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.
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Progressive institutions of higher learning…oy. Academics are incredibly spoiled.
The correct conclusion is that CO2 HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GLOBAL TEMP, not that the global temp has to rise and melt the ice sheets. Typical drivel
Gilbert K. Arnold says:
March 20, 2012 at 3:56 am
Sandy says:
March 20, 2012 at 12:31 am
Scientific value : V
Number of authors : N
V = N^-2
Thanks Willis!! 😀
Actually the correct equation is: V = 1/’N^2
Just thought I’d clear that up.
You’re obviously unaware that V = N^-2 ≡ V = 1/N^2 ( ≡ = is the same as)
We will probably have a Carrington-like event before then, so it shouldn’t be difficult for the remaining human population ( or the ruling apes, lol ) to move their huts further up the beach, …
Reports like this will continue as long as government gives support for reports like this.
thanes, climaet scientists have been making dire predictions for decades and so far none of these catastrophic results have even come close to reality. You are the sucker.
Has anyone tracked down the real paper? Is it paywalled? The press release looks to me like classic climate crap — poorly written speculative fiction disguised as science. And I’m a bit hazy on how data from New Zealand (not remotely tectonically stable) and Eniwetok ( low coral islands with a maximum elevation of about 2 meters above current sea level) can tell us much about sea levels 2-3 million years ago.
That said, there is a structure in Virginia and the Carolinas called the Suffolk Scarp that does seem to indicate that sea levels might have been 3-8 meters higher a few hundred thousand years ago. Given mankind’s proclivity for building expensive and essential infrastructure just above mean higher high water, 3-8 meters of sea level rise would likely be a very real problem.
How did these guys ever become Professors of Anything?
Steve Goddard has revealed an interesting trajectory line too…
http://www.Real-Science.com/the-linear-trend
reminds me of those real estate prices a few years back…..
First, let’s clear the CO2 level out of the way. Ferenc Miskolczi has shown, using NOAA database of weather balloon observations, that the transparency of the atmosphere in the infrared where carbon dioxide absorbs has been constant for 61 years. Carbon dioxide increased by 21.6 percent during this time. This means that addition of this carbon dioxide to atmosphere had no effect on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. This is today but one would think someone would have deduced it sooner from the wide discrepancy between CO2 and temperature in geologic time, not to mention the reverse order of temperature and CO2 in ice cores. Now the sea level. Chao, Yu, and Li (Science 320:212-214 April 11th 2008) found that the sea level rise has been linear for at last eighty years. The slope of the sea level rise curve was 2.46 millimeters per year which works out to a little under ten inches per century. Anything that has been linear that long is not about to change anytime soon. So what is it now? Satellites report 3 millimeters per year, within the statistical error of sea level projection from Chao, Yu, and Li. Now that you know what sea level to expect you can throw out all the fantasies from Miller to Gore that depend on a non-existent greenhouse effect.
Charlie A says:
March 20, 2012 at 12:15 am
So the natural sea level height is 20 meters higher with today’s CO2 levels.
What is the natural sea level height with the CO2 level of 1700 or 1800AD ?
Charlie A gets it. But his point will be lost on the warmists: if today’s CO2 and 2C (above 1850?, as that is the reference, 1.3C more to go) “naturally” result in a melting of ice and a rise of 70′, what would a lower CO2 level and DROP of 2C do to sea level?
Notice that the physics works only one way? That back during the LIA the sea level didn’t drop by 70′ – or even 10′?
I’m still getting a grip on the particulars of “post-normal science”. This must be another of those features. Warming melts, cooling doesn’t do anything. But, apparently, only Gore-times warming, as the Minoan, Roman and MWP did nothing to sea levels.
CO2 doesn’t cause sea-level changes. Temperature changes enough to cause melting OR freezing causes sea-level changes.
What is wrong with these people?
thanes says:
March 20, 2012 at 6:23 am
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?
**********************************
If ‘right wing echo chamber’ means capable of laughing at the patently absurd, I thank you.
Pathetic paper and that Peltier would co sign this kind of garbage is really sad.
Why don’t they just come out and speak the truth? This “research” was done to see if we can scam some more money from brain dead sheeples and their gubermints(for us),while at the same time adhereing to the Useless Nation’s treay #21 to help reduce world population by diverting much needed monies and energies to us.
Marx,lenin,etal must be kicking their butts they didn’t come up with such as simple scheme.
Oh well.At least they spouted something about a few thousand years from now.Wish I could play the markets for just a few DAYS from now!
As I learned from Anthony’s posts, sea rise in the XX century was about 30 cm, and the rate of the sea rise has not accelerated. We are in the second decade of the XXI century, and so far had no warming, and I remember reading that the rates of the rise are dithering.
To speed the sea rise trend to 90 cm by the end of the century we indeed need to have some kind of catastrophic global warming, or something…
Also, what CO2 has got to do with global temperature (if there is such a thing)? A couple of million years ago sea levels may have been 70m higher, and so was CO2. But it does not follow that the CO2 caused the higher sea levels…
Looks like the Arctic Sea Ice Area has expanded enough to have intersect the 1979-2006 monthly average on the Norsex SSM/I chart…
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
I’ve been holding my breath, so that proves it works. :-]
So we are right back where we started. Geologists point out that past interglacial had much higher sea level peaks than our current level, so we can expect sea level to rise alot yet. Our cities are not “sustainable” in their current locations (something we already knew looking at past sea levels). But it will take centuries or millenia to happen.
So……..no problem then. The age expectancy of our cities and their infrastructure is only about 100-200 years, tops. So we move our cities slowly as sea level creeps up, and since we need to rebuild the infrastructure anyway, there is zero lost wealth. Failing to see the emergency here.
I love the assumption that current conditions are permanent.
Rob Crawford says:
March 20, 2012 at 8:42 am
I love the assumption that current conditions are permanent.
…..
I love the assumption that despite 121+ years of environmental doomsaying, The world has seen no man-made environmental cataclysms.
http://www.lowerwolfjaw.com/agw/quotes.htm
Ho-Hum.
Is there any way we can speed up this sea level rise? All that coastal development would make fantastic fishing structure when it gets flooded!
Jay Davis
@Joseph Bastardi: Putting it in electromagnetic terms : you cannot tune a FM radio station with a AM only receiver. As simple as that.
More interesting is that this law applies to EVERYTHING, thus information, “knowledge”, being as material as everything else in the universe, cannot be “seen”, “tuned” by a gross mind having a primitive circuitry. LOL!. Through this generalization you can explain the crying of some people, when rejecting or angrily responding deniers!
The one world government will stem this sea level rise. Don’t worry. Human gene engineering can give us gills in any case.
I’ve been trying to locate their budget and money sources. I’d like to take soil and rock samples in London, Paris, Rio and Singapore next year, accompanied by a few carefully selected colleagues. If needs must, we will also produce a paper. Any idea where to look?
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…..
________________________
Considering most (All?) of the learned societies of science have also jumped of the bandwagon to support CAGW I would not bet the farm on it. Several of the scientists here at WUWT have given up membership in those learned societies because of their blind support.
Science is going to get the black eye it richly deserves in my opinion. The high and mighty ivory tower types need to be knocked off their pedestals.