From Rutgers University
Global sea level likely to rise as much as 70 feet for future generations
NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. — Even if humankind manages to limit global warming to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F), as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommends, future generations will have to deal with sea levels 12 to 22 meters (40 to 70 feet) higher than at present, according to research published in the journal Geology.
The researchers, led by Kenneth G. Miller, professor of earth and planetary sciences in the School of Arts and Sciences at Rutgers University, reached their conclusion by studying rock and soil cores in Virginia, Eniwetok Atoll in the Pacific and New Zealand. They looked at the late Pliocene epoch, 2.7 million to 3.2 million years ago, the last time the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was at its current level, and atmospheric temperatures were 2 degrees C higher than they are now.
“The difference in water volume released is the equivalent of melting the entire Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets, as well as some of the marine margin of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet,” said H. Richard Lane, program director of the National Science Foundation’s Division of Earth Sciences, which funded the work. “Such a rise of the modern oceans would swamp the world’s coasts and affect as much as 70 percent of the world’s population.”
“You don’t need to sell your beach real estate yet, because melting of these large ice sheets will take from centuries to a few thousand years,” Miller said. “The current trajectory for the 21st century global rise of sea level is 2 to 3 feet (0.8 to1 meter) due to warming of the oceans, partial melting of mountain glaciers, and partial melting of Greenland and Antarctica.”
Miller said, however, that this research highlights the sensitivity of the earth’s great ice sheets to temperature change, suggesting that even a modest rise in temperature results in a large sea-level rise. “The natural state of the earth with present carbon dioxide levels is one with sea levels about 20 meters higher than at present,” he said.
Miller was joined in the research by Rutgers colleagues James G. Wright, associate professor of earth and planetary sciences; James V. Browning, assistant research professor of earth and planetary sciences; Yair Rosenthal, professor of marine science in the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences; Sindia Sosdian, research scientist in marine science and a postdoctoral scholar at Cardiff University in Wales; and Andrew Kulpecz, a Rutgers doctoral student when the work was done, now with Chevron Corp. Other co-authors were Michelle Kominz, professor of geophysics and basin dynamics at Western Michigan University; Tim R. Naish, director of the Antarctic Research Center at Victoria University of Wellington, in New Zealand; Benjamin S. Cramer of Theiss Research in Eugene, Ore.; and W. Richard Peltier, professor of physics and director of the Center for Global Change Science at the University of Toronto.
###
@NotTheAussiePhil
Of course if you transform the field into a three dimensional mass space it is a measure of volume of an item transformed to that space. 🙂
They do realize that naturally at some point in future geologic time, the Earth WILL emerge from the current ice age of which we are only in a brief pause and the sea levels will indeed rise phenomenally. If man is still here when it happens, we will have had NOTHING to do with it.
I forgot to add “Don’t they?” to my previous at the end. I should really read my posts before posting them.
This is wonderful news. I was so deperately worried when we learned that the Ice caps would be gone by 2013. and that winter snow would be gone for ever by now. How marvelous that these knowledgable and committed warmists have now told us not to worry for the next 10 thousand or so years and that our grand children are going to be safe after all. I was also impressed by the finding in their research when Professor Miller said “this research highlights the sensitivity of the earth’s great ice sheets to temperature change” I presume he means if it warms above freezing. But who ever would have thought that ice would melt if it got warmer. The sponors of their research must be staggered by their findings and be really pleased that their money has been well spent. I presume the research group will be going on to grammar school in the next year or so.
And now we read that Britain’s green taxes have caused its carbon footprint to increase by 20%. Who would have thunk it?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117428/Britains-carbon-footprint-increased-20-cent-despite-green-taxes.html
David Cage says:
March 20, 2012 at 12:36 am
I just hope the stupid scaremongering of all those even remotely involved in climate sciences does not discredit science to such a degree that all the other branches are tainted with the discredit when nature proves their forecasts to be utter trash. I suppose they may well be defended from their crass incompetence by the protection of the media which appears to be burying predictions like the hundred months to doomsday runaway temperature prediction surprisingly successfully.
Sorry its already too late. Looking at responses to research stories now all researchers are being tarred with the same ‘research results for rent money’ responses. If it becomes apparent that things are not going to forecast the media will volte-face overnight and pick up a new meme any criticism will be placed at the doors of science getting it wrong again.
The real damage to science though is the universities churning out graduates that have been brainwashed to believe and not been educated enough to realize that they have been brainwashed. What chance any new good engineers or scientists from that group?
Research that’s short on real data but long on extrapolation is indistinguishable from day dreaming by a 3-year old.
@pwl, you seem to have a couple of typos in your post (March 20, 2012 at 12:19 am):
2,580,000 vs 2,850,000 and cubic kilograms vs cubic kilometers.
I don’t get it. We have decades of science and more data than can be rehashed in a lifetime, yet these CO2 alarmists continue on. In the stated “centuries to a few thousand years,” sea level will fall by meters as the ice sheets readvance and wipe out much of civilization in the northern hemisphere. As Harold Ambler says, “Don’t Sell Your Coat.”
Cold kills. Warmer is better.
Christie wants to merge Rutgers with Rowan due to $ levels dropping. The fast money has been on the warm burner for several decades now. Makes you wonder if this is a “follow the money” thing.
the only variable in the level of glaciation and sea level is c02. The one and only variable. I was sure this level of understanding has been surpassed by now, even by the mainstream media.
Christopher Hanley says:
March 20, 2012 at 1:03 am
Can’t more productive work be found for these people to do?
=========================================================================
I doubt it. This is their very best work. So, not for these guys. And preferably not anything important or involving sharp instruments or heavy equipment.
Christopher Hanley says:
March 20, 2012 at 1:03 am
“Can’t more productive work be found for these people to do?
There’ll probably be a market for journeyman pontoon fabricators in 12,000 years or so …”
Probably not enough time to retrain them!
It has already degraded science. I used to love all things scientific and believed in peer review. Now I take science discoveries with a grain of salt. I also bemoan the explosion of modelling in science, and other fields – just waiting to form the next insanity.
Take the standard model of the universe which works a treat only if it’s filled mostly with dark matter and dark energy, neither of which exists to the best of our knowledge. I am glad for them, but only while they don’t try to tax me for it.
The Rutgers guy has the cart before the horse. The CO2 concentration was high 2-3 million years ago because the oceans were warmer. Glassman has a theory that fits the facts:
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
When are we going see degree programs in sensational, agitprop writing? Why bother making these guys take the hard maths?
@higley7
I prefer the 3 year old day dreams…they don’t destroy the economies of the world!
So, 3.2 million years ago we know what the Global temperature was down to a couple of degree’s Centigrade, really?
This reflects favorably on the brilliant foresight of Senator Byrd (D-WV) in his efforts to neutralize this immediate threat by moving the Federal government to West Virginia. Compare this with the shortsightedness of Senator Gore the Lesser (D-TN) buying beachfront property in California.
What was at one time a real education has been replaced by village idiots playing caps and gowns. So here is an idea whose time has come. Kick every 18 year old out of your house and let them sink or swim on their own. Do it now. Don’t fund their schooling. Don’t pay their rent. And for heaven’s sake, don’t feed them. Thus grounded in reality, we have a more reasonable chance of a future lived in freedom.
Freedom isn’t free, but if we send people to universities on someone else’s dime, they learn something we never intended them to learn. It is time for us to own up to the fact that we more than likely sent our village idiots to university. And now our collective stupidity has come home to roost.
“higley7 says:
March 20, 2012 at 5:15 am
Research that’s short on real data but long on extrapolation is indistinguishable from day dreaming by a 3-year old.”
Please… do not insult 3-year olds.
People being happy about this nice winter weather is analogous to a death row inmate being excited that the food just got a lot better. You guys in this Right Wing echo chamber want any cherry pie?
Whence will it come all that water?, it´s real water !
Agree – too late for the reputation of “Science” to be saved. “Science” as it is practiced by Rutgers et al has a very simple formula:
1) define the conclusions you want to reach
2) design a computer program with enough variables and assumptions to allow you to reach those conclusions, regardless of the underlying data.
3) Plug in some random data and run the program.
3a) if the results are not what you expect, dump the program and start over.
3b) if the program brings forth the desired conclusion, rejoice! The work is done
4) Once the “proper” conclusion has been reached, announce the results to the public with great fanfare and declare “The Science is Settled!!!”
5) Bask in the warm glow of all the money that will flow in from government and all other vested interests who have a strong financial stake in seeing you reach the “right” conclusions; ie, the conclusions which will allow them to separate the most people from the most money.
5) Wash, rinse, repeat.
All you need to know about this is that one researcher is “now with Chevron Corp”. That means that he is funded by big oil, which means that nothing he says can be believed.
David Cage says:
March 20, 2012 at 12:36 am
“I just hope the stupid scaremongering of all those even remotely involved in climate sciences does not discredit science to such a degree that all the other branches are tainted with the discredit when nature proves their forecasts to be utter trash.”
Too late.
http://www.neurope.eu/article/talking-risk-and-benefits-eu-s-first-lady-science
Science is a branch of politics.