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.
For the “doesn’t account for observations” crowd:
“The research is based on observations of sea levels from the 1700s to the present..”
But this has me stymied:
“..estimates of the radiation balance through approximately 1000 years”
Starting from when? How do they correlate it with sea-level rise since CO2 levels started to accelerate (or non-rate-of-rise such as for most of the last decade)?
@Jimbo (23:09:31)
“Does anyone know who funds these chaps?”
Yup
You do. And me. And all the other hard pressed tax payers. And you’ll also be paying for their nice index-linked pensions when they collect them.
And these rent seeking clowns probably don’t realise that they have debased “science” so much that most sensible people, faced with their “prediction” that 15th April was going to be a Thursday, would carefully check with at least three calendars.
We really should shove their little models, and the computers they run them on, where the sun don’t shine. Maybe that would cool things down a bit.
Then again –
I just think we may be missing something here-
They may be trying to scare all the rich folks from their ocean front living, drive the values down, and pick up the de-valued real estate at bargains-
Rent them out for a bit-
Come out with a “revised” study that shows all is well – after all-
Talk about profits-
Soros could pull this off easily (look what he did in 98)-
Wouldn’t it be ecocide to try to stop this sea level rise? Imagine the harm we would do to the plankton. Let’s put everyone who builds a dike on trial, he only wants to protect humans living by the seaside. (I’m talking Polly-Higgins-ish here for those who missed it)
By my own estimate 90% of all that is written about what would happen if the globe heated up is complete absolute twaddle.
However, the one area where you should expect reasonable scientific forecasts based on known science and not the vivid imagination and hysteria of over-excited grant applicants is on sea level rise.
To be honest I’ve got absolutely no faith whatsoever in the IPCC’s measurements of sea level rise because you can’t try to hide the way these are distorted by selected the sea level gauges that show rise and expect anyone to then trust the result.
However, even if the recorded sea level rise is fiction, and even if you believe the hysteria about (urban heated) global temperature rise, I couldn’t reconcile the small 1m rise with the general level of hysteria present in the IPCC report. It always seemed far too tame, a bit like a spot of calm in a sea of hysteria.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/UnivColorado%20MeanSeaLevelAnnualChangeSince1992%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
Dont seem to scary. I see relation with ENSO but nothing to worry to much in the annual change, at least to buy a new house far from the coast :).
I read it as as an admission of using the wrong model for the past 20 years. Yet they were so certain.
cheers David
How do we know that it is not the land thats sinking?.
Hello Anthony et al.,
beside the question if a factor 3 difference in trend can be called 300% lower or better 1/3 🙂
I keep on wondering, if this publication is based on oversmoothed data (I left a question for that at RC which is unaswered so far)
If you compare Holgate’s “Rate of Change” in measured data with Rahmsdorf’s version of it, you can see a pronounced diviation for example around 1990 wich is very close to the point where the data ends and the extrapolation starts . .
Compare for example figure 1 here:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/07/22/sea-level-rise-an-update-shows-a-slowdown/
With figure 1 here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/04/science-story-the-making-of-a-sea-level-study/
I would appreciate if someone could comment on that idea . .
All the best,
LoN
They just had to issue a formal retraction in Nature Geoscience for mistakes on rising sea levels claims. Guardian 2/21/10, “Climate Scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels.” I subsequently read that Prince Charles got mad and said he didn’t believe it…
ICELAND Volcano;
http://translate.google.no/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vg.no%2Fnyheter%2Futenriks%2Fartikkel.php%3Fartid%3D10000622&sl=no&tl=en
Do you think that this was worth repeating. Exploring this relationship of course useful but the rather rapid skew into CO2 mania implies that the rest of the paper is not too accurate either.
Hey we need the publicity, have we got anything we can release?
How about this- The relationship between sea level and the radiation from the sun
“They use 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”,
The results are that the sea level will rise between 0.7 and 1.2 meters
during the next 100 years.
That sounds great but it still needs some pizazz, how about linking it to Global Warming, it will make it easier to get it published. OK I’ll slap a bit on the end and send the paper in for publication
“What are important are greenhouse gasses like CO2, the research shows.”
“The research results show that it is therefore important to do
something now to curb the emission of CO2”
Yours cynically
Hmmmmm! IPCC 2007SPM, Table SPM1 (adjusted from ballsed up orignial):-
Rate of Sea-Level Rise, 1961-1993, 1.8mm/year + 0.5mm/year error = 2.3mm/year, 1993-2003, 3.1mm/year – 0.7mm/year error = 2.4mm/year. The same number if you’re an engineer! Accepted rate of sea-level rise for 80 years from the good Dr Morner,……………2.3mm/year! Wow.
I suppose this means that good ol’ Al baby’s condo on the western coast of the colonies bought for $4M in ’08 is on the market going for a song as a result?
News flash just in:- last night at Exmouth Docks sea-levels rose dramatically causing widespread concern among local residents, who swore on someone else’s mother’s life that it had never happened before! Then 6 hours later the sea-level dropped dramatically for no reason, causing even more concern for said residents, who believed witches were to blame. Then 6 hours later it rose dramatically again for no reason whatsoever! Several local middle-aged women were arrested & tried under new PDR of EU Regulations, by throwing them into the sea. Some drowned because they couldn’t swim & were pronounced innocent immediately, those that could swim were quickly rescued & dried off in a rather unusual & somewhat dramatic fashion! Your trusted Climate Change Correspondent, AtB, out!
Did the paper finish with the standard ending with departmental budgets in mind
….of course further research is required.
New research from several international research groups … provides independent consensus
Independent consensus???
I guess they all got the memo: “Get out and talk this thing up from its death-bed”
Someone’s research grant running out and they thought they’d go for the BIG one?
This people are paid by plitical bureaucrats to produce the desired reports on a regular basis. I reckon there must be a lot of people at the Neils Bohr institute who are unhappy. Any leaks?
This looks like an overly coordinated effort for comfort – over the last few days the local warmists where I live have been telling scary stories to the local newspapers about how much of their local coastal towns are going to be inundated, and how much worse it is going to be that it was thought previously. Anybody else see signs of an activist policy influence network at work here?
How about draining some of the Pacific Ocean into Death Valley? It’d make a nice inland lake. Or we could pump ocean water onto Antarctica and let it freeze? Or we could realize every prediction by the warmists has gone awry and stop listening to them! After the last few weeks of stories on WUMT, the liberals that I debate have finally yielded! Not a peep out of them! It’s a minor miracle! BTW, I agree CO2 is a GHG but we obviously have time to change w/o destroying the free market. In fact, the free market is what will bring us the next tech that will solve the energy crisis. It sure won’t be by socialism. Just look at medicine, 95% of all treatments and lifesaving drugs came from the USA, or used to…
Right, so the trend is linear from 1950 to the present day (assuming once again that we can actually measure global sea level rise to within 10cm, which we can’t) and then starts to rise exponentially starting…. tomorrow.
Just how stupid do they think we are?????
Anyway, look at the logic of what they are saying.
You live in a part of the world that is close to sea level. You have two choices:
1] Build sea defence that can cope with a sea level rise of 1.2m
2] Build sea defences that can cope with a sea level rise of 0.7m and then badger the other 160 odd nations of the world to dramatically reduce their CO2 emissions.
Doesn’t logic suggest that option [1] is the only realistic solution?????
Are they are saying that (0.5/1.2)x 100=42 % of the rise is due to human CO2 emissions??? Twaddle.
I am pleased to see the dig against sulfur injection.
The StratoShield method proposed by Intellectual Ventures Labs (2″ garden hose pumping SO2 into the stratosphere) is cheap (millions of US dollars to deploy and run, not billions or trillions), relatively easy to deploy, cheap, adjustable, cheap, quickly reversible, cheap, does not require an all-encompassing worldwide regime under UN control, and is cheap.
That the backers of CAGW alarmism continue to push doubt about the method, even going out of their way to stick a snide mention into something like this, indicates to me that SO2 injection has great potential to be their greatest nightmare, a real solution that will really work that is really cheap that ordinary people will really go for instead of their planned carbon-trading schemes. Really.
Studies agree that etc… this should read NEW SUPER MODELS agree that etc.
If the IPCC model was wrong, how do they know in which direction it was wrong. Surely it was just WRONG.
The chances are that it was WRONG because of the use of estimates of one sort or another. OOPS these new models also use estimates. Oh well. lets wait for the next revision and see what they use.
The sea is rising, the sky is falling, we’re all going to die, yada yada ya…yawn.