Stefan Rahmstorf and the consensus of experts on sea level -vs- reality, reality wins

From Stefan Rahmstorf and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)

Expert assessment: Sea-level rise could exceed 1 meter in this century

In contrast, for a scenario with strong emissions reductions, experts expect a sea-level rise of 40-60 centimeters by 2100 and 60-100 centimeters by 2300. The survey was conducted by a team of scientists from the USA and Germany.

“While the results for the scenario with climate mitigation suggest a good chance of limiting future sea-level rise to one meter, the high emissions scenario would threaten the survival of some coastal cities and low-lying islands,” says Stefan Rahmstorf from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “From a risk management perspective, projections of future sea-level rise are of major importance for coastal planning, and for weighing options of different levels of ambition in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.”

Projecting sea-level rise, however, comes with large uncertainties, since the physical processes causing the rise are complex. They include the expansion of ocean water as it warms, the melting of mountain glaciers and ice caps and of the two large ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, and the pumping of ground water for irrigation purposes. Different modeling approaches yield widely differing answers. The recently published IPCC report had to revise its projections upwards by about 60 percent compared to the previous report published in 2007, and other assessments of sea-level rise compiled by groups of scientists resulted in even higher projections. The observed sea-level rise as measured by satellites over the past two decades has exceeded earlier expectations.

Largest elicitation on sea-level rise ever: 90 key experts from 18 countries

“It this therefore useful to know what the larger community of sea-level experts thinks, and we make this transparent to the public,” says lead author Benjamin Horton from the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences at Rutgers University in New Jersey. “We report the largest elicitation on future sea-level rise conducted from ninety objectively selected experts from 18 countries.” The experts were identified from peer-reviewed literature published since 2007 using the publication database ‘Web of Science’ of Thomson Reuters, an online scientific indexing service, to make sure they are all active researchers in this area. 90 international experts, all of whom published at least six peer-reviewed papers on the topic of sea-level during the past 5 years, provided their probabilistic assessment.

The survey finds most experts expecting a higher rise than the latest IPCC projections of 28-98 centimeters by the year 2100. Two thirds (65%) of the respondents gave a higher value than the IPCC for the upper end of this range, confirming that IPCC reports tend to be conservative in their assessment.

The experts were also asked for a “high-end” estimate below which they expect sea-level to stay with 95 percent certainty until the year 2100. This high-end value is relevant for coastal planning. For unmitigated emissions, half of the experts (51%) gave 1.5 meters or more and a quarter (27%) 2 meters or more. The high-end value in the year 2300 was given as 4.0 meters or higher by the majority of experts (58%).

While we tend to look at projections with a focus on the relatively short period until 2100, sea-level rise will obviously not stop at that date. “Overall, the results for 2300 by the expert survey as well as the IPCC illustrate the risk that temperature increases from unmitigated emissions could commit coastal populations to a long-term, multi-meter sea-level rise,” says Rahmstorf. “They do, however, illustrate also the potential for escaping such large sea-level rise through substantial reductions of emissions.”

###

Article: B. P. Horton, S. Rahmstorf, S. E. Engelhart, A.C.Kemp: Expert assessment of sea-level rise by AD 2100 and AD 2300. Quaternary Science Reviews (2013). [doi: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.11.002]

Link to the article when it goes online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.11.002

============================================================

The basic premise of Stefan Rahmstorf’s claim is that sea level rise will accelerate before the end of the century. So far there has been no evidence of acceleration, it appears entirely linear no matter whether we look at tide gauges or satellite measurements.

The image below (From Holgate 2007 On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century in GRL) shows Holgate’s reconstruction of the sea level rise rate for the 20th century from the highest quality tide gauge data.

holgate-9-station-with-std-dev-digitized[1]

As you can see, the sea level rise rate widely varied during the 20th century.  It reached about 4 mm/year around 1911, and again in the 1930s, 1950s and around 1980.   It was much lower in the 1920s, 1940s, 1960s and mid-1980s.

Holgate concludes:

Based on a selection of nine long, high quality tide gauge records, the mean rate of sea level rise over the period 1904–2003wasfoundtobe1.74±0.16mm/yr after correction for GIA using the ICE-4G model [Peltier, 2001] and for inverse barometer effects using HadSLP2 [Allan and Ansell, 2006]. The mean rate of rise was greater in the first half of this period than the latter half, though the difference in rates was not found to be significant. The useof a reduced number of high quality sea level records was found to be as suitable in this type of analysis as using a larger number of regionally averaged gauges.

For satellite measurements there also doesn’t seem to be any acceleration.

German veteran meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls has done an analysis of sea level rise. Contrary to many claims, we see that sea level rise has decelerated markedly since 2003.

Puls_2[1]

– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2012/12/06/meteorologist-klaus-eckart-puls-sea-level-rise-has-slowed-34-over-the-last-decade/#sthash.h1npSYgJ.dpuf

So, neither tide gauges nor satellite measurements suggest acceleration is occurring. Even if we use the worst case value, 3.2 mm/year cited by CU in a linear calculation…

…we get this:

years left 2100-2013= 87 years

3.2 mm/year * 87 years = 278.4mm  or 0.2784meter…about a quarter of the 1 meter (or more) claim made by Rahmstorf.

Rahmstorf isn’t working in reality.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
92 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
OssQss
November 22, 2013 6:32 pm

This whole subject smells of fish!
Why? 😉

November 22, 2013 6:34 pm

Meanwhile, back in the ‘real’ world. . .

Senator: Sports Stadiums ‘at Risk from…Sea-Level Rise Effects of Climate Change’

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/sean-long/senator-sports-stadiums-risk-fromsea-level-rise-effects-climate-change#sthash.FZOcOW3R.dpuf
Good grief!
/Mr Lynn

u.k.(us)
November 22, 2013 7:04 pm

1sky1 says:
November 22, 2013 at 11:00 am
“The fact of the matter is that there aren’t 90 persons in the world who are truly expert on the complexities of sea-level variations.”….
=============
Wouldn’t one be enough ?

barry
November 22, 2013 9:20 pm

Fault with the premise in the OP: past sea level rise is best indicator of future sea level rise? Too much emphasis on statistics, and no deference to physics.
What of the increase in sea level in the satellite record (34 years) being about twice as much as the tide gauge record of the last century?
Personally, I don’t think there is quite enough satellite data to indicate a statistically significant acceleration, although if the current rate continues for another 10 years, then I will say that sea level rise has accelerated. I note the other points made in the article, but it sems this obvious comparison, even at a cursory level, is completely overlooked, and even though both values appear in the article (1.7 mm/dec v 3.2 mm/dec). They just don’t get compared. Because of this obvious omission, the article lacks a balanced viewpoint. It’s one-sided.

Philip Lloyd
November 22, 2013 9:41 pm

It is an enduring but rather quiet thesis of the IPCC that sea level rise is accelerating. I have played with quite a lot of the tide gauge records, and can’t find any evidence, but a man called Church from Australia seems to be both judge and prosecutor. Chap 13 in AR5 (Church as CLA) says bluntly “Based on proxy and instrumental data, it is virtually certain that the rate of global mean sea level rise has accelerated during the last two centuries, marking the transition from relatively low rates of change during the late Holocene (order tenths of mm yr–1) to modern rates (order mm yr–1).”
Take one nice long tide gauge record like that of New York. I have tried many tricks on the data to try to get it to accelerate, but it seems jammed on about 2.9mm/a. But I haven’t tried Church’s trick of principal component analysis, because after the Hockey Stick and Warmer Antarctic debacles I feel just a little nervous about such techniques. He finds an oceanic hockey stick kicking in around 1920, which is sort of early for AGW to be the cause – if you assume that the principal component analysis is true.

November 23, 2013 1:30 am

Re:barry 9:20 pm
What of the increase in sea level in the satellite record (34 years) being about twice as much as the tide gauge record of the last century?
Personally, I don’t think there is quite enough satellite data to indicate a statistically significant acceleration, although if the current rate continues for another 10 years, then I will say that sea level rise has accelerated. I note the other points made in the article, but it sems this obvious comparison, even at a cursory level, is completely overlooked, and even though both values appear in the article (1.7 mm/dec v 3.2 mm/dec). They just don’t get compared. Because of this obvious omission, the article lacks a balanced viewpoint. It’s one-sided.

mm/dec? Did you mean mm/yr?
As I’ve pointed out in my other posts on this page, remove the additions, corrections and other manipulations from the satellite record, and sea level these last ten years is probably no more than 1.9 mm/yr. Besides, an honest evaluation of the tide gauge data, not the cherry picked and massaged data in the Church & White papers and thier followers, yields a current value of about 1.6 mm/yr.

George Lawson
November 23, 2013 3:00 am

I wonder how many of the sea level expert scientists who have produced papers to refute the so called consensus on rising sea levels were included in the survey, or was this just a survey of the true believers without any chance of a dissenting voice. Is it not slightly unusual that in a report of this nature there was no mention of any scientists in the survey who said that there would be minimal or no rising sea levels in the future, particularly in the light of there being no global warming over the last seventeen years? But when you see that this rubbish has followed so much previous rubbish put out by Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute of Climate Research, then we read what they say, have a smile and then press the delete button.

Steve Fitzpatrick
November 23, 2013 4:30 am

” Keitho says:
November 22, 2013 at 12:09 pm
What I fail to understand is what causes the rather large oscillation in the rate of sea level change. I mean it is a huge lump of water ( 1.3 billion cubic kilometers ) but its rate of change changes quite rapidly. Why?”
The biggest factor for short term variation (up to several years) is ENSO, where there is strong correlation between the la Nina phase and lower sea level. This appears to be mainly the result of shifts in rainfall patterns, with more rainfall over land during la Nina and less during el Nino being the most likely explanation. There appears to also be a ~60 year oscillation in the rate of sea level rise, though this is less clear than the ENSO influence. Some of the rate of rise in the satellite record (especially through ~2005) may be attributable the satellite record corresponding to upward part of ~60 year oscillation. Untangling natural variation in sea level from a longer term secular trend is a challenge.

Louis Hooffstetter
November 23, 2013 4:59 am

As Steve Case 5:37 and Ken Gregory 12:09 pm point out, sea level data sets (like temperature data sets) have been adjusted and molested to the point that they simply can’t be trusted. Decades of time and billions of dollars were spent collecting these data sets, and now climastrologists have rendered them useless.
Climatology is an honorable profession currently populated by dishonorable people. These people should be jailed for fraud.

November 23, 2013 8:48 am

I wonder what these so called experts would have said if they lived in russia under Stalin

Alvin
November 23, 2013 9:13 am

Senator Whitehouse met with representatives from professional sports team to warn them that their stadiums are at risk from ocean rise from climate change.
http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/sean-long/senator-sports-stadiums-risk-fromsea-level-rise-effects-climate-change

DirkH
November 23, 2013 10:12 am

john piccirilli says:
November 23, 2013 at 8:48 am
“I wonder what these so called experts would have said if they lived in russia under Stalin”
Stalin loved pseudoscientists. Trofim Lysenko. The ones that got shot were the geneticists.

Downdraft
November 23, 2013 10:26 am

The way the experts were selected could only lead to an extreme result. The experts selected had published multiple times on sea level, likely having benefited from dire predictions in one study scaring up money for the next study. This new “study” should scare some more money out of the coffers of governments and foundations. Reporting that there is little to worry about might shut off the funding.
Pardon me for being so cynical, but to this outsider, it looks like the manner of funding scientific study guaranties exaggerated results. If they were paid to be correct, rather than alarmist, would the results be less alarmist? “You get what you pay for” applies.

clive
November 23, 2013 1:54 pm

I have been living in Queensland, Australia, since 1979.Up until recently I lived a couple of blocks from the beach and have never noticed the water any further up the beach in this time.
Most,if not all of these Doom Sayers have probably never even seen the Beach.As some people often say “A lie can be half way round the world before you have gotten your pants on”
What they tend to forget, is that after a while people stop taking any notice of what you say.

RoHa
November 23, 2013 6:24 pm

Reality wins? My computer models say it cheats.

Rob
November 23, 2013 9:13 pm

VIRTUALY CERTAIN:
Virtual
1. Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name: the virtual extinction of the buffalo.
2. Existing in the mind, especially as a product of the imagination. Used in literary criticism of a text.
3. Computer Science Created, simulated, or carried on by means of a computer or computer network: virtual conversations in a chatroom
Yup they are “virtually” certain