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.
“Geophysical Research Letters” loosing reputation – again.
I blame Atari for inventing video games.
Slightly OT:-) As noted above:-
AtB is a pure genius so far, two inquiries into leaked/hacked emails from UEA/CRU, turned out to be complete whitewashes, one more to go. My prediction? Minor indiscretions only, slapped wrist, nothing to see here move along!!!! Who is going to take odds against that? You know exactly the line they’ll take, Ed Millitwit will say “oh come on now this really is preposterous, we’ve had three separate, independent, inquiries look into this business & all found nothing wrong was done by anyone!” It’s is totally predictable. Perhaps I should take up weather forecasting!
Ref – Per Strandberg (04:55:07) :
“Yeah! And all of Denmark will be under the sea, except for Møllehøj on which they put a lighhouse.”
___________________
Vikings need to start getting out and about more. Like in the “Good Ol’ Days”. Mexico’s nice!
Ref – maelstrom (05:08:11) :
“where’s the sea level rise already? I was promised some sea level rise by now, I don’t see any yet. I want my money back.”
___________________
Shhhh… When Iceland blows the first thing you get is sea rise; though very minor on a global scale, mayby .5″. This is followed by ocean temperature, surface salinity, and current changes in the North Atlantic. Then comes weather change in Europe, Asia, and Canada very soon thereafter. Then the sea levels start to decline for ~85K years and that’s when you make a bundle in Coal Futures. I got it from a reliable scorce, Fat Albert. He said to buy now! Don’t tell a soul:-)
Niels Bohr must be spinning in his tomb:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28018819/Greenhouse-Niels-Bohr
The reality appears that sea level rises are well below IPCC predictions, and are not significantly different from historical norms.
Hansen, of course, predicted that Manhattan would be inundated by now.
Gore made millions showing special effects clips of sea levels drowning New York and Florida.
Guam is tipping over from its abuse by the military.
AGW is a social movement combining the worst of tulipomania and eugenics.
Completely OT!
http://climaterealists.com/log_viewing.php?id=5536&type=source&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3DX%26amp%3Bq%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fphysicsworld.com%2Fcws%2Farticle%2Fnews%2F42298%26amp%3Bct%3Dga%26amp%3Bcad%3D1%3A2%3A0%26amp%3Bcd%3Ds22tSTOy_TQ%26amp%3Busg%3DAFQjCNHbEmhX5EVLQon7Nd96ewXWEd4r1g
Prof Mike Lockwood now says the Sun caused cold winter only in Europe . Had he not gone to China or the US to check then? BUT of course nothing to do with AGW & CC!
You should never confuse issues: The only one thing that is rising its levels is your sea of currency inflation. It will surprise you with the most gigantic tsunami or rogue wave ever seen.
Consider the source.
From the abstract:
I don’t know what “an inverse statistical model” is, but since this ‘study’ builds on the assumptions in IPCC models, it sounds awfully like a self-fulfilling prophecy. The whole debate outside of IPCC ‘climate science’ circles is over the existence and extent (if any) of “anthropogenic greenhouse gas” forcing. Studies of this kind simply don’t acknowledge that there is a debate. And of course these are the people the political establishment and the media listen to.
/Mr Lynn
I hate drowning Vultures.
I really do.
The story to date.
70 metres.
.1 of a metre.
GIGO! The alarming exponential curve results from two false assumptions that are common with all AGW models. 1. That anthropogenic emmissions contribute significantly to atmospheric concentrations of CO2. 2. CO2 significantly reduces OLR. Actual measured data do not support those assumptions. Natural processes, like sea level changes, are cyclical and what appears to be exponential is more likely a early rising segment of a long wave- length sine wave.
Antarctica melting,
And the arctic free sea ice melting.
Or maps.
Gosh and Golly Gee.
Math models are iterative not predictive.
My next job will be in insurance. Or maybe I will set up a printing press for carbon certificates.
Here’s an idea, everyone of us is carrying around a bucket of carbon that when planted underground, saves people living by the seashore from having seashells for dinner during a storm. We could sell our carbon credit just before we are buried which would cover the cost of a pretty elaborate funeral. Hey, if corporations can do it, so can I right?
The problem is that the study was done from models. How are the models doing so far? Terrible .
Here is the Sea Level Rise according to the University of Colorado.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Notice that since 2006 there has been no sea level rise. Why?
Notice that the rate of SLR before then was 3.2 MM per year which is 1 cigarette length in 30 years. Big deal !
Where is the “energy imbalance ” going ? Not into the seas !
Here are the results of the ARGOS temperature measuring probes in the oceans.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Notice that since the measurements have been done correctly [2005] the temperature has been going down.
Prior to that they were measuring from ships that happened to be in the area, which gave very inaccurate results. They were biased by where the readings were taken also.
It seems people forgot iteration in favor of predication.
Computers do iteration math concepts.
The epidemic of anxiety disorders is more pervasive than the swine flu epidemic.
If we react to every fear from the nut cases, we will be as bad off as they are.
On climate progress Joe is
afraid of drilling,
afraid of running out of oil
afraid of enhanced oil recovery techniques
afraid of contaminating the water table
afraid of CO2.
afraid of Big Oil using frac techniques like they have for 60 years
afraid oil companies are sneaking by without paying more taxes than any and all other industries
I am not afraid of sea level rise. I can live on a boat and when the water goes up, so does the boat. I know I have imputed more physics than a liberal can handle.
That is all.
Iteration does not go out that far.
Someone forgot to tell fools, Computers do iteration, and iteration a man with a calculator and a life time can do or a computer with nanoseconds but both need data to move forward.
Step be step.
It’s iteration.
Crap though this “study” is there are interesting ramifications (but none of them will be followed up on, mark my words).
If the effect of reducing CO2 is a 0.5m sea level reduction in 100 years, then we can proceed to calculate the cost of mitigation versus adaptation quite easily. Since India and China are going to increase, not decrease CO2 emissions we can go ahead and plan for 1.2m total sea level increase over the 100 year planning horizon.
That makes all the national and international crusades to reduce CO2 quite meaningless, doesn’t it?
Oh, and by the way – 100 years would just about use up the fossil fuel reserves. Problem *solved*! (well, the nonproblem that was never a problem was solved by those who hallucinated both the problems and the solutions).
Spendulus
http://www.WarmerPropaganda.com
Just as predicted, and right on cue, the UAE has been upheld as an outstanding example of climate correctness:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“No malpractice” by climate unit
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8618024.stm
There was no scientific malpractice at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, which was at the centre of the “Climategate” affair. This is according to an independent panel chaired by Lord Oxburgh, which was convened to examine the research published by the unit. The panel said it might be helpful if researchers worked more closely with professional statisticians. This would ensure the best methods were used when analysing the complex and often “messy” data on climate, the report said. “We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians,” the panel remarked in its conclusions.
The e-mails issue came to light in November last year, when hundreds of messages between CRU scientists and their peers around the world were posted on the world wide web, along with other documents. Critics said that the e-mail exchanges revealed an attempt by the researchers involved to manipulate data. But a recent House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report into the e-mails concluded that the scientists involved had no intention to deceive. And Lord Oxburgh said that he hoped these further “resounding affirmations” of the unit’s scientific practice would put those suspicions to bed. He stated: “We found absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever. That doesn’t mean that we agreed with all of their conclusions, but scientists people were doing their jobs honestly.”
The chair has been challenged over his other interests. Lord Oxburgh is currently president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and chairman of wind energy firm Falck Renewables. Critics say clean energy companies would benefit from policies to tackle climate change. But Lord Oxburgh insists the panel did not have a pre-conceived view. The panel included Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, who had been examining the way CRU used statistical methodology to develop an average annual global temperature.
Climate sceptics have argued CRU’s statistical methods were inadequate. And Professor Hand pointed out that the translation of “messy data” into clear facts had caused problems. But he said that the CRU were “to be commended for how they dealt with the data,” adding that, in their research papers, they were very open about the uncertainty in the numbers.
It is straightforward to get a measurement precise in space and time from an individual weather station – albeit with uncertainties attached. But some countries have many weather stations, while others have very few, and there are sizeable areas of the Earth with no surface measurements at all. “Unfortunately,” Professor Hand said, “when this research is [republished and] popularised, those caveats tend to be forgotten.”
The panel noted that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was one of the organisations that had “oversimplified” the CRU data it used in its publications. They said it had neglected to highlight the discrepancy between direct and “proxy” measurements, such as the tree ring data often used to reconstruct past temperature changes. He added that CRU had been “a little naïve” in not working more closely with statisticians.
Lord Oxburgh said that undertaking such interdisciplinary work in the future would address the fact that the there “probably there wasn’t enough involvement of people outside of the immediate [climatic research] community” in the work undertaken at CRU.
UEA’s vice chancellor Edward Acton said he welcomed the report. “It is especially important that, despite a deluge of allegations and smears against the CRU, this independent group of utterly reputable scientists have concluded that there was no evidence of any scientific malpractice,” he said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As I said when this whitewash was set up with all its Establishment figures on board, everybody is innocent and nobody will be blamed for anything no matter how blatant the fraud and corruption was at the CRU. The Establishment protects its own and Jones will probably get some sort of promotion and end up in the House of Frauds. Oh, sorry! House of Lords.
But but and but but.
Math stat models are iterative.
No math stats exists to drive iteration that far forward.
There is either a new science theory unknown for that predicitve capacity, math stat as a modelling tool can’t do it.
Ask the economists how good their modelling and predictive capacity really is and they use huge data sets approaching normality.
And their rate of success, ask them without their qualifications.
They do best guess.
1 meter seal level rise = at least a factor 10 higher compared to the current numbers.
So my response to this article: Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics … and Graphs!
Quarterly.
oh gawd, not this again.
What insults me is not just that this is a lie, but that it’s such a tranparently bad lie. And so poorly done!!!
I swear, they’re just mailing it in at this point.