From the Niels Bohr Institute – Studies agree on a 1 meter rise in sea levels
New research from several international research groups, including the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen provides independent consensus that IPCC predictions of less than a half a meter rise in sea levels is around 3 times too low. The new estimates show that the sea will rise approximately 1 meter in the next 100 years in agreement with other recent studies. The results have been published in the scientific journal, Geophysical Research Letters.
Since IPCC published the predictions in 2007, that the sea would rise less than half a metre in the next 100 years, it became clear that there was a problem with the prediction models as they did not take into account the dynamic effects of the melting ice sheets. The estimates were therefore too low.
Better prediction models
However, the new model estimates, from international research groups from England, China and Denmark, give independent support for the much higher predictions from other recent studies.
”Instead of using temperature to calculate the rise in sea levels, we have used the radiation balance on Earth – taking into account both the warming effect of greenhouse gasses and the cooling effect from the sulfur clouds of large volcanic eruptions, which block radiation”, explains Aslak Grinsted, PhD in geophysics at the Centre for Ice and Climate, the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen.
The research is based on observations of sea levels from the 1700s to the present and estimates of the radiation balance through approximately 1000 years.
The sun’s heat varies periodically and currently there is a solar minimum, but even if solar radiation were to reach its lowest level in the past 9300 years, it will have only a minimal impact on sea levels. Some have suggested that you could inject sulfur into the atmosphere and get a kind of artificial volcanic eruption cooling effect, but the calculations show that it would only slow down the rise in sea levels for 12-20 years. What are important are greenhouse gasses like CO2, the research shows.
Reduced emissions
The results are that the sea level will rise between 0.7 and 1.2 meters during the next 100 years. The difference depends on what mankind does to stop the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. If we seriously reduce the emissions of CO2 globally, the sea will only rise 0.7 meters, while there will be a dramatic rise of 1.2 meter if we continue indifferent with the current use of energy based on fossil fuels.
In the calculations the researchers assume that we continue to emit CO2, but that we move more towards other energy supplies and reduce our use of fossil fuels and with that reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. This scenario would give a rise in sea levels of around 1 meter.
Other energy sources important now
Even a one meter rise in sea levels would have a big impact in some places in the world with low lying areas, which will become much more susceptible to extreme storm surges, where water could easily sweep over the coasts.
”The research results show that it is therefore important to do something now to curb the emission of CO2 – there is about a half meter difference in sea level depending on whether nations of the world continue to pump greenhouse gases from fossil fuels into the atmosphere or whether we slam on the brakes and use other energy sources”, explains Aslak Grinsted.
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
But if the oceans are cooling and the poles are growing and we are getting record snow cover on land then how does that all factor in their results?
I wonder if we can establish a hedge fund based on projected sea level rise, or a futures contract !
I could take out a contract for the greatgrand kids who might still be around in 100 years, will I bet it reaches 1m or will i bet it wont
see if we can get the scientists who predict this stuff to put their money where their mouths are.
It would be entertaining
”Instead of using temperature to calculate the rise in sea levels, we have used the radiation balance on Earth – taking into account both the warming effect of greenhouse gasses and the cooling effect from the sulfur clouds of large volcanic eruptions, which block radiation”
Like wow, they can predict the world’s volcanic eruptions for the next 100 years, and how much sulphur they will emit into the atmosphere? That is unbelievably good news.
Can they please let us know which volcanoes and when, I live in Rotorua New Zealand (inside a volcanic crater), sothis information could be extremely useful to me.
I am assuming that they have also included the effects of increased cloud cover due to increased evaporation with warmer temperatures?
“Aslak Grinsted, PhD in geophysics at the Centre for Ice and Climate, the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen”
Nothing rotten there. Move on.
“… 3 times too low…”
How are estimates 300 percent too low? After they are 100 percent lower aren’t they already at zero?
Nothing to worry about…”move along”.
1/2 meter…………uhmm…..yep, its panic time. It’s all coming together for me now. Yes, this would be a horrible problem. Happily, I’ve the solution. We can take the solar panels in Spain and fit them with mirrors. Strategically place them about the coasts of the world and reflect the sun to the oceans to evaporate the impending swamping of the world.
Of course, I probably can’t help little islands like Guam, but they’re capsizing anyways so………..
What is it going to take to make these people come to their senses? Now they are claiming a 1000-year forecast and they know sea level 100 years from now! It’s insanity.
Junk science at it’s worst. They claim that the predictions are based on observations since 1700, yet the trend lines are 2-4X steeper than any observed trends during that period.
It takes some skill to make the IPCC look reasonable, but they have succeeded.
This uses “the radiation balance on Earth” along with GHGs and large volcanic eruptions to predict sea level rise out to 2110. I’ll bet a 3 dollar bill they are wrong. Are there breakthroughs on understanding the sun and predicting volcanic eruptions that haven’t yet made headlines?
Hmmm, but were’t we told that CO2 levels could not be wound back. What’s the point of doing anything?
If only the oceans would return to a “normal” level.
Oh hold it, maybe that’s not so good. According to the chart below the oceans are at near record low for the past 500 million years. “Normal” appears to be about 175 meters higher than it is now. Yikes!
Sea level during past 500my
The rate of sea level rise appears to be falling since about 2005.
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B9p_cojT-pflYmM3NWUzYTEtNGM4ZC00Y2YyLWEwOWMtNzIzYjliNWQ3ZGVi&hl=nl
previous post – data from Univ of Colorado, Pacific
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
This amateurish piece looks like a high school student essay. Take this bit:
“some have suggested…”, “a kind of volcanic eruption cooling effect…”, “the calculations show…”, “the research shows”. “You could inject sulfur”…I could, could I? how about you? “What are important are…are they, they are, now? Aye, Arrrh, matey!
At least they put it through spell and grammar checkers. The software hasn’t been written yet, though, that will take immature journalism and make it look like an authority penned it.
My bets this page disappears from their website the moment one of the scientists look at it. The actual article is more authoritatively written but its content is the same crap.
What’s with the broken IPCC line in the figure? Is this the new prediction to appear in AR5?
Anyone ask Dr. Mörner as of late?
Bet this would coax him put of retirement!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Correction: “out of retirement.”
Broken arm one-handed ty[ing here.
Chris
double correction:
Broken arm one-handed “typing” here.
And it is my dominant hand that is broken: lefty here.
I am not a GRL member, so have read only the abstract. I suspect that this is little more then some questionable model, filled with questionable assumptions, that ignores the geological record. It would be the first time geophysicists have ignored the geologists. I won’t be the last.
Does this mean His Largeness The Goracle will come out of the restaurant coat closet now? I’m guessing that “sophisticated statistical manipulations” were heavily employed in this new study because the simple reading of a tide gauge certainly will not produce such a result.
Lindsay H. (21:23:49) : “I wonder if we can establish a hedge fund based on projected sea level rise, or a futures contract !…see if we can get the scientists who predict this stuff to put their money where their mouths are….”
Why should they? The way they have it now, they get to put your money where their mouths are.
”The research results show that it is therefore important to do something now to curb the emission of CO2 – there is about a half meter difference in sea level depending on whether nations of the world continue to pump greenhouse gases from fossil fuels into the atmosphere or whether we slam on the brakes and use other energy sources”, explains Aslak Grinsted.
R Gates are you already planning to take only one out of three breath?
Another of the “projections are predictions” genre studies.
First lets ignore the actual measurable rates of ice melt and sea level rise. Then we run the model with the end result already “known”, or assumed, to be 1.2 meters. All that’s needed then is to fiddle the SOx and CO2 knobs to get the pretty graphs.
Amazing, and so simple even a caveman can do it.
What is really surprising is that it is only 1 meter. My guess is that by next year the new improved science will revise this to 2 to 3 meters+/- 0.006 cm by March 2076.
@Fred (21:31:50) :
“… 3 times too low…”
How are estimates 300 percent too low? After they are 100 percent lower aren’t they already at zero?
Obviously, you’re not familiar with new math, IPCC style. Here’s how you get to it…..http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/12/the-new-math-ipcc-version/#more-18382
Amazingly enough, my current president already has a full understanding of it. He recently promised to lower some business financed health insurance by as much as 300%. I’m still working on it, but, I’m confident if I apply myself properly I’ll have a 200% understanding of it!!!
Again the radiation balance… what a wonderful model that can deliver anything alarmist and should political climate change, make it disappear as fast.
But hey they are based on physics laws and that alone should mean they are right, right?