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.
Absolutely nothing in the abstract to justify the estimate. They are obviously making a lot of assumptions about the size of anthropogenic forcing in order to come up with this scenario. And since the climate sensitivity number is still an unknown, their projections are simply bunk.
The whole paper is aimed at the desired conclusion, which is:
”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.
When the scientists that are presenting the papers are also drawing the political conclusions, you can be sure that the paper is a piece of propaganda, and not a piece of science.
IPCC is not worth the mention here. IPCC does not need free promotion, be it positive or negative. After CLIMATE GATE they DO NOT EXIST AT ALL.
Here is my solid scientific can’t miss ha-ha it’s not nice to fool mother nature top this 100 yr forecast:
The difference in sea level between this picture
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/real_estate2.jpg
and this 65 years later picture
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/real_estate1.jpg
will in 100 years have a higher probability of remaining within 1/3 of the current 65 year difference than doing nothing.
http://news.ufl.edu/1998/09/28/storms/
This is a link to a 1998 University of Florida report on historic sea level rise in southwest Florida as it pertained to the local inhabitants, the Calusa Indians.
In part it says:
“Nearly 1,700 years ago devasting tempests associated with sea-level rise destroyed the viallages of the Calusa Indians on the soutwest Florida coast, near present-day Ft Myers, forcing the native fishermen to move inland to relative safety”, said UF anthropologist Karen Walker.””
She also speaks of the Roman Optimum and the Medieval Optimum saying “sea-level fluctuations in Florida correlate to these climate fluctuations known from Eurpoean history.”
However, she then goes on to say ” a growing number of researchers argue that the earlier warming trends also were in part human- induced. The Roman Optimum warming, for example correlates with the Romans’ clearing of vast forests as they expanded their empire into northern Europe…”
While Walker has good archeological evidence of past sea level fluctuations, for some reason she falls into the “blame it on humans” mantra.
I guess we are just bad for the planet where ever and when ever we exist.
Did either IPCC or any of the these new scare monger institutes take into account the rising trend in using ocean water, less the salt and crap, for our pleasure and crops?
Added to this, but shouldn’t they also factor in that less river water are, apparently, reaching the oceans?
“However, the new model estimates, …”
They misspelled “model”; should be GImodelGO.
“””pft (23:16:59) :
“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.”””
As pft correctly points out much of the ice is well below freezing. Consider also, most of the Antarctic never gets above 0C, and most of the Arctic achieves just +3C over roughly three months during summer.
All that ice can only be melted by hot air! Humanity would be extinct long before the 100 years melt period would be up.
Why are’nt these claims challenged on this point alone?
kadaka (02:35:44) :
“I am pleased to see the dig against sulfur injection.”
If this method (sulfur injection to relect incoming radiation), after careful investigation of all possible consequences seems realistic and safe – I see
no objection from a AGW fearer viewpoint. Because a lot of excess CO2
is already up there warming the globe. Maybe there are some on ‘our’ side, who would prefer to watch if the projected scenarios happen, but I think
or hope they are few. But, note the strict condition: careful investigation.
Having been to some degree self-critical, I have to say that the insane
ranting in this thread, where you can nearly feel pure hate spilling over is really depressing.
Which comment were you responding to?
There isn’t any hot air up there to melt the ice as the alarmist predict.
Which is why there is no connection to be made between AGW and Arctic Ice Loss. There isn’t a hot air causation to be correlated.
Wyatt (02:05:15) :
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…
I suspect the liberals to whom you refer, far from yielding, have found better things to do with their time! Never play an idiot at his own game because he will always win on experience! Reading alot of the comments here is often like reading religious bigotry. Many here simply don’t want well reasoned debate, instead just affirmation of passionately held views is all that really counts.
pft (23:16:59) : Climate Science has a lot in common with quantum physics.
ouch…
Quantum Physics is more like the complement of climate ‘science’
They admit they don’t really know what’s really happening, but make correct predictions.
In climate ‘science’ they claim to know what’s really happening, but make incorrect predictions.
Star Wars: Neil Armstrong, Obama Spar Over NASA’s Future
It’s quite clear that the Administration wants to control science with funding, not fund science for the betterment. And whose money is it, btw?? It’s the taxpayers money.
A whole lot of Astronauts are weighing in on this, not just Neil.
Eyeballing that chart, am I right that it appears to suggest that the separation from IPCC predictions happens in the future (i.e. it hasn’t happened yet)?
Is there observed separation from IPCC predictions yet on this topic?
magicjava (22:40:49) :
[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]
[quote magicjava (22:40:49) :] 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.[/quote]
I was being facetious. 🙂
I realize that that you can average historical volcanic emissions to predict future ones, and the average may actually end up being close to what occurs, but that does not mean that using the average is actually useful. That would only be the case if the eruptions themselves occurred with average frequency, distribution and intensity.
Lets use the “Super” Volcano (read worst case) example- one eruption might be sufficient to release 100 years worth of average emissions in a single eruption, and lets say there were no other eruptions over the rest of that 100 years. The emissions would be average in the 100 year context, but the effects would not be. (Or there again they might be – do we actually know whether something like that would cause a major climate shift, or would the effects be short enough in time frame for them to become average in a 100 year context?)
I’ve come to the conclusion that averages tend to be a bit like silly putty – interesting and fun to play with, but still waiting for someone to find a real world practical use for them.
I agree with you about the cloud and energy budget predictions.
“mikael pihlström (10:54:25) :
[…]
If this method (sulfur injection to relect incoming radiation), after careful investigation of all possible consequences seems realistic and safe – I see
no objection from a AGW fearer viewpoint.”
Should such a “careful investigation” be done as careful as say Phil “ooh, i think i lost my notes” Jones’ temperature adjustments? And who do you think should we trust with the job? The Club Of Rome maybe?
“Richard111 (10:32:16) :
[…]
All that ice can only be melted by hot air!”
No, sublimation does occur. I don’t know to which degree in the arctic, but it does occur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(chemistry)#Water
DirkH (14:19:04) :
“mikael pihlström (10:54:25) :
[…]
If this method (sulfur injection to relect incoming radiation), after careful investigation of all possible consequences seems realistic and safe – I see
no objection from a AGW fearer viewpoint.”
Should such a “careful investigation” be done as careful as say Phil “ooh, i think i lost my notes” Jones’ temperature adjustments? And who do you think should we trust with the job? The Club Of Rome maybe?
You don’t get the point. It is an independent idea, which is very
neutral on the axis you cannot disconnect from: the debate between sceptics and the AGW-theory proponents. So your comments do not
hit any target.
After seeing the movie “Dumb and Dumber” I thought nothing could be more stupid.
Looks like I was wrong !!!
twawki (21:18:38) :
Well, you are not looking at it correctly. They tell us:
So you see, it’s no longer the (non) rising temperature that is important. The models not only rely on fabricated behaviour, they now rely on fabricated input parameters, because the real ones don’t produce the right results.
Garbage models produce garbage science that is not produced in the real world.
Good models produce wonderful plastic planes and cars that compare to the real world!
I will stick with Nils-Axel Mörner, who goes out into the real world, observes and says “”the sea is not rising, It hasn’t risen in 50 years.”
I am still tying up my boat to the same harbour mooring ring that I was using in 1963 and my hand still does not get wet and that, my friends, is empirically acquired information and can I have my grant money now?
Steves (03:49:43) :
I think you will find that that is the result assuming everything else is acceptable. I am given to understand that if any other factor is unacceptable, such as the amount of water, sunlight or nutrients, the results may be even more pronounced. Effectively CO2 gives significantly more benefit to thos areas where other plant resources are lacking.
Hmmmm ….. so were talking about famine areas here perhaps? Oh, yes! CO2 actually helps prevent famine.
Curtis (05:02:22) :
“As part of my charitable giving, I am going to be buying beach front property for fractions of a penny on the dollar. Since all of these properties will be under water in a few short years, I am going to be helping all the poor mansion owners currently living on the ocean….”
Notice how the very rich like the Kennedy’s are rushing to dump their beach front property…. NOT. When I see fire sale prices on property in Monterey, Montauk, the Hamptons, Cape Cod,… THEN I will start believing in CAGW.
DirkH (14:27:59) :
I agree. sublimation does occur. But 96,000 cubic miles into fresh cold air?
In a 100 years? Will the satellites record the lower ice levels for us?
Should be visible right now, but where? Oh, yes, that will make a LOT of cloud. 🙂
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8621407.stm
Well that’s Icelands’ emission targets blown out of the water and a melting glacier to boot!
I confidently predict sea levels to rise by another 1mm 80)
“However, she then goes on to say ” a growing number of researchers argue that the earlier warming trends also were in part human- induced. The Roman Optimum warming, for example correlates with the Romans’ clearing of vast forests as they expanded their empire into northern Europe…”
So the Roman Optimum, which was much warmer than today, was man-made, didn’t cause a tipping point to be reached, didn’t cause sea levels to rise dramatically and didn’t do the Roman’s any harm. Fine. Why worry then?