjust to the natural cycles.
Chris
Norfolk, VA

Ray Boorman

It must be an authoritative study, as they used the range of warming predicted by IPCC 4 to calculate the possible sea level rises. Its a pity they didn’t do some detective work instead, & investigate if the data & methods used by the modellers whose papers were looked at, (not reviewed in the scientific sense), to produce IPCC 4, has any basis in reality.

Philip_B

It is of vital importance that this semi-empirical result
Semi-empirical is Climate_Science_Speak for, we took some real data, ran it through a model of unknown validity and produced these results.
Had they used telephone numbers instead, which are real data, the result would have been semi-empirical.

Models, and more models? Why don’t scientists use real time data readily available?
The analysis of 53 sea level stations, distributed all over the world,
suggests a decline of sea level by almost two feet, by 2100, if it
continues the downward trend observed over the last three years. Even
considering the average value for the last 9 years, this would lead to
a rise of only one inch during the XXI century.
The data used was obtained from the University of Hawaii, which has
the most updated data available on the Internet. Why is the official
data from the IPCC, and others, so different? Simply because it does
not take into account updated and recent data. According to the
Wikipedia page about sea level rise, the most recent data used in
international studies is related to 2003! The data used in this study
is updated up to May this year.
The original data and report is available through
http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2009/07/sea-level-decline.html
Ecotretas

Evan Jones

7 to 82 cm?
They do like to hedge their bets, don’t they?

Or how about: “Our models show conclusively that bees can’t fly.”

Ecotretas (23:13:47) :
I went to check the sea-level report, clicked through to here:
http://www.slideshare.net/Ecotretas/sealevel-1792065
But the website doesn’t load up so well, maybe due to my PC, but just to let you know the website might need some work…
Interested in the report though – I do wonder about these sea level figures, I expect they are open to manipulation or at least +ve bias by the warmers.

Not to mention that even if they hit the median we’re looking at 1 foot in 100 years which is to the low side of natural variability, ie. of practically 0 consequence.

Dr. Siddall and colleagues studied the precedent fluctuations of the sea level using the proper methodology. The problem is that their projections are based on speculations, i.e. the projections made by the IPCC based on a spurious climate sensitivity constrained by carbon dioxide.
I agree on the probabilities of increasing temperatures in the next centuries; however, I don’t attribute those changes to carbon dioxide produced by human activities, but to nature.
As I have said it many times here, the Earth is leaving off a regression phase caused by a prolonged icehouse. The natural fluctuations of temperature given in the past 12000 years have been of around 6 °C to 10 °C, so it would be quite normal a change of 6 °C to 10 °C.
Regarding the rising of the seal level, it has occurred many times in the geological records. The “movements” of the sea level usually occur in long alternate periods consisting of four phases:
1. Transgression phase, which consists of larger flooded continental areas.
2. Highstand phase, which is the maximum (highest) sea level.
3. Regression phase, the sea level retreats and the percentage of continental flooded diminishes.
4. Lowstand phase, which is the minimum (lowest) sea level.
The Earth has left the lowstand phase and perhaps is abandoning the regression phase for reentering to a transgression phase classical of a warmhouse period which has nothing to do with human activities.
Perhaps human activities could put us under genuine perils by socioeconomic reasons, not by environmental disasters. Nonetheless, the fluctuations are perfectly ordinary on this planet.
Unfortunately, not all the people are biologists. Heh! (It’s a joke) 😉

F Rasmin

7 to 82 centimetres and that is termed ‘nailed?’ I would not wish to live in a wooden house built by a carpenter who holds the same idea of ‘nailing’!
REPLY: It is sarcasm you know

Richard Heg

“Between 7- 82 cm”
Well at least they are honest that they have no idea. They may as well say our models show the rate of sea level rise depends on the rate of sea level rise.

Philip_B

Some background.
The 20th century sea levels rises are generally accepted (by climate science) to be be approx 2/3rds thermal expansion of the oceans, 1/3 glacial melt.
The problem is we don’t have any worthwhile measurements to back this up. It’s little more than speculation.
Someone here pointed out that you could account for 2/3rds of the sea level rise to aquifer water extraction and the rest to seepage from relic ice age bogs.
For those of those of you who haven’t been to the permafrost. It is one vast bog, beneath which there is a column of frozen water of varying depth. I have never seen an estimate of the amount of water stored in the permafrost, but I am sure it is a very large number.

NS,
As I can’t upload PDFs in blogger, I had to use slideshare. It works OK with me. I can send the PDF to whoever is interested. Please send me an email (look for the gmail email on the top left side of my blog), and I will send it back.
Ecotretas

crosspatch

So in short:
“Sea level rise will either slow, remain the same, or increase.”
That just about covers every possibility. I believe their conclusion has a chance of being 100% accurate.

HarryG

They predict that the amount of sea level rise by the end of this century will be between 7- 82 cm – depending on the amount of warming that occurs.
Does that mean if there is cooling that the level will fall by between 7-82 cm?
Is another way to express it 37.5 cm plus or minus 30.5cm or therabouts?

between 7 – 82 cm
Close enough for government work — if by “work” you mean trillion dollar Tax-and-Stifle economy-busting boondoggle programs designed by Enron-wannabe Euro-trash worshipping Nobel lariat demagoguing $cientists from the Alarmosphere …

tallbloke

“The new model explains much of the variability observed over the past 22,000 years and, in response to the minimum (1.1 oC) and maximum (6.4 oC) warming projected for AD 2100 by the IPCC model”
1.1oC relative to when and what baseline?

chillybean

I think they should give their models to the Met office, if they just change cm for F, the met office could say that this winter will average somewhere between 7F and 82F. That would be there most accurate forecast to date.

Communist

Richard Heg said: “Between 7- 82 cm” Well at least they are honest that they have no idea. They may as well say our models show the rate of sea level rise depends on the rate of sea level rise.
yep. That’s about right!

Anthony
With this sort of precision from the well funded climate industry now becoming the norm, you can work within the same high quality parameters and will never get a weather forecast wrong again (not that you do of course!)
“Tomorrow the high will be between 20 degrees and 100 degrees F, there will be between nil and 15 inches of rain and there will be anything from no cloud at all to heavy overcast skies….”
Tonyb

do i have to be climate scientist to draw linear extrapolation 90 years ahead? honest reply should be “we have no clue”.
I like announcements like “if Greenland ice sheet melts, sea level rise will be..” as some IPCC author let himself heard recently. We have similar joke “if the dog does not sh*t, he will crack”.

Rowgeo

“Furthermore, as the time constant of the sea level response is 2,900 years, our model indicates that the impact of twentieth-century warming on sea level will continue for many centuries into the future. It will therefore constitute an important component of climate change in the future.”
I smell a big dirty rat in this argument. Can I assume this effect works retroactively and that the climate three millenia ago (Roman hot period) is impacting sea level now? If this is the case then we should be looking at past climate (pre ‘anthropogenic’) rather than current climate as a significant contributor to the current sea level trends (increasing or declining).
And then there is the big picture. Milankovitch described orbital cycles influencing the earth’s climate. These cycles are observed in the 3.6 billion year geological record as workdwide synchronised progradational and retrogradational sediment depositional patterns in response to sea level fluctuations of 1cm to 100’s of metres. Deciphering the current sea level trend with a few years of data is akin to describing the shape of a building by examining a single molecule of its fabric. Its a small part of a much bigger picture.

Ron de Haan

This report, if taken seriously by the Dutch Government, would save them approx. 50 billion Euro planned for the adaption coastal and river defenses able to withstand a sea level rise of 7 meters by 2050.

Ron de Haan

Read about the latest “New Bluff” in Climate Alarmism here:
Jul 30, 2009
The New Bluff in Climate Alarmism
By Dr. David Evans
http://www.icecap.us (third column)

It is normal that kind of changes in climate and nature. But this changement is made by human being. It is unrecerseble and dangerous

Allan

Did they forget the minus sign before the eight?

Allan

Did they forget the minus sign before the seven? (mixing up my digits)

Hard Rain

“Between 7- 82 cm” – Wow, a variance of over 1000%. Imagine trying to figure out your monthly budget if your boss told you you were getting paid between $7 and $7000… Let alone allocate decades worth of “preventative” spending to avert climate catastrophe.
Reply: The math in your example is a bit off. Do you mean between 7 and 70 dollars? Or 700 and 7000?~ charles the moderator

jeroen

82cm is not a big deal. And that’s probaly not even going to happen.

pkatt

Are they using the Wheel.. Of … Oceanrise? Lemme guess then ran the simulation 78 times and it never hit the same level twice… Brilliant!

Urederra

Archaeologists Discover Roman Coastline – Two Miles Inland
I was looking for a famous roman harbour built in an english city two millennia ago at the mouth of a river and nowadays is about 1 or 2 miles inland, and I found that. I don’t know if it is the same city. Any help?

Curiousgeorge

More well meaning BS. “In response to the minimum (1.1 °C) and maximum (6.4 °C) warming projected for AD 2100 by the IPCC models………..” So that’s a pretty big assumption right there, but gives them an easy out.

Norm Milliard

Predicting the future is dicey at best. Certainly their is no penalty for failure, no followup statement by the media for wild statements that so frequently miss their mark.
Simultaneously brash predictions are the stuff that makes headlines.

Curiousgeorge

PS: Also, since most Americans don’t know the difference between a centimeter and carrot, here’s the translation: 2.75″ to 32.28″ .

Neil Jones

So the more heat you give the more melting you’ll get.
With deep thoughts like that I’m going to need a long lie down in a darkened room

Jarryd Beck

I want to know how they can claim that a worse estimate than the previous IPCC one is supposed to actually be useful in any way.

Alan the Brit

With computer model produced accuracy like that, we’d better forget heading back to the moon anytime too soon! Perspective:- The sea level @ Exmouth docks rises far more than this in a single day! Twice! Even more in a Spring tide. Another thing, I didn’t know the IPCC actually carried out any research of its own, but relied purely on GCMs. This guy implies they do by his language. Surely a computer model plugged withh the same faulty data, using the same faulty assumptions, will produce a similar answer? If I’ve said it before I apologise, but in engineering, if you get the wrong design approach at the start, no amount of computing power/reinforcement/steel,/concrete/masonry, will solve the problem. That’s why good consultants have a check stage part way through a design solution, just to make sure the designer is on the right track! How is this done for this type of research?
How daft people are to live of low level islands in the middle of the Pacific ocean, one sub-terrainian earthquake driven Tsunami & it’s all over! One tropical storm surge would be enough I would have thought.
Another thing, if all this crap is true, why do prices of sea-front properties remain so high? Did not one A. Gore recently spend a few of his hard earned squillions on such a property? If so, he clearly doesn’t believe in it. So why should we?
(I also heard that aerodynamically it is impossible for bees to fly).

Paul Coppin

One of the biggest casualties (and deservedly so) of the AGW mythology, is the sacred pig of “peer review”. Other than covering the editor’s derriere, it never meant anything, it still doesn’t, and the more crap that gets by, the more stupid its “authority” becomes. Oddly, the warmalarmists keep claiming Anthony is never “peer reviewed”… Apparently they don’t get what happens in every hour of every day on this blog. The warministas “peer review” process should be as thorough.

Jimmy Haigh

What if it gets colder?

grumpy

Can someone please send this to chief alarmist James Hansen so he can retract his silly statements like this,
“Despite uncertainties in reserve sizes, it is clear that if we burn all the fossil fuels, or even half of the remaining reserves, we will send the planet toward an ice-free state with sea level about 250 feet higher than today. It would take time for complete ice sheet disintegration to occur, but a chaotic situation would be created with changes occurring out of control of future generations.
from here http://solveclimate.com/blog/20090715/james-hansen-climate-tipping-points-and-political-leadership

Fernando

Independent: but not so
“Dr Siddall said: “Given that the two approaches are entirely independent of each other, this result strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results. It is of vital importance that this semi-empirical result, based on a wealth of data from fossil corals, converges so closely with the IPCC estimates”
https://www.bris.ac.uk/iris/publications/details/person_key$XoQfstn0O6ulBYA9LdZ70VNazTiamC/personPublications
111049 Hansen, J, Sato, M, Kerecha, P, Russel, G, Lea, DW & Siddall, M. ‘Climate change and trace gases’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 365 (1856), (pp. 1925-1954), 2007. ISSN: 1364-503X 10.1098/rsta.2007.2052
the egg and chicken

Phil M

HarryG (00:11:06) :
“Does that mean if there is cooling that the level will fall by between 7-82 cm?”
– they don’t say anything about that senario
“Is another way to express it 37.5 cm plus or minus 30.5cm or therabouts?”
– no, another way to express it 44.5cm +/- 37.5cm

Bill Illis

I remember Hansen’s AGU presentation where he stated the CO2 climate sensitivity was “nailed” at 3.0C per doubling based on the ice age temperature changes.
I’ve been doing some experimenting and it turns out Albedo changes alone are capable of explaining all the temperature change during the ice ages. Based on the estimated increase of ice and snow during the ice ages, enough sunlight would have been reflected, rather than absorbed, to drop temperatures by 6C. Milankovitch cycles kick-off and pull-back the ice-Albedo feedback and that is all that is needed.
I’m sure some climate model could then build in a reduction in clouds to offset some of the ice-Albedo affect and then GHGs could be brought back into the picture but, again, all the “nailing” would have to be done by a climate model.
Sea level models based on climate models based on theoritical global warming models based on adjusted data models. Nice circle.

Craig Lindberg

Latest University of Colorado sea level time series:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.jpg