From the hot and well above sea level University of Arizona, home of the world famous parking lot climate station, comes this zany press release:
Rising seas will affect major US coastal cities by 2100
Rising sea levels could threaten an average of 9 percent of the land within 180 U.S. coastal cities by 2100, according to new research led by University of Arizona scientists.
The Gulf and southern Atlantic coasts will be particularly hard hit. Miami, New Orleans, Tampa, Fla., and Virginia Beach, Va. could lose more than 10 percent of their land area by 2100.
The research is the first analysis of vulnerability to sea-level rise that includes every U.S. coastal city in the lower 48 with a population of 50,000 or more.
The latest scientific projections indicate that by 2100, the sea level will rise about 1 meter — or even more. One meter is about 3 feet.
At the current rate of global warming, sea level is projected to continue rising after 2100 by as much as 1 meter per century.
“According to the most recent sea-level-rise science, that’s where we’re heading,” said lead researcher Jeremy L. Weiss, a senior research specialist in the UA’s department of geosciences. “Impacts from sea-level rise could be erosion, temporary flooding and permanent inundation.”
The coastal municipalities the team identified had 40.5 million people living in them, according to the 2000 U.S. Census. Twenty of those cities have more than 300,000 inhabitants.
Weiss and his colleagues examined how much land area from the 180 municipalities could be affected by 1 to 6 meters of sea-level rise.
“With the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions, the projections are that the global average temperature will be 8 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than present by 2100,” said Weiss, who is also a UA doctoral candidate in geosciences.
“That amount of warming will likely lock us into at least 4 to 6 meters of sea-level rise in subsequent centuries, because parts of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will slowly melt away like a block of ice on the sidewalk in the summertime.”
At 3 meters (almost 10 feet), on average more than 20 percent of land in those cities could be affected. Nine large cities, including Boston and New York, would have more than 10 percent of their current land area threatened. By 6 meters (about 20 feet), about one-third of the land area in U.S. coastal cities could be affected.
“Our work should help people plan with more certainty and to make decisions about what level of sea-level rise, and by implication, what level of global warming, is acceptable to their communities and neighbors,” said co-author Jonathan T. Overpeck, a UA professor of geosciences and of atmospheric sciences and co-director of UA’s Institute of the Environment.
Weiss, Overpeck and Ben Strauss of Climate Central in Princeton, N.J., will publish their paper, “Implications of Recent Sea Level Rise Science for Low-Elevation Areas in Coastal Cities of the Conterminous U.S.A.,” in Climatic Change Letters. The paper is scheduled to go online this week.
Weiss and Overpeck had previously developed maps of how increases in sea level could affect the U.S. coastline. Strauss suggested adding the boundaries of municipalities to focus on how rising seas would affect coastal towns and cities.
For the detailed maps needed for the new project, the researchers turned to the National Elevation Dataset produced by the U.S. Geological Survey. The NED provides a high-resolution digital database of elevations for the entire U.S.
The high resolution let Weiss and his colleagues identify the elevation of a piece of land as small as 30 meters (about 100 feet) on a side – about the size of an average house lot.
The researchers used the USGS database to create detailed digital maps of the U.S. coast that delineate what areas could be affected by 1 meter to 6 meters of sea-level rise. The researchers also added the boundaries for all municipalities with more than 50,000 people according to the 2000 U.S. Census.
To increase the accuracy of their maps, the team included all pieces of land that had a connection to the sea and excluded low-elevation areas that had no such connection. Rising seas do not just affect oceanfront property — water moves inland along channels, creeks, inlets and adjacent low-lying areas.
“Ours is the first national-scale data set that delineates these low-lying coastal areas for the entire lower 48 at this degree of spatial resolution,” Weiss said.
The NED data set has some uncertainty, particularly for estimating elevation changes of 1 meter or less. That means the researchers’ ability to identify the threat to any particular small piece of land is better for larger amounts of sea-level rise than for smaller amounts of sea-level rise, Weiss said.
“As better digital elevation models become available, we’ll be using those,” Weiss said. “The USGS is always improving the digital elevation models for the U.S.”
Overpeck said, “The main point of our work is to give people in our coastal towns and cities more information to work with as they decide how to deal with the growing problem of sea-level rise.”
Researcher contact information:
Jeremy Weiss
520-621-6144
Jonathan Overpeck
520-907-6480
Additional maps of the effects of sea-level rise — UA Department of Geosciences Environmental Studies Laboratory http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/
=========================================================
I’ve already debunked a similar story about sea level rise:
Freaking out about NYC sea level rise is easy to do when you don’t pay attention to history
But let’s do the exercise again.
OK current rate of sea level rise from UC’s website is:
Rate: 3.0 mm per year
2100-2011= 89 years
89 years * 3.0 mm/year = 267 mm
267 mm = 0.267 meter, or 10.51 inches, or .87 foot
1 meters – 0.267 meter = 0.73 meters short by 2100 at the current rate of sea level rise.
Let’s say the rate of sea level rise doubles:
we get 534 mm by 2100, still 0.46 meters short
Maybe the rate of sea level rise triples:
we get 801 mm by 2100, still 0.19 meters short
So far, there doesn’t seem to be any indication of accelerating sea level rise in the sea level data for the past 120 years. It seems rather linear, at 18.5 cm for the last 100 years.
The IPCC AR4 doesn’t seem to support 1 meter of sea level rise by 2100 either. While computer projections based on supposed temperature increases project out to 1 meter or more, the IPCC AR4 projections are much more conservative, at 20-60 centimeters.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
AdderW says:
February 15, 2011 at 12:55 am
“According to the most recent sea-level-rise science…”
say what ?
Evidentially, you did not get the memo where
all the “sea-level-rise-scientists” agreed to the consensus.
/grin
This site is worth a quick look, especially the pictures of All Saints Church from 1736 to 1930.
http://www.dunwich.org.uk/
But a little further south in England, we find this:-
“As the debate ebbs and flows about the dangers of coastal erosion to Britain’s shores, archaeologists in Kent have discovered that parts of our Roman coastline lay two miles inland from today’s coast.”
http://www.culture24.org.uk/history+%26+heritage/time/roman/art61315
“Curiouser and curiouser” cried Alice!
Tony says:
February 15, 2011 at 8:12 am
“Let’s assume that the sea level does, indeed, rise as predicted. As that occurs, the area covered by water will significantly increase, which means that it will take that much more water to achieve the next unit of rise. So as it continues, the rate of rise will have to slow down, not speed up.
For proof – dig a hole with sloped sides and fill it with equal measured amounts of water. Each identical amount you add will cause a smaller increase in the total depth. It’s just basic geometry.”
No proof needed for me. I have a home on the shore of a large artificial flood control reservior where the level rises and falls an average of 20 feet each year and when there are back to back drought years the change in water level is even greater. In big rain events I’ve seen the reservior rise by one foot per hour for 36 hours straight.
Anyhow, when the lake is full it generally goes down about 1 foot a week providing water for downstream uses (agriculture, industry, and municipal) and generating electricity at each of 5 dams along the 100 mile chain of lakes. In a drought year where the lake level is already down at the beginning of the summer it falls far faster because the surface area is greatly reduced. Conversely smaller rain events will make it rise faster when starting from a lower level. If it’s down 40 feet each inch of rain will bring it up about twofeet but when it’s full an inch of rain will only make it rise one foot.
Typically when it’s very dry in south central Texas the first 2-3 inches of a big rain event are soaked up by the dried out soil and don’t cause the reservoir to rise. Every inch after that goes straight to runoff.
@ur momisugly Bart
During the 6,000 years of “stasis” with that 0.7mm average rise in sea level, what were the rates of rise (and fall) of corresponding 100 year periods to the present acceleration of 3.0mm?
Is it not possible that the current variation is part of the normal fluctuations of the vagaries of planetary climate during an inter-glacial?
Were we to restrict climate science predictions in their use of “could”, “might” and “possibly”, would they still be able to create full sentences?
WOLF!!!!!!!!!
If you were a young home owner somewhere near the coast and you were told that your house would be ringed in barnacles and coral before your grand kids reached old age would you care about examining the science and data of the issue or would you just open your wallet, vote against anyone wanting to defund climate schemes and scowl at all those wretched greedy industrialists who don’t care about flooding you out? By certain standards, this was a well done piece of work.
Climate lunatics.
The University of Arizona! They can’t even read their own graph. The rate of sea level is not accelerating, it is slowing down. A totally land locked college, they can make up their own data. Create computer simulations based on suppositions. This must be a computer graphic design course. Some body made a mistake on the door signage. Oh yeh climate science is a make it up course. pg
I suppose that when sea levels start to fall the CAGW alarmists will claim that they predicted this all along and their models are validated yet again.
You can just see the headlines, ‘sea levels falling, IPPC projections proven right’ and ‘models were right all along falling sea levels prove global warming’. If something happens contrary to expectations just claim you knew it all along.
Although I’m 57 now, I’ll still around in 2100 to see what happens.
And since you’ll all be dead you have no way to prove I won’t be.
AdderW says:
February 15, 2011 at 12:55 am
“According to the most recent sea-level-rise science…”
say what ?
—
Sea level science = Surfing. Cowabunga!!
A note to those who wish to measure millimeter scale increases in sea surface height. Take your meter stick to the beach, wade into the ocean a depth of less than a meter, and place one end of the stick on the ocean floor. Squint at the stick and record the level of the ocean to +/- 1 mm. You may have to interpolate if the water level is a bit “unstable”. Good luck! And please send your findings to NOAA, 10 CAGW Lane, Washington, DC.
Climate change is not weather. We are at 389 part per million CO2, highest recored amount in 400,000 years and on track to reach 700 by end of the this century. 12 independent climate models show very similar results in our changing of the climate. Loosing a little shore line is the least of my worries. A sound bit you should take with you is: “If we reach 450 bpi of CO2 it is likely not reversible and predicted to be reached within twenty years.” Yes in twenty years!
Why are most of the comments about the study trying to debunk it? So we heat up, what does that mean? Look at Venus, it should only be 60 degrees warmer than the Earth due to it being closer to the sun, it is not it is 600 degrees warmer. Is there a point of no return? And if not, what is wrong with getting more miles per gallon from our cars? Why not choice for better milage and not destroy the Earth. Change is being pointed out from the research and the theories. Either our habits change or we change the planet. And the planet change does not look good. Repeating of Easter Island but this time the whole planet.
Money seem to be a concern. People getting grants to do research, oh my! World wide economy is at US$74.00 trillion. Why not understand a potentially end of planet process? It is real, damn it. So we spend a billion on the studies, we lost 4 billion in cash alone in Iraq, yes cash, no trail. Pulling back a 1000 soliders from our 30,000 in Afganistan could pay the tab. This kind of research is cheap, measurements and computer calculations. I have no dog in this fight, I sell furniture and run a soccer organization as a volunteer.
Here is a standing offer! Those who are frightened about coastal flooding and the validity of these projections, I will purchase any and all dry, developed properties, soon to be completely undated, for 2 cents on the dollar. I expect my phone to be ringing off the hook as these properties will soon be worthless. Al Gore should move quickly and take my offer, before it is too late. No need to thank me, just send me the deed, for cash, cash, cash!! Hope this makes it past the spam filter. GK
Doug Proctor says:
February 15, 2011 at 8:17 am
1. What is the latin term for extrapolation to absurdity, the opposite of reductio ad absurdum?
Extrapolatio ad absurdum.
I’ve just created a new Professorship, the Mark Twain Chair of Extrapolatio ad Absurdum. The position only pays a penny a year but I suspect the post-holder would be able to extrapolate that to an alarmingly large number with ease.
The guys at UofA are in the frame.
See: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/twain.htm
I need some new eyes.
Looking at that University of Colorado 2010_Re15/Rel5 picture, my presently distorted eyes say that from at least as far back as 2002, the sea level rise has been accelerating at a faster downward slope; well actually, make that 1998 rather than 2002; even MY eyes aren’t that bad.
He gets a G for “Gimme a break !”
But I did learn one useful thing from the article; a metre is about 3 feet; excuse me, make that “meter” so Chasmod doesn’t complane about my spelling.
Now I have no idea just what is going to happen over the next year/decade/century as regards, ANY aspect of weather or climate; but I have some good advice for coastal dwellers. It’s the same good advice, that my ancestors gave to King Canute:-
Move the throne back from the water line Mate !
I think I just got my PhD in the Catastrophic Sciences.
Based on my own models, which project a 10.03 meter sea level rise by March 12, 2108, I have coloured all the appropriate map contour lines very neatly – yes, kept my crayon marks inside the lines – and I can now be a UN advisor or qualified expert.
I thought that, as a regular WUWT reader, that I should announce my groundbreaking, or perhaps windbreaking, work here rather than in the prestigious USA Today or the almost as prestigious Journal of Imaginary Scary Scenarios.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
P.S. ge0050 says:
February 15, 2011 at 7:48 am
“FIGURE EIGHT ISLAND REAL ESTATE
This private, peaceful ocean side haven offers bright blue waters and long stretches of beach, and is home to notables like Al Gore, John Edwards…”
Gore and Edwards. Now that we know about the real Edwards, they appear to be perfect neighbors.
Steve McGuirk says:
February 15, 2011 at 9:43 am
“World wide economy is at US$74.00 trillion. ”
Interesting. If your stat is correct, the US national debt is now equal to 20% of the world GDP. What could possibly go wrong?
So, by all means, lets shovel borrowed money to anyone with a catchy ‘I’ll save you from climate change’ story because, after all, that is the real threat [sarc].
“”””” Ian says:
February 15, 2011 at 5:17 am
Silly me! When I look again, only New Orleans is strange – due to the levees? “””””
Don’t worry about New Orleans Ian, they will just have the Army Corps of Engineers come in, and build the dikes higher; so that the next Katrina will fill the swimming pool with a deeper layer of water. And the folks there will still be sitting around asking “wha’ happened ?”
NO was a French Idea wasn’t it ?
Aren’t they gearing up for the next AR5 report. This will be peer-reviewed, published and accepted mantra ready for inclusion in the report to demonstrate theat they are/were right all along.
Steve McGuirk says:
February 15, 2011 at 9:43 am
> Look at Venus, it should only be 60 degrees warmer than the Earth due to it being closer to the sun, it is not it is 600 degrees warmer.
As discussed here ad nauseum several months ago, the better comparison is between
the surface of the Earth at a pressure of 1 bar, and the upper atmosphere of Venus at a pressure of 1 bar. The temperature of the surface of Venus is much higher than Earth’s due to the thick atmosphere and the adiabatic lapse rate.
—
An aside – I think my Web host issues are under control for the time being. Yay.
A great Paper – if what was predicted does actually happen. I have only one criticism: Weiss seems to have left out the end of one phrase – which in its entirety should have read: “At the current rate of global warming, which is zero, sea level is ………….”
I think a different conclusion is warranted!
Steve McGuirk says:
February 15, 2011 at 9:43 am
“…12 independent climate models show very similar results…”
Well there you have it – the models all agree. There is no further need for actual measurements!
Steve McGuirk says:
February 15, 2011 at 9:43 am
“We are at 389 part per million CO2, highest recored amount in 400,000 years and on track to reach 700 by end of the this century”
Please inform me of the exact location where the amount of economically extractable coal (less then $100 ton delivered to market) necessary to push CO2 to 700 ppm by 2100 is located.
How much actually coal exists is irrelevant, nobody is going to pay for coal what they pay for diamonds.
It obviously doesn’t exist anywhere in Asia as the benchmark price for steam coal is currently $120. It doesn’t exist in Europe either, as the benchmark price of steam coal in Europe is about $110/tonne. It doesn’t exist in Africa either as the current price of steam coal is over $100/tonne there as well.
Ron Cram says:
February 15, 2011 at 4:58 am
“If these kinds of predictions ever affect property values, I’m buying along the coast of Texas and Florida!”
Buy along Florida. The quality of the beaches is unbelievably higher.
Baa Humbug says:
February 15, 2011 at 12:43 am
Jonathan Overpeck eh? Say no more.
Yep, as soon as I saw that name I thought the same thing!
Time to fit the sea level curve to a polynomial fit. It is flattening and the sea is getting cooler.