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.
John Brookes says:
March 22, 2012 at 4:35 am
—————–
The mathematical error you reference was done by one individual, and it was quickly corrected by another commenter. NASA’s rocket scientists have made mistakes that so far have killed off 17 highly trained astronauts. And you only seem to add snark in comments whenever I come across your “contributions” on science blogs.
John Brookes says:
March 22, 2012 at 4:35 am
Looks like a good paper. But the residents here dislike any actual research into climate, preferring planetary influences, oceanic cycles and tarot readings….
_____________________________
Yes you are correct! Except it is changes in the sun’s insolation not tarot readings. If there is one variable that explains glacial/interglacial it is the Planetary Influences aka Milankovitch cycles.
Milankovitch cycles have been known to all scientists for decades even the warmists.
barry says:
March 20, 2012 at 6:03 pm
We’ve emitted the same amount of CO2 over 150 years that it took natural processes to outgas over 5 milennia in the last 3 glacial terminations. The same amount of CO2 that accompanied global warming of 6C in a thirtieth of the time. And we’re currently still emitting at an even faster rate. We’re conducting a large-scale, uncontrolled experiment with the atmosphere…
_____________________________________
And the plants thank us for it because they were close to starving. CO2 levels were much higher in the past and those are the levels the plants are adapted to. Returning CO2 levels to past levels (1,000 ppm) is not “a large-scale, uncontrolled experiment” It is RESTORING the environment. See: http://i32.tinypic.com/nwix4x.png
Plants are so close to starving, that more “CO2 efficient” types are evolving (C4 and CAM). C3 plants include more than 95 percent of the plant species on earth and include varieties such as trees. C4 plants include summer annuals and grasses. The C4 plants photosynthesis is 6 times faster than C3 plants. There is a third kind, the CAM plants.
examples:
C3—–>wheat, barley, potatoes and sugar beet. (most of the plants are C3)
C4—–>fourwing saltbush, corn ,many of summer annual plants.
CAM—> cactuses,some orchids and bromeliads
I did find in my notes “200 pm CO2 trees starve” SOURCE= http://biblioteca.universia.net/ficha.do?id=912067 but the link no longer works… Now all the searches turn up papers showing 180 ppm or lower…. I just check a couple of studies the 180 -200 ppm CO2 for trees is now based on “models” derived from the ice cores. Talk about circular reasoning! The death of trees below 200 ppm was one of the arguments against the validity of the CO2 measurements Ice Cores. (There are several others)
The minimum level CO2 needed by plants (200 to 300 ppm) can also be inferred from these experiments.
In open air ~ WHEAT:
CO2 depletion in a greenhouses ~ From the people who know and depend on the truth, FARMERS
Hydroponic Shop