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.
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. 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.
You have *got* to be kidding me?!
This is the kind of stupidity – yes, real stupidity – that messes up our environment. This is the same as slamming your head in the door to take your mind off what you think is the pain in your little finger. No ‘careful investigation’ is required.
While we have spoiled certain aspects of our environment through past (and current) ignorance, willful – or ‘government mandated’ – spoiling is an appalling act.
OceanTwo (04:51:41)
“This is the kind of stupidity – yes, real stupidity – that messes up our environment. This is the same as slamming your head in the door to take your mind off what you think is the pain in your little finger. No ‘careful investigation’ is required.”
Tell me shortly, what is your vision; what will happen? Not the details
I have previously worked on acidification of ecosystems for some
decades
mikael pihlström (07:16:13) :
Tell me shortly, what is your vision; what will happen? Not the details
I have previously worked on acidification of ecosystems for some
decades
Put it this way, to combat the effects of a ‘pollution’ do you:
a) Stop the ‘pollution’; or
b) Put an unrelated pollutant in the system.
Bonus question:
How do you combat the unintended consequences of introducing a pollutant to a system? (see above question).
If you work in acidification, then you should be quite clear about the effects of introducing a foreign substance into a system.
This makes a lot more sense if you replace the word “studies” with the phrase “computer generated fantasies with no basis in reality”.
OceanTwo (09:00:16) :
mikael pihlström (07:16:13) :
Put it this way, to combat the effects of a ‘pollution’ do you:
a) Stop the ‘pollution’; or
b) Put an unrelated pollutant in the system.
The point in this idea is to insert the sulfur, very high up, in the stratosphere
with a different atmospheric chemistry, which I suggested should be
fully investigated, so that we can either bury this idea once and for all or
keep it in the arsenal.
OceanTwo (04:51:41) :
You have *got* to be kidding me?!
This is the kind of stupidity – yes, real stupidity – that messes up our environment. This is the same as slamming your head in the door to take your mind off what you think is the pain in your little finger. No ‘careful investigation’ is required.
While we have spoiled certain aspects of our environment through past (and current) ignorance, willful – or ‘government mandated’ – spoiling is an appalling act.
And now we actually read the article I linked to…
You’re not adding anything new, certainly nothing that doesn’t already naturally occur. It’s a small increase of one part per 1000 per installation, far overshadowed by the two other main sources, with only a dozen or so installations needed for worldwide dispersal to counter the imagined effects of a doubling of CO2 levels.
Oh, from OceanTwo (09:00:16) :
Put it this way, to combat the effects of a ‘pollution’ do you:
a) Stop the ‘pollution’; or
b) Put an unrelated pollutant in the system.
Definitely “b”. You have an oil spill on water, add some detergent. Pond or lake is going acidic from mine runoff, add baking soda. And then there is lime and other things gardeners add to their soils. Plus if those are the only options, only “b” qualifies as “combating” the effects.
Actually, this shows your question is badly worded. Sure, you can try to stop the pollution if possible. This can go fast; a drain valve on a tank was left open so you close the valve. But it may take a long time, as with taking care of mine runoff. It may be impossible, as when the “pollution” is naturally leached from mineral deposits. Meanwhile, taking care of the damage still needs to be done. You can’t always wait until the firefight is over to stop the bleeding and cover the wounds. When it gets down to it, “a” and “b” are really two separate processes that may both be triggered by the same event, that may have some timing in common as both conclude as best as possible.
For added brain twisting, consider how small the amount of SO2 injection being proposed is, compared to the amount of man-made SO2 emissions from power plants and the like. Consider the late 20th century when the worry about acid rain really took off, we reduced SO2 emissions with scrubbers on smokestacks and used low-sulfur fuels… and we started getting a string of “hottest ever” years. By so drastically cutting our SO2 emissions, did we create much more warming than we would have had otherwise? By demanding even lower sulfur emissions, won’t we make the warming even worse?
kadaka (14:52:36) :
The amount of S might not be large, but have all the atmo chemistry
effects been considered. Maybe it is in the article … hm.
@ur momisugly David Middleton (04:45:29) :
Excellent. Very clear and revealing information/charts on the history of sea level rise. Many thanks.