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
It’s a consensus of models. The modeling is settled.
I am all ears for a new math stat model that can predict more than a year out on monthly results.
And we have monthly climate data., shit in the age of the sattelite we have daily data.
So predict the curve monthly, quarterly or annually. That data set is there.
For those interested, I have ocean front property for sale in Arizona.
These math stat models rely on a data set, not the physics and not the assumptions.
Math stat models like this rely on history, Data sets.
Data is data.
The research results show that it is therefore important to do something now to curb the emission of CO2
Huh, thought that “they” started saying it’s not just co2 that’s the problem anymore but all the pollutants that go along with burning fossil fuels. And, of course, we still have to do something now. Good thing God isn’t sloppy like that since he doesn’t play dice.
Never was a big fan of Niels Bohr because of how he treated Einstein. Now I’m not a big fan of the Institute that bears his name.
THe models dont do Physics, they do data.
These algorithms dont compare data type only measurement.
Jimbo (22:47:31) :
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner
Thank you for bringing up Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, someone who actually knows the data.
What these people who predict this high sea level rise do not tell you is the effects of an acceleration from the current rate of 1.74mm/year. The only way to get to a 2 meter increase in 100 years is to have an acceleration of 4.3% (you can do this on a spread sheet easy enough). But the interesting thing, which you can see in the graphs, is that to get to that hieght in 2100 the rate of increase in the seas would have to be some 80cm PER YEAR in the last year 2099! All you have to do is plot the rate change for each year on a graph to see what acceleration does.
They do not explain where all that water would come from to give 80cm increase in the last year.
Of course there is no acceleration in sea level rise, just normal cyclic variation.
http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/03/no-acceleration-in-sea-level-rise.html
OT
Donna Laframboise has just posted the results of her IPCC AR4 audit of references.
21 Chapters get an F !!
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/
“the new model estimates, from international research groups from England, China and Denmark, give independent support”
Hmmm, given what we know about ClimateGate do we really believe that these groups were at all independent? Or do we believe there was no end of communication going on between these scientists who all met up at the last IPCC meeting?
A conspiracy to commit fraud I would call it.
Models are not science – they’re just guesses with presupposed outcomes that conflict with the presupposed outcomes I have in my head! These research groups better stop using models and start building time maches and go into the future to tell us what it’s really like because models are for the loons!
Don’t anyone mention this to Congressman Hank or he’ll be holding hearings on how to prevent the North American continent from capsizing.
James Sexton (22:19:11) :
@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.
Apparently he’s not even familiar with old math, high school level, “3 times too low”, implies about 33% of the actual value, not this ‘300%’ he made up.
There is no benign situation that imagination and computer models can’t make into a hockey stick:
Soon there will be new graphs on the:
Wolfication of dogs, within 100 years all dogs will be roaming in packs.
Worldwide droughts
Worldwide floods
Worldwide snow
Frozen oceans
Boiling oceans
Everything is possible, and vewwy, vewwy scary, in Post Normal “Science”
How I long for the good old days when everyone knew that death is inevitable and that adaptation to unfolding conditions was sensible.
meemoe_uk (03:14:44) :
Yeah. wow!! you are right
is there any other source for the raw data?
Anthony, is it possible to ask Dr. Roy Spencer, if he can help explain this late start in the graph for 1993???
One of the studies being cited is using piece of crap mathematical models which produce impossible results:
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/rahmstorf-2009-off-the-mark-again-part-5-variation-of-gamma/
The other studies are likely just as crappy.
Since the government took over flood insurance (and thus the rates have gone through the roof) I’ve been following sea level rise for some time. My base level is 9 feet above sea level.
There is nothing, and has not been anything, to suggest that the sea will rise a meter in such a short space of time (~90-100 years). Many links posted here demonstrate this. *could* it rise that much, though? Sure, it *could*. I’m sure someone could come up with a convoluted model to suggest such (oops, to late).
But as CO2 rises, there seems to be little, if any, correlation with sea level rise, let alone causation. I expect a 1ft sea level rise over this time period, with a possibility of slightly more or slightly less – based on historical observation.
These models are based on some kind of runaway thermal effect – the tipping point – with no natural tipping point in evidence, going far beyond even the absurdity of simple extrapolation of the linearization of observed events as a predictor; which, itself is illogical – linearization of an inherently non-linear system. From that, backtracking to a single compound as *the* cause; and not only that, attributing changes in that compound to man as a whole. *Further* narrowing down the cause to a specific minority within that group.
Science would be better served if these guys followed in Al Gore’s footsteps and spent more time eating lunch.
>>>there was a problem with the prediction models as they
>>>did not take into account the dynamic effects of the
>>>melting ice sheets.
Errr, what melting ice sheets? Total polar ice is increasing.
The earth’s sea level has gone up and down about 100 meters each way … So now man can control sea level? But only to make it go down. What will we do when the next glaciation cycle hits? What a joke.
If we can make it go up, why can’t we just make it go back down? If CO2 makes sea level rise, surly some magic elixir can make sea level go back down. I remember back in the ice age scare of the 70s, we were told to use the then new 747 to cover the poles and Greenland ice with carbon black. It was supposed to be a brilliant twofer, they planned to use old tires to generate the carbon black.
Somehow this seems quite dubious on it’s face. First we need to figure out when you are reading temperatures at 40 below, how a degree or two melt the ice you are standing on.
If CO2 reduction is your religion, then building nuclear power plants should be your savior.
I must say it amuses me after 60 years plus of strong solar cycles that this article claims we are at a point of ‘deep solar minimum’.
There was a 2 year period of that. Against 60 years of higher than normal.
Is that science or a lawyer arguing in a courtroom?
You tell me.
Eruption today may trigger an eruption at Katla.
An eruption at Katla? Well that’s something that may lead to climate change…
http://www.ruv.is/frett/english-update-on-eruption
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&u=http://www.ruv.is/flokkar/hamfarir/eldgos-fimmvorduhalsi&sl=is&tl=en
So “three times too low”? That would indicate a 1.33m rise even if you accept his poor use of fractions and multiples…. and we trust these folks with statistics?
Here are a couple of other interesting hockey stick graphs:-
GDP per capita since 1500
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_GDP_per_capita_1500_to_2003.png
CO2 Emissions since 1850
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type_to_Y2004.png
Looks like we spent a long time being poor before the invention of CO2 producing technologies in 1850 ramped up our income. Nothing like having 5 shire horses in the form of heat energy at your beck and call 24 hours a day to improve your productivity I guess….
The slope of the sides of the vessel holding the water is important. All models must have all landmass edges taken into account before you can say how much rise will occur.