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.
The more of this the better.. absolute junk. That’s why people are not believing it keep it up.
What does the study say about observed trends in the biggest oceans?
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/l2a.png
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/l3a.png
Travesty, isn’t it?
This is absurd. Not only is the reasoning incredibly suspect on its face, these ‘scientists’ have again chosen variable and static elements to create the desired affect.
See, there’s that blasted “consensus” word again. This is yet another cartload of the so called post normal junk science. Doesn’t it make you sick?
Oh brother.
We’re witnessing a global epidemic of lunatics and liars in a frenzied panic to create any public panamonium neccessary to keep them from going down in history for what they are.
I’m getting sick of them.
This is based on the obsession with CO2 as the main driver in the climate models. Frankly, mankind will adapt whatever the results. As for the 100 years forecast – what arrogance to think that we know it all.
Why isn’t junk science like this treated the same way as forgery and counterfeiting? After all billions if not trillions of dollars are at stake here. These so called “climate scientists” should be behind bars.
[quote Peter S (21:27:15) :]
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.
[/quote]
They can average out the volcanoes that have already occurred over the past several hundred years and use that to project forward.
I’d put a lot more faith in that than either their cloud or energy budget projections.
Will these alarmist scare forecasts for what supposedly is going to happen 100 years ahead never end?
It must be great to make these kind of long term forecasts knowing that there is absolutely no way you will ever be held accountable for being wrong, as by then you will either have gone gaga or be in your box.
Do the math. 96,000 CUBIC MILES of land borne ice must melt.
Now factor in the energy required. The IPCC and its supporters are simply lying.
Sorry, but this whole modeling scenario has ‘financial bubble’ written all over it. Why? Because the people who have issues with the models bearing resemblance to physical reality are being cast as the dumbos.
“Housing prices (re:temperature) have nowhere to go but up!”
Anyone disputing that is an idiot, and that is the reality of the political situation, but the reality of the physical situation is different. Temperature is high, but why will it continue to be higher? Because models expect it to? Is there a reason to expect housing prices, oops, I mean temperature, to drop? No? I’ll take that bet. In fact, I got five on it.
Delete the link if you have to. 🙂
Was already tought by Prof. Schellnhuber that there is “a direct link between CO2 and global mean temperature”.
But now we are told that even the sea level rise depends directly from the emission of “greenhouse gases from fossil fuels” into the atmosphere.
How scary, but how does the sea level make this fossil distinction?
And how does this new science influence the temp link mentioned above?
(scratching my head)
It’s about time, to publish the graph how global wealth and health has been linked to increasing CO2 in the past, from whatever sources.
And to predict how this would go further into the future if we drastically reduce emissions, by destroying industries, change lifstyle, apply new taxes, being governed by green idiologists, etc. …
See this image of Post glacial sea level rise – now that’s scary!
More from Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner:
Memorandum to UK Select Committee
Maldives sinking!
Well, I will go to Oslo on the 17th April, 12:00 , and listen to what Niels Axel Mørner has to say about this.
He has the opinion that this is fraud.
And, as the recent trend in research continues, we have studies
of studies, with the very deep down conclusions and their
foot-noted caveats, reviewer comments and follow-up
corrections buried or stripped out.
This way any study used by the ICCP to produce a “conclusion”
that has been questioned or found lacking in substantive validity
is reduced to a citation and can still be used as a foundation for logical arguement structures.
This is high school debate techniques at their worst.
We’ll only see more of this “review” research as the scientists
doing basic or fundamental studies are forced to cross the t’s
and dot their i’s due to archiving demands and assumed
potential independent “auditors” checking up on them
and possible FOIA requests for data and interpolative statistical
treatments and programs.
I wonder when the 3.2mm/yr rate will ramp up? If we’re in another 30 year cold half-cycle, it will have to make a pretty steep climb after the temps start rising again.
Maybe they are doing “Mike’s trick” (the other Mike M) and splicing the the temperature record on to the end of the sea level curve.
Another – “The sky is falling” – subgroup to THE TEAM
I am baffled as to why anyone can take any of these little boys seriously-
We all know they do know how to fake everything while leaving out relevant bits here and there.
I see they are still in the ICE IS MELTING – Phase while we have all discovered that has reversed-
OOPSI – they did not get the grant request in on time – gotta make it look really bad – still try to get the money.
It always raises a red flage when I read;
You just have to look at warmist’s failed predictions to understand that these guys don’t have a clue what they are talking about.
Does anyone know who funds these chaps?
“Richard111 (22:44:51) :
Do the math. 96,000 CUBIC MILES of land borne ice must melt.
Now factor in the energy required. The IPCC and its supporters are simply lying.”
Much of the ice is well below freezing, and would have to first be heated up to the melting point first.
Sea levels have risen 120 meters over the last 12,000 years since the end of the last ice age, and were as much as 3 meters higher during the last interglacials maximum.
Maybe if a super volcano erupted under the Antarctic ice shelf this is possible for this much ice to melt in a short time, but not from CO2 slowing LWR on it’s march to space.
“we have used the radiation balance on Earth ”
Where are the measurements (not estimates) on the radiation balance today (outgoing and incoming), forget about estimating what it was 1000 years ago.
Bohr Institute. Wasn’t Bohr that guy Einstein said meant God rolls dice, and that we don’t need to find the physical causes for what happens, just assign it a probability. Climate Science has a lot in common with quantum physics.
How can anyone expect to get away with crap like this?
Answer : They have already been getting away with it for 20+ years.
Why is it crap?
Answer : It is the same circular logic that the IPCC used.
“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.”
No doubt they estimate the radiation imbalance from the IPCC computer models, which are themselves built on circular logic. This radiation imbalance is then correlated with the sea level rise – in other words, by ignoring everything else, they have made the assumption that the estimated radiation imbalance is the cause of the sea level rise. So everything is based on an assumption, with no supporting evidence – just like the IPCC report. Only in this case, the assumption looks like it comes from the IPCC report in the first place. Circular logic built on circular logic.
So they just go round and round and round, making it look like new research when it’s really just the old crap regurgitated, without there ever having been any supporting evidence.
Now, since I accuse them of not having any evidence, how about I provide a bit of evidence for what I have just said?
OK : They examined sea levels and radiation imbalance. That means they looked at sea levels (how can I express that more simply?) and the difference between incoming and outgoing radiation. That means they were not looking at CO2. Yet their conclusion is:
“What are important are greenhouse gasses like CO2, the research shows.”
Huh? They look at sea levels and radiation, yet their conclusion is about CO2???
I think that is all the evidence I need.
“…the dynamic effects of the melting ice sheets.”
For other opinions click here and here
My objection is with the statement; “new research shows”. Research is the discovery of new facts and data from the study of present and past occurrences: either in the laboratory or from the natural environment. As far as I can see there is no new data behind this work, it is a remodelling of old data with different assumptions and handling, to make revised predictions into the future. This is not “new research” but new conclusions about the future drawn from already existing data. It can only become ‘research’ if the assumptions are shown to be borne out by occurrences in the future. Until then, such model-based studies are just explorations of future possibilities based on a specific set of assumptions which can only be tested for their accuracy from future observations. This is not to say that such modelling cannot be of great use in helping to understand complex systems and improving predictability, but calling it ‘research results’ creates a misleading impression of proof and certainty.
Speaking of sea level rise estimates…
Please consider my series of posts concerning Vermeer’s and Rahmstorf’s 2009 PNAS paper “Global sea level linked to global temperature.”
Part 1, the basic problem.
Part 2, little more detail on the math.
Part 3, a few examples that show some bizarre consequences that would result if Vermeer and Rahmstorf were correct.
Part 4, improbable parallel universes
Part 5variation of gamma
ClimateSanity
This is every bit as good as the projections of the US debt in 2020. Some show things will be just dandy. Others indicate another future.
Do they mention the dates for planting crops in 2090? Or is that another topic?
The day the ice in the Arctic Ocean doesn’t melt in summer is the day the next ice age starts