Sea Levels May Rise Faster Than Expected

Play
Download

Emperor Penguins adults with chicks. (Photo: Michael Van Woert, NOAA NESDIS, ORA)

Emperor Penguins adults with chicks. (Photo: Michael Van Woert, NOAA NESDIS, ORA)

By Sam Eaton

As climate negotiators slog through the latest UN summit in South Africa with no breakthrough on greenhouse gas limits in sight, the science of climate change—especially melting ice—is racing ahead of the world’s response to the problem.

The day after this year’s UN climate summit ends this Friday, a research team is scheduled to fly into a remote corner of Antarctica for a visit to the Pine Island Glacier. It’s the biggest ice shelf in western Antarctica. And it’s moving—fast.

“This is the fastest glacier in Antarctica,” says Robert Bindschadler of NASA, the expedition’s leader. “It’s going 4,000 meters a year, which converts to just over one foot every hour. So this ice is ripping along.”

Bindschadler says the reason the ice is moving so fast is because unusually warm ocean water is seeping in miles under the glacier’s forward edge, melting it from below.

“In the case of Pine Island, we think that it’s melting at over a 100 meters per year right at the upstream end of the ice shelf. And you think the ice shelf by that amount, the glacier speeds up by many tens of a percent.”

Scientists compare what’s happening to the glacier to popping the cork on a champagne bottle. But in this case, what’s being held back is frozen water.

And it’s not just one glacier. There are signs of sudden, rapid melting across Antarctica, where all the corks on all the glaciers and ice sheets are holding back enough water to raise global sea levels more than 200 feet.

The faster that ice melts, the faster the world’s coastlines will be inundated. The problem is, no one saw this coming.

“It’s caught us all very much off guard,” says Bindschadler. “These are not the ice sheets that I was being taught when I was in graduate school. They are changing at magnitudes and at rates that were thought impossible just 15 years ago.”

That rapid melting is challenging assumptions on how much global warming will cause sea levels to rise this century.

The last major report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, in 2007, suggested a worst-case scenario of less than two feet of rise by 2100. But Virginia Burkett with the US Geological Survey, a lead author on the report, says there was a big caveat.

“The last IPCC report included sea level projections that were based primarily on thermal expansion,” of the water as it warms up, Burkett says. “And of course sea level is rising because of the combination of thermal expansion of sea water and ice sheet decline.”

The problem was that the science on ice sheet decline, or melting polar ice, just wasn’t good enough at the time, so the IPCC decided to leave it out of their final projections.

And even though the report’s fine print clearly stated that ice loss could accelerate substantially, that number of less than two feet has become a kind of default prediction for sea level rise.

Fast forward five years and scientists like Bindschadler and Burkett are now projecting a high-end scenario of about six feet of rising sea levels by the end of the century. Three times the 2007 projection.

That’s enough to make crowded coastal cities like Mumbai unlivable, and displace more than a 100 million people worldwide.
But some scientists say even a prediction of six feet may be too conservative.

Harold Wanless, chair of the Geology Department at the University of Miami, says all the projections by the IPCC and other scientific organizations are based on a gradual rise of sea level. But, Wanless says, “that’s not how it worked in the past.”

Scientists like Wanless are studying sediments from past warming periods to find clues as to how quickly sea levels changed. And what they’ve found is the stuff of Hollywood movies—rapid pulses in the 20-foot range, and on a time scale that could be not centuries, but decades.

“That’s in the line of possibility,” Wanless says.

And he warns that it’s time to start thinking about relocating things that countries don’t want to lose.

“Everything from national archives and our world seed banks, some of which are at much too low elevation. Military bases, things we wouldn’t want disrupted. And our nuclear power plants. Why are we even looking at the coast for those?”

Wanless believes the ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland have already passed their tipping point for runaway melting. The only question for him is how fast it will happen.

Most climate scientists don’t go that far. They say they still don’t understand the complex dynamics of ice melt enough to predict with confidence a 20-foot rise by the end of the century. But few are ruling it out.

Penn State Climatologist and IPCC co-author Richard Alley says a good analogy of the risk is driving a car.

The best scenario, Alley says, is that there’s no traffic. On the other hand, you might get a lot of traffic, or “you might get run over by a drunk driver.”

The drunk driver represents that rapid pulse of sea level rise.

Alley says even though the chances of him being hit are slim, he still bought a car with all the added safety features, just in case.

“If society dealt with risks of climate change the way I deal with drunk drivers,” Alley says, “it’s possible that we would be trying to slow down a little bit so that we could learn more before we get hit by something.”

What’s happening instead is more like stepping on the accelerator. As climate negotiators from the US, China and nearly every other country on earth met this week to again try to find elusive common ground on emissions cuts, new reports confirmed that global emissions of the heat-trapping gas carbon dioxide reached record levels last year.

Alley says the higher we crank up the planet’s thermostat, the higher the risk becomes that we’ll get hit by something nasty.

Discussion

7 comments for “Sea Levels May Rise Faster Than Expected”

  • Anonymous

    Dr. Wanless is the guy that you want teaching your kids, because he follows the science to its logical conclusion.  This takes some courage. 

    So, what are the logical conclusions, assuming that we can see evidence of sudden sea level rises in the past?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PNXEQESWF3HOGR6JLAOC5NVDNI Mynuddin Uddin

    We have Mobile dialer. Master reseller L3.2.1 alaap visa citelink
    emirate so any one contact with me …. Mynuddin53@yahoo.com

    Mynuddin53@hotmail.com

    Mynuddin99  :skype

  • Steve Case

    “…rapid pulses in the 20-foot range, and on a time scale that could be not centuries, but decades.”If you run the numbers on that, 20 feet is 6000 mm which means over the next 88 years to the end of the century sea level rise would have to proceed at a rate of nearly 70 mm/yr.  Considering that the current rate is 3.2 mm/yr, no sane person should lose any sleep over Dr. Wanless’s prediction.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1752824554 Paul Hosburgh

    @Steve said “3.2 mm/yr, no sane person should lose any sleep over Dr. Wanless’s prediction”.  There are plenty of sane people protecting themselves from different life risks a whole lot less severe than what he is saying. That is the Point of the drunk driving analogy. Also the rate of melt in the 1920′s-60′s was ~1.2mm. Should we have continued using those numbers because “any sane person” would not expect the rate of melt to be exponential. Sanity must also be Wise enough to understand math.  The risk is real and increasing the hotter our air and water becomes as a result of CO2 pollution.

    • David Burton

      Paul, the difference between 3.2 mm/yr and 1.2 mm/yr does not represent an increase in the rate of sea level rise. It represents an apples-to-oranges comparison between Topex/Poseidon & Jason satellite measurements of sea level rise averaged over the open ocean (circa 1993-2005) for the 3.2 mm/year figure, and pre-1993 averaged coastal tide gauge measurements for the 1.2 mm/year figure.

      Those two numbers come from measuring the rate of sea level rise at different locations!

      To reach a valid conclusion about whether the rate of SLR is increasing or decreasing, it is necessary to compare measurements at the same locations.

      Sea levels rise and fall at different rates in different locations, due to local effects, and because the “solid” surface of the earth is actually moving: it floats on a big ball of viscous molten magma, which is slowly sloshing.  In some places, sea level is rising at a rate of several mm/year.  In other places sea level is rising at a much slower rate, or even falling.

      So if you measure the rate of sea level rise at one location (or one set of locations), for one time period, and compare it to the rate of sea level rise at a different location for a different time period, you can create the illusion of acceleration, even if the rate of sea level rise has actually not changed at all at either location.

      That’s what you’re doing when you compare the recent satellite-measured 3.2 mm/year rate of sea level rise in the open ocean to averaged coastal tide gauge measurements from 50 or 70 years ago.

      Coastal tide gauges show that the rate of SLR has not accelerated at all in the last 70 years (i.e., over the time period when humans have contributed significantly to CO2 levels). The geographically-weighted average rate of sea level rise from the best GLOSS-LTT tide gauges is only about 1.1 mm/year, unless you add GIA fudge factors or similar “corrections.”  (If you calculate a simple, unweighted average, it’s even lower.)

      We only have 19 years of satellite data, but the early satellite data showed a rate of about 3.2 mm/year sea level rise (though the satellites are now showing a much lower rate). That’s where your “3.2 mm/year” number comes from.  But averaged GLOSS-LTT tide gauges have always shown a much lower rate: about 1.1 to 1.2 mm/year if you don’t add GIA fudge factors.

      If you compare 1.2 (or “adjusted” 1.7) mm/year from tide gauges to 3.2 mm/year from satellites, you create an illusion of acceleration, even though the rate of SLR hasn’t increased at all. But if you compare apples-to-apples, you can easily see that the rate of sea level rise has not increased in response to anthropogenic CO2.

      Dave Burton
      Cary

  • http://www.facebook.com/joshuarkerr Joshua Kerr

    Create an inland sea that floods the interior of Australia. 

    Use the inland sea as a safety valve capturing and releasing water depending on world climate conditions.

  • David Burton

    This article misrepresents what what the scientific evidence tells us about sea level. The current rate of sea level rise is miniscule, but alarmists predict dramatically accelerated sea level rise because they think that meltwater from Greenland and Antarctica might increase the rate of sea level rise.That’s contrary to the best scientific evidence. Greenland is colder now than it was in the 1930s and 1940s, and much colder than during the Medieval Warm Period (800-1100 years ago), neither of which saw substantial sea level rise.Antarctic ice melt won’t drive up sea level, either. Even the alarmist IPCC noted, in their Third Assessment Report, that “It is now widely agreed that major loss of grounded ice and accelerated sea level rise [from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet] are very unlikely during the 21st century.” (East Antarctica is the coldest place on earth, and its ice hasn’t melted in millions of years.)Alarmists like Al Gore say increases in atmospheric CO2 will, through what MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen calls “implausible chains of inference,” cause huge increases in the rate of sea level rise. But the science tells a different story.Human CO2 emissions have been increasing atmospheric CO2 levels substantially since about the 1940s. So how much has rate of sea level rise increased in response?None.We have an excellent, nearly-continuous records of sea level from tide gauges at many locations around the world, some going back more than 150 years. Most show either no trend or decreasing rates of sea level rise in response to human CO2 emissions. The best and most comprehensive analyses of sea level measured by tide gauges around the world show slight decelerations in the rate of sea level rise over the last 80 years.  Do you see any acceleration in sea level rise in this graph?
    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=120-022We also have 19 years of satellite altimeter measurements of sea level over the open ocean. They also show decreasing rates of sea level rise:
    http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_ALL_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.png
    (Note that ENVISAT is measuring only about 1 mm/year of sea level rise over the last 8 years, compared to a rate of more than 3 mm/year measured by Topex/Poseidon over its 1993-2005 mission life.)Alarmists can cite anecdotes about rivers of meltwater, and skeptics can cite anecdotes about dramatic ice buildup (google “Glacier Girl”), but if you want to know what’s really happening with sea level, you’ve got to look at the measurements. 

    The measurements all agree: the last two-thirds century of human CO2 emissions have resulted in no increase at all in the rate of sea level rise. It’s irrational and unscientific to expect that the next two-thirds century will be different.
    Dave BurtonCary, NC