Claim: Sea level rise from ice sheets track worst-case climate change scenario

UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS

Ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica whose melting rates are rapidly increasing have raised the global sea level by 1.8cm since the 1990s, and are matching the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s worst-case climate warming scenarios.

View towards Icefjord in Ilulissat. Easy hiking route to the famous Kangia glacier in Greenland. The Ilulissat Icefjord seen from the viewpoint. Declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2004. Photo taken in Greenland.

According to a new study from the University of Leeds and the Danish Meteorological Institute, if these rates continue, the ice sheets are expected to raise sea levels by a further 17cm and expose an additional 16 million people to annual coastal flooding by the end of the century.

Since the ice sheets were first monitored by satellite in the 1990s, melting from Antarctica has pushed global sea levels up by 7.2mm, while Greenland has contributed 10.6mm. And the latest measurements show that the world’s oceans are now rising by 4mm each year.

“Although we anticipated the ice sheets would lose increasing amounts of ice in response to the warming of the oceans and atmosphere, the rate at which they are melting has accelerated faster than we could have imagined,” said Dr Tom Slater, lead author of the study and climate researcher at the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at the University of Leeds.

“The melting is overtaking the climate models we use to guide us, and we are in danger of being unprepared for the risks posed by sea level rise.”

The results are published today in a study in the journal Nature Climate Change. It compares the latest results from satellite surveys from the Ice Sheet Mass Balance Intercomparison Exercise (IMBIE) with calculations from climate models. The authors warn that the ice sheets are losing ice at a rate predicted by the worst-case climate warming scenarios in the last large IPCC report.

Dr Anna Hogg, study co-author and climate researcher in the School of Earth and Environment at Leeds, said: “If ice sheet losses continue to track our worst-case climate warming scenarios we should expect an additional 17cm of sea level rise from the ice sheets alone. That’s enough to double the frequency of storm-surge flooding in many of the world’s largest coastal cities.”

So far, global sea levels have increased in the most part through a mechanism called thermal expansion, which means that volume of seawater expands as it gets warmer. But in the last five years, ice melt from the ice sheets and mountain glaciers has overtaken global warming as the main cause of rising sea levels.

Dr Ruth Mottram, study co-author and climate researcher at the Danish Meteorological Institute, said: “It is not only Antarctica and Greenland that are causing the water to rise. In recent years, thousands of smaller glaciers have begun to melt or disappear altogether, as we saw with the glacier Ok in Iceland, which was declared “dead” in 2014. This means that melting of ice has now taken over as the main contributor of sea level rise. “

###

Further information

The study, “Ice-sheet losses track high-end sea-level rise projections,” is published today (31 August) in Nature Climate Change.

This study is an outcome of the Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-Comparison Exercise (IMBIE) supported by the ESA Climate Change Initiative and the NASA Cryosphere Program.

From EurekAlert!

141 thoughts on “Claim: Sea level rise from ice sheets track worst-case climate change scenario

  1. Well, Greenland had a short melt season this year and Antarctica is above the 1973-2019 average in ice coverage. The Arctic’s ice mostly floats on the ocean, so it doesn’t really contribute to ocean levels one way or another.

    It no doubt has be warmer the past few decades, but all signs are pointing to that trend reversing. La Niña is growing in the Pacific tropics and the Sun has been quiet. The oceans lag the Sun so let’s see how things go over the next 10 years. The southern hemisphere did not have a record hot winter this year so just where is all the heat we are supposed to see? Isn’t the temperature trend line supposed to be increasing upwards at an accelerating pace?

    • but in 2019 Greenland had a very, very strong melt…

      Look, there’s no way you can argue with these figures – they aren’t models, they are material fact.

      • There is no way you can argue with these figures? So this one year settles everything??

        Sounds to me like your science is settled griff. The debate is over. The discussion is closed and no further study is necessary for fear that the globalists at the UN will fail in their attempt at taking over the world and your salvation from all of us evil fuel burning carbon based life forms will fail.

        Griff you come across as a faith based believer and a hell and brimstone fear monger.

        • “they aren’t models, they are material fact.”
          How do you think these “material facts” are measured from low earth orbit? One thing’s for sure, there are more than one model between a microwave ping and mm of sea level rise.

          From the two line intro at Nature Climate Change, which is presumably the very terse abstract:

          Ice-sheet models must account for short-term variability in the atmosphere, oceans and climate to accurately predict sea-level rise.

          Models all the way down.

          http://www.cpom.ucl.ac.uk/csopr/seaice.html

          CPOM seem unable and unwilling to keep their web site up to date. Cryosat2 is the best measurement of ice volume we have but the date they provide is over a year out of date. Unfortunately they can’t even manage a once a year update ! Maybe it’s not alarming enough.

      • But it still doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. Current SLR, or acceleration, is not at odds with what happened in the 20th Century, and the 21st Century isn’t going to be much different than the last 150 years. It is basically a non issue, at least one that can’t be mitigated with technology such as the Thames River Barrier that protects from high tides and storm surges. Or the Dutch. It isn’t a crisis, which is what alarmists try and make everything into.

        • You state, “……and the 21st century isn’t going to be much different than in the last 150 years”.

          Neither you (Eartling) nor Griff know anything whatever with any certainty at all. It is all models. it is all postulation, speculation, theory – in effect empty talk.

          • As Javier states below, whom I will trust… “Sea level rise shows undetectable acceleration, so a simple extrapolation produces the best outlook for future sea-level rise.”

            I would say with certainty that we know now there is no acceleration to SLR, as that is measured and not entirely modelled, although future SLR might be more modelled or guessing, or just plain made up. Anyway, all sea level is basically local, for a variety of reasons. But you are right about Griff who does make stuff up, or holds religious beliefs about renewables being the salvation for mankind.

          • From 850 ad to 1250 ad Greenland was warm enough for forests, growing grapes (Vinland), and raising barley; seems to me Greenland is still pretty far from that, wouldn’t you say?

          • Earthling – And I would say with certainty that because we know nothing with certainty we should not spend even one dollar actual cash on “preparing for climate change”. Not one single dollar.

            Here we are spending billions fighting windmills the dangers of which we don’t even know. Let us cross any rivers when we get to them. And then get across them in the most practical, safest and cheapest way.

          • Glenn W. Festog – Historical correction : Vinland was not Greenland – no grapes were grown here, I believe. It was the Viking settlements in Labrador, established by Leif Erikson ca. 1000 AD. These did not last long – unlike those in Greenland. Nobody knows why they disappeared so soon. My guess is that they were destroyed by the native population there. The Vikings called them “skraellinger” – a not very complimentary description, meaning physical and mental weaklings. Well, they probably were of smaller stature than those big Norsemen – but I wonder if, in the end, they did not kill them anyway.

          • Vineland may have been even further south than the established discovered sites in Newfoundland & Labrador where the only remains of Norse buildings were found at L’Anse aux Meadows near the northern tip of Newfoundland in 1960. This discovery aided the reignition of archaeological exploration for the Norse in the North Atlantic. The Norse settlements in the North American island of Greenland lasted for almost 500 years. Some suggest other sites as far inland as the St. Lawrence River in Quebec or as far south as Massachusetts, although this is speculation so far. The Vikings were in in Greenland before the Inuit who didn’t arrive until the 12 to 14th centuries. Long story.

            The Norse probably didn’t survive due to the LIA ruining their agriculture and warfare with the warlike Inuit, when they were down on their luck and probably the last of the survivors left for Iceland. And the Inuit were experts in cold weather survival, and the rest is history. But it was warmer in the Medieval Warm period, probably much warmer for much longer than today. Especially in the Arctic.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenlandic_Inuit#:~:text=9%20External%20links-,Regions,between%20AD%201200%20and%201400.

          • Earthling2 – I wonder what weird history teacher you had , writing “the warlike Inuit arrived in Greenland 200 years after the Vikings” . As it happens, my lovely Inuit brother-in-law died earlier this year after 60 years happy marriage to my sister.

            He was unaware of that – or he would have told me!

          • “From 850 ad to 1250 ad Greenland was warm enough for forests, growing grapes (Vinland), and raising barley”

            Not quite. Vinland was somewhere in North America (Nova Scotia?) and the grapes were wild (but they did grow grapes in Norway). And the forests were stunted birch scrub (though there were true Birch forests in Iceland). The bit about barley is correct.

            And, no, barley does not ripen in South Greenland today.

          • “The Vikings called them “skraellinger” – a not very complimentary description, meaning physical and mental weaklings.”

            A common misconception. The word is derived from norse skrá “skin”, i. e. people dressed in skins (in contrast to the woolen dress of the norse).

            Incidentally the native greenlanders still call themselves kalaleq which is probably derived from “skraeling”

          • “Earthling2 – I wonder what weird history teacher you had , writing “the warlike Inuit arrived in Greenland 200 years after the Vikings” . ”

            It is correct. Southern Greenland was uninhabited when the norse colonised it in the 990’s though they found ruins and stone tools that showed that there had earlier been “skraelings” there.

            These were the now extinct “paleo-eskimos” or “Cape Dorset culture”, which weren’t eskimos at all by the way, ancient DNA shows that instead they were related to the Na-Dene people. The paleo-eskimos did not have skin boats, but were dependent on hunting seals on the sea-ice, so southern Greenland was simply too warm for them during the MWP.

            At the same time the MWP opened up the straits north of Canada for whales, making it possible for the inuits (a. k. a. the “Thule Culture”) who lived largely by catching whales from umiaqs to expand from Alaska to northern Greenland in just 100-200 years. Note that these are/were true inuits, which is a subgroup of eskimos (=inuits + yupik).

            Then when the LIA arrived the inuit in Greenland moved south and ultimately displaced the norse, like they had already largely displaced the paleo-eskimos (who also became extinct around 1500).

            Whether the eskimos were warlike is perhaps disputable, but both contemporary icelandic sources and inuit oral traditions recorded in the 18th century do mention fighting between inuits and the norse.

          • ” In shallow minds the fish of small thoughts cause a great deal of commotion, in oceanic minds the whales of inspiration make hardly a ruffle”

            Hi Griff.

          • Far as I am concerned more open land space on the southern coasts of Greenland is a positive. Got a feeling Greenlanders feel much the same way.

      • Poor griff, he really doesn’t know what data is.

        Those melts are in fact models. They have taken proxies, such as gravity surveys and from that tried to estimate what the change in ice is. That’s a model poor child.

        The problem with gravity surveys is that many things affect gravity, not just ice changes. No matter how much the alarmists claim otherwise.

      • Consider what exposing an additional 18 million people to rising seas in the next 80 years in a population of 9 +billion by then means. And then also consider the enormous benefits that using fossil fuels means for the world. How many billions will suffer if fossil fuels use is curtailed without a suitable substitute.. just to avoid exposing 18 million people to rising seas, seas that will rise anyway regardless of what we do.

        Now consider that China and India are still building out coal power electric generation and will do so for at least 30 more years, making anything done by the industrialized west meaningless.

          • What part of, “rise anyway, regardless of what we do,” do you not understand?

            For a just fraction of what we would spend on eliminating fossil fuels and the economic costs to decarbonization we could build added coastal infrastructure resilience and relocation. Relocation is going to needed in places like Bangladesh and New Orleans where the bigger problem of subsidence is intersecting with unstoppable sea level rise no matter what we do Re: Climate Change and fossil fuel use.

          • Yep I agree and if places like Bangladesh and New Orleans do have to relocate they are doping their bit to help humanity.

      • But in 2018 Greenland had a very, very low melt season. So we have had low, high, low. What is the trend here? CAGW says every year is going to be worse then the last one and it just isn’t happening. When we get cooling kicking in here over the next decade or so, are you going to continue on with this or admit you are wrong?

        • Therw was only gain in Surface mass balance (SMB) not in OVERALL Mass balance. You have to subtract 490 to 500 Gt glacier discharge. With that you see there was no substantial gain over the last decade. Only one year with a gain estimated below 50 GT. nothing compared to the ice loss in the last decade.

          Just read the documents in the polarportal.
          And try to understand these.

      • But in 2018 and 2017 Greenland melt was very weak…..

        There’s no way way you can argue with these figures, they are material fact.

        Also, MAISIE, SI and DMI all agree that Annual minimum Arctic Extent hasn’t changed significantly from 2006.

        Also, tidal gauges show a steady sea level increase of about 2-3 mm/year and raw satellite derived sea level data also shows no acceleration until they run the data through a model, and voila, it shows acceleration.

      • Another fact is that there are 15 countries with altitudes of greater than -50mts to depths of greater than -400mts. Just a quick thought. Do you think any of these countries would love to increase their water front real-estate?

      • Look, there’s no way you can argue with these figures – they aren’t models, they are material fact.

        The figures in the report, covering 1990 to 2100, calculate to 1.7mm per year, the same as overall tide gauge data for the previous 100 years. No, there doesn’t seem much to argue about — unless you ere expecting “climate change” to make a difference.

      • Griff, if it is not in the tide guage record ( it’s not) then it is not happening.

        You need to get real. Tide gages are real, especially when adjusted for land movements. Going by tide gage records there is ZERO acceleration of SLR.

        So 80 years from now if tide gages show five inches of rise and satellites, grace extrapolated ice mass balance, and disparate models show 18 inches, only the tide guages matter!

      • Actually Griff the satellites have mostly had an accuracy of +/- 3.4 cm. Close enough for government work. And that is on the back of wind/wave, storm etc.
        Did you also notice they don’t mention isostatic rebound? It is simply fudged, there is no data that fine. Circular reasoning at its best.

        “The data from satellites is fine and when we configure our climate models just so, they agree. Therefore it is good.”

      • And every winter it has a very, very strong addition of ice and snow. The Greenland ice sheet is like the Antarctic ice sheet. Going nowhere anytime soon. You Warmists keep wetting your pants every time a glacier calves into the ocean. Are you really unable to comprehend that these things grow at the top and flow down to the coast? And have been for several million years? Or is it just another sad trick you use to propagate your disgusting anti-human lies?

      • The phrase “no way you can argue” already betrays a massive, unprecedented, amount of bias. You are hanging out there farther than the West Antarctic overhang.

  2. “According to a new study from the University of Leeds and the Danish Meteorological Institute, if these rates continue, the ice sheets are expected to raise sea levels by a further 17cm and expose an additional 16 million people to annual coastal flooding by the end of the century.”

    The SLR for the 20th Century was (on average and varies) about 20 cm (8″) so I think we can handle another 17 cm by 2100. If thermal expansion is already baked in, then it may be even less than the 20th century SLR. The smallish increase in SLR is definitely worth the moderate warming we are having, which most of to date is natural variation. I would challenge anyone to prove otherwise, or prove it is bad for mankind.

    I would imagine that mankind also contributes a smidgeon of warming as well, as 7-8 billion people on the planet are bound to cause a little warming, mostly UHI warming IMHO which is definitely making urban people in high density areas feel warmer, because it is, in the cities which is a smallish fraction of the planets surface. The benefits of warming far outweigh any smallish increase in SLR, and we can easily adapt to that. In fact, it will all be good for the GDP, the smallish warming and the smallish rise in SLR. We sure are lucky we live in the Modern Warm Period. Let’s keep it that way if we can.

    • 1% of 8 billion people would be 80 million people.

      So 0,2 % of the Earth’s population would have a problem I presume mostly the rich beach property owners like the Obamas and other actors.

      Of course falling sea level would be a big problem too.

      • My middleclass to poor family members living in south Louisiana, coastal Texas, Mississippi and Florida would be effected, then again they know how to build and use boats and mostly make their livings from salt and fresh water, unlike all the brokewings and yupiscum.

  3. Then why does the latest DMI ice mass balance graph for Greenland show 2020 accumulation roughly at the 1981-2010 average? Ice falls off Greenland into the sea based on pressure from the accumulated ice laid down each year (angle of repose effects) plus any melt. But the net accumulation appears to be positive. Or does their data miss-represent the situation?

    • “Then why does the latest DMI ice mass balance graph for Greenland show 2020 accumulation roughly at the 1981-2010 average? Ice falls off Greenland into the sea based on pressure from the accumulated ice laid down each year (angle of repose effects) plus any melt. But the net accumulation appears to be positive. Or does their data miss-represent the situation?”

      The DMI graph is looking at the surface mass balance and does not include loss from icebergs and melting at the ocean. To have a net positive year the SMB needs to be up around 500.

  4. I presume this what Sky News (UK) used as the basis for the absolute lies and nonsense which they touted as “scientific” – it doesn’t even survive a brief test of maths or logic – something journalists seem to have had surgically removed from their skill set as a requirement for admission to the profession.

    On 23rd August 2020 – Sky News (UK) breathlessly announced a scientific study had found that enough ice had melted off the Greenland glacier in the last 12 months to cover the United Kingdom in 100m of ice.

    The same reported again the following evening but with a lovely graphic of Britain with an ice cap on it (but not Eire).

    Holy crap ! Sounds serious. It isn’t and it’s arrant nonsense.

    Why use England as a metric ? because it gives a nice alarmist soundbite via a nonsensical and unscientific scale.

    Why not use Monaco and cover it with 474000 km of ice, about 20% further than the moon – or the Vatican 1203000 km – three times the distance to the moon. Both would be correct to the quoted metric and equally nonsensical.

    Recalculate the figure from U.K (Area 242.5×10^3 km2) vs the area of the world’s oceans (Area 361×10^6 km2) and you will find this claimed figure would have raised sea levels by 67mm – which it actually hasn’t done and that’s demonstrable – so they are simply caught out in a big fat lie – period.

    A 67mm sea level rise would cause the Earth to slow its rotation by 2.2 milliseconds whereas it only slowed by it’s natural rate (due to tidal forces etc.) of 15 microseconds per annum – so if the news item was true, the Earth would have had to suddenly slow down by ±150 times its normal rate – this would have had the astronomers up in arms – maybe no one noticed ?

    I’m sorry but the law of conservation of angular momentum cannot be fudged or bargained with – they are wrong or are stupendously ignorant of physics or they are simply outright lying.

    Re: Measurement of Sea Level by the rotation of the Earth – Prof. Niel Axel Morner.

    Even the notorious tidal gauges – which can be tortured to confess most anything – couldn’t come up with more than 2.6mm-3.6mm for that period to all causes – not just Greenland.

    And it’s nonsense as Greenland has been melting around its edges – this due to warming oceans – which are 99.9% heated by solar activity and has absolutely nothing to do with CO2 – but the warmer oceans give off more water vapor which leads to greater precipitation – which is actually increasing the total mass of the Greenland ice cap (but yes, it is melting at its periphery).

    The behavior of the Greenland ice cap is in fact conclusive proof that climate change is entirely natural – but the alarmists just simply lie and twist the facts to support their noble cause.

    • What would have been the effect of the creation of the Himalayan on Earth’s rotation speed?

      So for most of the last 3 Ma (Ice Age) Earth has been rotating slower because of lower sea level.

    • Ken
      “… to cover the United Kingdom in 100m of ice.”

      Basically a non sequitur intended to scare the unthinking, left-tilting masses by implying that the UK could be submerged.

    • “A 67mm sea level rise would cause the Earth to slow its rotation by 2.2 milliseconds”

      That would only be true if all of the new water was created from nothing.
      The reality is that all of the water comes from glaciers and those glaciers are all above sea level.

      This is compensated for by the fact that most of the ice was near the poles, which is closer to the axis of rotation than the equator is. The water on the other hand spreads evenly over the surface of the seas, from the poles to the equator.

      On net, it still slows the rotation, but nowhere near as much as it would have had the water been created on the spot.

      • MarkW:
        “The water on the other hand spreads evenly over the surface of the seas, from the poles to the equator.”
        But due to Earth’s rotation there is an equatorial bulge causing the diameter at the
        equator to be ~ 27 miles longer than pole-to-pole. [Wikipedia]
        Wouldn’t that suggest more of the ice-melt water ends up in the tropics?

        • Bill – correct – the figure was based on a prior calculation and it’s based on the change in momentum from polar ice melting and then becoming (un)evenly distributed over the oceans because of the oblate spheroid shape of the Earth due to its spin.
          Even if evenly distributed it causes a slow down – just slightly less pronounced.
          Not impossibly created in-situ.
          Much like a spinning figure skater extending her arm to slow down – not by growing new arms.
          https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2015/12/19/rising-sea-level-slow-earths-rotation-harvard-study/#182e18de74bf

        • The equatorial bulge exists, but is small compared to the mass of the oceans. Any new water will spread more or less evenly.
          You still haven’t accounted for the fact that much of the melting will come from ice that is well above surface level.

    • The metric I use for the area of the U.K. is that minimum Arctic ice each year is sixteen times it.

  5. And yet the tide gauge at The Battery in New York City continues rising at the same rate for over 150 years while long-term tide gauges throughout the world show a steady rise for over 100 years. There is no evidence of an increasing rate from any of them. So-called “scientific” studies that do not assess all available data, those in support of the authors thesis and those against, are simply rubbish, as Feinman once said.

  6. Q: are they measuring sea level or are they estimating ice loss and using that to project sea level? Sounds like the latter. If they are estimating ice loss by satellite soundings of ice mass, could they show us the starting value, with error bars, the current value, with error bars, and any changes in the ways and/or instrumentation those numbers were arrived at in the last three decades?

    Comment: from previous such forays, my perception is the accuracy assumed of the instrument numbers is down in four and five significant decimal places, which is wildly optimistic.

  7. Sea level rise from ice sheets track worst-case climate change scenario

    That is simply not true as usual.

    Sea level rise shows undetectable acceleration, so a simple extrapolation produces the best outlook for future sea-level rise. This is what IPCC AR4 did in its B1 sea level scenario, projecting 0.3 m rise for 2100. There was a huge uproar for such a conservative scenario, so IPCC upped its middle scenario for AR5 producing >0.5 m by 2100 under RCP 4.5 scenario. This is unsupported by the evidence that continues showing lack of acceleration in sea level rise. Even though, IPCC is considered very conservative in its sea level projections, as most alarmists like to project > 1 m sea level rise by 2100. Less than that is not considered scary enough.

    Sea level rise continues to track the tiny effect (at best) from CO2 scenario. It was increasing before we started emitting CO2 in earnest in the 1960s and it continues to increase at a very similar rate 70 years later.

    • Yes, I share your mindset, Javier.

      Furthermore, I don’t usually like to be this harsh on conclusions supposedly written by professional scientists, but in this particular case I’d just point out that if it really ‘track[ed the] worst-case climate scenario’ then the amount of alarmism between 1985 and 2020 was wee lower than I remembered. But of course, if you select the scenarios post-hoc, you can make it happen the worst came true at a certain interval. Tells pretty much nothing about the future.

  8. We only have 80 years to adjust for an increase of 8 inches of water on our shorelines?
    We’re DOOMED !

    • Places like New Orleans and Bangladesh are being hit with the double whammy of subsidence in a major river delta and SLR. The SLR is inevitable outcome of living in an interglacial. The subsidence is the inevitable result of locating infrastructure and habitats in subsiding delta lands. Relocation is probably the only effective strategy. A Netherlands approach which has taken 200+ years to build out is likely not feasible or much less cost effective. Relocation to higher ground will be the only working long-term engineering approach in subsiding deltas.

  9. Really. And yet both places are still covered with ice. Imagine that, alarmunistas trying to so even more hysteria in the easily fooled.

  10. Pardon me, didn’t sea level begin rising, along with warming and at much faster rates than today, about 12,000 years ago?

    • Somewhere around 30,000 and 20,000 years BCE sea level was 130m below current levels. Then by 6000 years ago we were pretty much at current levels. So there was a period of about 14,000 years when sea level rose a metre a century i.e. at least 5 times faster than at present – all without any help from man made CO2. I despair at the utterly illogical assertion by the alarmists that a sea level rise one fifth as fast as it was 20,000 years ago is suddenly caused by man made CO2.

    • Actually, it was closer to 20,000 years ago, and sea levels have risen about 400 feet since. And with all of that, we STILL haven’t learned not to build too close to the water?
      Some 8,000 years ago se levels were still so low you could have walked from England to France on dry land. Just think, if we hadn’t caused all that warming there would have been no need for the Chunnel. They could have just paved a road.
      Of course about 6,000 years ago sea levels were several feet higher than today. So the levels go down a bit, and what do we do? Build too close the the water again. The stupidity of the human race is boundless!
      (Reference: Climate Change in Prehistory by Burroughs, see especially page 58.)

      • so you buy property to pass it down to your great great great grandchildren ? yeah, didn’t think so …

        • Actually my family owns a small ocean-front property that my great-grandparents purchased and that my children surely hope to see pass to their grandchildren one day.

          And guess what? Apart from the inevitable erosion from winter storms, pictures of the beach from 1910 look more or less the same as 2020. Just because a property is ocean-front doesn’t mean it must be at sea level. Lots of ocean-front property is 5-10m above the beach with a banking sloping down to the water.

      • There’s a fascinating series on YouTube called “Fall of Civilizations” , with Historian Paul M. M. Cooper. Episode 8 talks about the Sumerians and the first cities, especially Ur. Several of them were abandoned – with interesting results to history – because the river deltas silted up and/or the sea level fell, and former port cities ended up in the middle of the desert. I guess I’ll worry when Ur and Eridu are back on the seaside once more.

    • Nope Scissor,

      There is one thing called Holocene High Stand that depending on the location took place between 6000 and 4000 years ago. That is the highest sea level in the current interglacial. Since then sea level has been generally falling with shorter intervals of sea level rise. The current trend in sea level rise started around 1850 for what we know, and has been driven by increasing temperature and cryosphere melting. Current sea level is still lower than the Holocene High Stand.

  11. I note that SLR does not prevent a former President and a Vice President buying multi-million dollar beachside Villas in the last few years. What do they know? I wonder if any Insurance Company refused to insure their properties?

    • And Bill Gates whose new house is literately right on the edge of the beach. Maybe the rich are trying to frighten everyone else to move far from the water to lower the cost of building sites.
      Joe

      • Actually Obama’s Villa on Martha’s Vineyard is a pretty risky proposition “as is”. A hurricane like the Long Island 1938 making landfall anywhere near and he will have a real grand indoor pool, at the very least.

  12. “….the rate at which they are melting has accelerated faster than we could have imagined…”

    Like, they couldn’t/didn’t imagine it? I think they’ve been imagining it and much more for a long time.

    Besides, imagining things isn’t science.

    • The southern, very crooked, narrow and shallow, northwest passage is normally open for a few weeks in August-September, but not every year (not in 2018 for example).

      The northern deepwater passage only opens for a few weeks, every few years. Probably not this year.

  13. Would it be blasphemous to say “Who cares?” ? Note I did not write “to ask” but simply to say…..

  14. Griff, one of the things I notice a lot in “science” is that you get experts claiming to have found something extra somewhere, then claiming that one of the things it contributes to must therefore be changing its rate. But then looking at the rate of the second thing, it hasn’t changed in any observable way, much less the profound changes being claimed.

    Is the ice contributing more to sea level rise? We have hundreds of devices measuring sea level rise. We know if its actually rising faster. Is some rate of melt telling us of some crazy increase in surface temperatures? We have networks of temperature sensors. We can measure rates directly. In one of the worst cases I ever saw, someone projected from demographics that thousands more people that nobody knew about had been killed in a hurricane. So no bodies and no missing person reports but there must be more people dead???

    These things should make you check sometimes. But generally speaking when you have the direct measurement you go with that. Everything else is just a distraction

  15. Oldest tide guage on the eastern Pacific shows 1.99mm/year and is a fairly flat line. No mention of the relative land elevation change so net rate may be more or less. Regardless, there is no apparent hockey stick.

    https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=9414290

    Ken, Re Sky News, how deep would a Greenland England Snow Accumulation Equivalent(GESAE) be in winter? We could guess around 100M deep. Global warming is better than the alternative.

  16. Ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica whose melting rates are rapidly increasing have raised the global sea level by 1.8cm since the 1990s, and are matching the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s worst-case climate warming scenarios.

    That’s a cherry pick pure and simple rates of sea level rise at various tide gauges around the world were at a low point in 1990. Here’s an illustration of that:

    https://i.postimg.cc/Y0CYffZd/image.png

    Each plotted point represents the rate of sea level rise for the previous 30 years.

    Besides that Greenland and Antarctica can’t melt, it’s well below freezing there nearly everywhere nearly all the time. Are they losing ice? Most likely they are, the water for sea level rise has to be coming from somewhere, but it has nothing to do with temperature. More ice is calving into the sea than is replaced by snow in the interior.

    • Scientists did discover “the largest volcanic region on earth” below the west Antarctica ice sheet a couple of years ago.

  17. From the above article: “Since the ice sheets were first monitored by satellite in the 1990s, melting from Antarctica has pushed global sea levels up by 7.2mm, while Greenland has contributed 10.6mm. And the latest measurements show that the world’s oceans are now rising by 4mm each year.”

    These claims are very questionable, if not outright false.

    NOAA has documented that global absolute SLR has been linear at 3.0 +/- 0.4 mm/year since 1993, based on satellite altimetry data from the TOPEX, Jason-1, Jason-2 and Jason-3 satellites.
    Ref: https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/socd/lsa/SeaLevelRise/LSA_SLR_timeseries.php

    For the time period of beginning-1993 through mid-2020 (27.5 years), this linear rate would be equivalent to a global SLR of 82.5 mm. That is a global SLR from all causes, in particular from the thermal expansion of ocean waters as Earth’s temperatures continue to increase at a slight rate, relative-to-the-beginning of the Holocene, and from the combined effects of uplift and subsidence across the seabeds of Earth’s various oceans.

    The University of Leeds researchers are talking about (7.2 mm + 10.6 mm =) 17.8 mm rise contributed by Antarctica and Greenland, or only 22% of the total measured SLR increase. Of course, these same researchers conveniently fail to provide uncertainty values for those derived components.

    Satellites capable of obtaining data enabling somewhat precise calculations of the total volumes of ice on Greenland and Antarctica were launched relatively recently:
    The twin GRACE satellites were launched in March 2002,
    CryoSat-2 was launched in April 2010,
    ICEsat-2 was launched in September 2018.

    This means that it is IMPOSSIBLE to correlate satellite-derived volume melting of Antarctica and Greenland land-based ice to global SLR back to “the 1990’s”, as implied by the above-stated quote.

    Finally, as the above-mentioned NOAA website graph clearly shows, there are substantial, temporary variations (both up and down) in the measured rates-of-change of global SLR about the average slope of +3.0 mm/year, even with seasonal variations removed. One can only assert “the world’s oceans are now rising by 4mm each year” by cherry picking the interval of mid-2018 to mid-2019. The most recent data plotted, from mid-2019 to mid-2020, show the slope has once again returned pretty close to the long-term, +3.0 mm/year average rate.

  18. It’s getting sillier by the day. A 17cm sea level rise over 80 years is almost exactly what the sea level in the North Sea has been doing since at least 1880: 1.9mm/yr. But now this suddenly is the IPCC’s worst-case scenario? Get real.

  19. ATTENTION!!!!

    All Owners of seaside homes, estates and resorts it is CLEAR that you will be under water. I am offering to buy your property at $1 a foot.

    Operators are standing by to take your call. If you act NOW, I will double my offer. You can’t wait.

  20. It really is time this sea level thing was put to bed; but I suppose there is now too much grant vested interest in it for that to happen, and also many people love to indulge in their fears.
    When you step back from it around 3.0mm a year is very boring.

  21. However, sea level varied substantially in the past, ranging from 4-6 m (or more) above present during the last interglacial, 125,000 years ago, to 120 m below present at the peak of the last ice age, around 21,000-20,000 years ago. The subsequent great ice meltdown spanned 12,000 years, nudging sea level ever upward at an average rate of ~10 mm/yr. But several more rapid jumps punctuated the marine incursion (Fig. 1). A closer examination of these rapid sea level changes may help us better plan for the future.

    The Great Ice Meltdown and Rising Seas: Lessons for Tomorrow

  22. 17 cm is a bit over 6 inches. Oh boy are we in trouble.

    During the period from 1900 to the present, the tide gauge at the Battery in NYC has recorded over twice that. While I would not object to a Biblical flood wiping out NYC and deBlasio it sadly appears to be a tad late at the moment.

    • Its worse than that it displaces a mere 16 million people. Get an economist to run the cost to resettle 16M people versus spend trillions of dollars on emission controls each year for 80 years.

      • LdB, you posted “. . . it displaces a mere 16 million people.”

        Do you have any facts to go with that assertion?

        • LdB is riffing on this,

          “According to a new study from the University of Leeds and the Danish Meteorological Institute, if these rates continue, the ice sheets are expected to raise sea levels by a further 17cm and expose an additional 16 million people to annual coastal flooding by the end of the century”

        • Yep I just accepted the number of additional people they claimed the extra melt displaces.
          Gordon if you have a different number in mind then tell us all about it never let me get in the way of Climate Science(tm) claims.

          • LdB, the issue is that the above article states specifically “. . . expose an additional 16 million people to annual coastal flooding by the end of the century.”

            You stated “. . . it displaces a mere 16 million people.”

            EXPOSING people to periodic flooding is not the same thing as DISPLACING people to the extent of having to “resettle” (your word) them. Just checkout out the cities of Venice, Italy and Miami, Florida and Mumbai, India., where humans have learned to live with flooding.

          • At that rate the entire population of the US would be displaced by a sea-level rise of about 12 feet. Hmmm…

  23. ALLLLLLLLL the way back to the ancient times of 2015, NASA’s ICESAT data showed NET Antarctic land ice was INCREASING by about 100 billion tons/year since 1992… oh, my….

    Leftists, of course, hated that NASA report because it didn’t match their pathetic CAGW doom-and- gloom narrative, so CAGW hacks miraculously “fixed” the data to show a net LOSS of 100 billion tons/year since 1992… which is now gospel…oh, goody…

    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

    “Houston, we have a problem”…….

  24. Sea-level change! Sea-level change! Ice-melt! Ice-melt! OMG! We’re doomed, we’re all doomed!
    (All while running around in circles, wringing hands, crying, shouting, gnashing teeth, essentially having a breakdown)

    Maybe we should be a bit more worried about the culture breaking down into anarchy instead……

  25. Their prognosis seems to be somewhat in conflict with
    K. R. Clem “Record warming at the South Pole during the past three decades”
    from June 2020, which basically states the antarctic warming and ice melt over the last 30 yeasrs was driven by peaking oceanic cycles.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0815-z
    “These results underscore the intimate linkage of interior Antarctic climate to tropical variability. Further, this study shows that atmospheric internal variability can induce extreme regional climate change over the Antarctic interior, which has masked any anthropogenic warming signal there during the twenty-first century.”

  26. “Although we anticipated the ice sheets would lose increasing amounts of ice in response to the warming of the oceans and atmosphere, the rate at which they are melting has accelerated faster than we could have imagined,”

    Woohoo! It’s worse than we thought…now that’s an original claim. (<– Yes, sarcasm)

    Greenland is still covered in more ice than when the Vikings settled there, as demonstrated by ruins and artifacts that continue to be uncovered. You can panic all you want, the FACT remains that Greenland is in no big hurry to become ice-free. Just another natural cycle.

  27. “Ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica whose melting rates are rapidly increasing have raised the global sea level by 1.8cm since the 1990s”

    Even if, as Mr Dressler explained above, this is dubious, if it’s true what on earth is all the panic about?

    I keep looking for this dreaded SLR everywhere, I scan Google earth historic sat images from 20+ years ago (from 2003 they’re generally much clearer) and compare coastlines and small islands and islets from all over. I even search for old war recon photos of certain areas if possible, mostly of pacific islands like Midway or Kwajalein for example to have a much, much older comparison.

    All those places that the SLR monster is coming for, the Netherlands and Belgium, the Philippines, Thailand, you name it I’ve looked at it. It is nowhere to be seen, or a least I can’t find it.

    There is practically no change anywhere as far as I can see, apart from a few displaced sandbanks, but certainly no mass land disappearance with hundreds of thousands, nay, millions of affected people as websites like globalflood.org would have us believe.

    Places like the Maldives, which should have sunk under years ago according to alarmist dogma, are actually growing and creating more land as they can’t cope with the number of people wanting to go and live and work there, and it’s the Dutch who are making it happen.
    https://www.vanoord.com/activities/creating-more-land-maldives

    If anybody knows where the SLR monster has struck please let me know, /not sarc (honest request)

  28. AFAIK no one has satisfactorily explained how the temp went down from 1940 to 1970 but the sea level kept rising. There clearly is another mechanism in play and this mechanism even if known has not been quantified.

  29. Here is the problem with academic research. The collection of data usually takes a year or so, analysis, p-hacking and other statistical cook ups, exploring the literature, writing up takes so long that the weather is going in the other direction by the time of publishing!

  30. Although there was a definite cooling trend in “scientific data-based average global surface atmospheric temperature” (however you want the interpret that phrase) over the period of 1940 to 1975:

    1) that amount of cooling may not have been sufficient (in creating new ice on land) to fully offset the amount of Earth’s land-supported ice that continued to melt and drain into the oceans as a result of long-term Holocene warming,

    or, perhaps,

    2) the net of volumetric uplift and subsidence on the seafloors of all of Earth’s oceans was positive in the uplift direction, thereby being the predominate cause of a continuing rise in global sea level despite a cooling atmosphere over those years. (N.B. Uplift, subsidence, and plate tectonics are not even mentioned in the above article by researchers from the University of Leeds and the Danish Meteorological Institute . . . so much for thorough scientific research and peer review, if any, conducted by the journal “Nature Climate Change”.)

    As to the “why” for this ~35 year interval of global atmospheric cooling, chalk that up to factors not known or considered by the IPCC and its various CMIP1-6 climate model comparison jokes . . . you know, historic-but-inconvenient climate change variability that needs to be adjusted away (aka “Karl-ized”) to make the CO2-as-the-root-cause-of-catastrophic-climate-change meme sellable to gullible politicians and the low-information public.

  31. “Although we anticipated the ice sheets would lose increasing amounts of ice in response to the warming of the oceans and atmosphere, the rate at which they are melting has accelerated faster than we could have imagined”

    That does not imply that therefore this researcher is right that global warming is the cause of the ice melt. It implies that this researcher does not understand the ice melt dymamics in these two regions because his agw bias and his atmosphere bias prevents him from a proper study of the geological features of these very geologically active regions.

    Three links below.

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/06/27/antarctica/

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/07/01/arctic/

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/07/16/antarctica-slr/

  32. I’m sure the doors of Barack Obama’s new mansion on Martha’s Vineyard will be opened to all the cryo-babies who are displaced by sea level rise acceleration. I’m pretty sure about that, with him being a savior of mankind and all, who promised to stop the seas from rising. ha ha ha ha ha…. let’s see if Griff can figure this out.

    • I think Obama was a fool to buy that property.

      I guess he thinks it will see him out and he’s not worried about it having any future value to pass on to his kids…

      • Well, I’ve got to give you credit for your 100% commitment, Griff. No, Obama is not worried… he’s not worried about the sea rising enough to destroy his new mansion. He knows that a big storm is a different story, but if a big storm approaches while he’s there, and storm surge threatens, he’ll be able to burn jet fuel in a giant fossil fuel powered helicopter to carry him to safety. And he’ll know when any potential storms are approaching because fossil fueled hurricane hunter airplanes will be tracking those storms, and fossil fuel powered electricity grids give him access to 24 hour news and electronic monitoring devices. Pull your head out, Griff, before it sticks that way.

    • Hey, according to what I’ve heard from many different quarters, the man still walks on water . . . SLR? . . . what, him worry?

      • Griff, are you still trying to boil water from above..

        You think melt-water from under the ice is caused by “climate change”.. really !

        Only you could be that DUMB !

        In Antarctic there are pools of WARM water in several areas.. not geothermal though, is it fool !

        ——————-

        And you should really actually READ what you link to , bozo..

        “If their channels happen to carry them over hot spots in the mantle, they can flow all the faster.

        “Heat content within an ice sheet raises the temperature, and therefore lowers viscosity” of the ice at the base of the glacier,……………. The result: lubrication of the glacier’s movement.”

        Thank you confirming exactly what I said. !!! 🙂

        You can always be relied on. 🙂

      • Another quote…

        “A dramatic example is found in Greenland, where a long “thermal track” was recently revealed beneath the miles-thick ice sheet that covers the giant island.”

        “They also tracked its heat, tracing the scar from northwestern to southeastern Greenland.

        “It may mean that Greenland can expel its ice faster than we are anticipating in predictive models,”

        This fluctuates from place to place as the ice melts from below, causing sudden drops, for instance, when rivers of meltwater at the ice sheet’s base drain rapidly into subglacial lakes downstream.

        Thank you for even further confirmation.. well done griff.

        Yet again producing a link that shows exactly the opposite of what you say it does, and confirms the facts you are making an hilarious attempt to argue against..

        So funny. 🙂

        • If you look at that again, it shows a small influence over the ‘crack’ – but points out that the area of influence (small influence) is NOWHERE NEAR THE AREAS OF HIGH ICE LOSS.

          volcanoes are not causing Greenland ice melt, not a prime driver of it.

          climate change is.

          • And yet your hysteria is simply that, hysteria. Iceland is covered with ice, as is Antarctica and the Arctic. No matter what hysterical horsesh*t you grandly proclaim it is still just hysterical horsesh*t. You already know that, it is all you ever do. Oh, and griffie? What happened to “I will never come to this website ever again!”? It keeps not happening although you have screeched it several times. Guess that tells us just how honest and believable you are.

  33. Wow! Longest read ever, but I enjoyed the banter. I’m not a scientist or geologist, but enjoy reading stuff that helps my little brain, not hurts it. Lol
    I have a question: What would happen if oceans rose by 3 feet by 2050 and if it did, what would/could possibly cause it?
    I got interested in all the GW hype about the Maldives going under water. 4 decades later, the land mass has increased significantly with many resorts being built near the water’s edge. The lies continue…

Comments are closed.