Summary: The past month has brought forth a sudden burst of studies using models to forecast an acceleration in rising sea levels, accompanied by alarmist new stories. Here we review them, seeking the common element.
There has long been an odd pattern to climate science articles and news, appearing in groups with a common theme. Such as the recent burst of articles forecasting an acceleration in the two-century long rise of sea levels (since the end of the Little Ice Age).
Coincidence? Or is this a desperate Hail Mary pass to terrify a public that remains skeptical of anthropogenic-caused catastrophic climate change — despite 24 years of propaganda about the coming catastrophe (since the staged 1988 Senate hearings that started the crusade)?
In fact, despite the news media’s biased coverage, most aspects of climate change research lie on the frontier of available data and theory (as usual in science debates). We may face climate catastrophes during the next four score years. These risks certainly deserve study, better funded and managed than the poorly organized scattershot programs done today (details here). On the other hand, the evidence to date hardly warrants massive public policy action.
Sea level rising 3-4 times faster on East Coast. Global Warming Deniers shouting their denials through snorkels.
— Twitter post by Roger Ebert (journalist, film critic, screenwriter). Hat tip to WUWT.
“I don’t believe the biggest fear for man-made climate change believers is the sea level rise”
— Reader’s comment posted in reply to Shaping your view of the world with well-constructed propaganda
(1) A sudden storm of rising sea level stories
See the For More Information section at the end for links to other posts about rising sea levels.
Update: in the comments are descriptions of current research about rising sea levels.
(a) “The evidence for sea-level rises in North Carolina“, New Scientist, 20 June 2012 — A sensationalized article about “Climate related sea-level variations over the past two millennia“, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 5 July 2011 — “Holgate says the rise could be as much as 1.5 metres {59”} by 2100, but he says that is ‘an extreme upper end’”. See the analysis of the NS article here.
(b) There are two sides to every debate: “Elephant seals help uncover slower-than-expected Antarctic melting“, press release announcing “Two years of oceanic observations below the Fimbul Ice Shelf, Antarctica“, Tore Hattermann et al, Geophysical Research Letters, in press (ungated version here). Excerpt:
.
Our observations of relatively low temperatures below the FIS are largely consistent with previous snapshots presented by Nicholls et al., suggesting less basal melting than predicted by ocean models. Melt rates below the FIS may thus be consistent with steady state-mass balance estimates based on remote sensing, indicating that the ice shelves along the coast of Dronning Maud Land are currently not subject to rapid mass loss.
(c) “California Sea Level Projected to Rise at Higher Rate Than Global Average“, press release for new National Academy of Sciences report, 22 June 2012 — “The sea level off most of California is expected to rise about one meter {39″} over the next century, an amount slightly higher than projected for global sea levels, and will likely increase damage to the state’s coast from storm surges and high waves …”
(d) “Significant sea-level rise in a 2-degree warming world“, press release about “Long-term sea-level rise implied by 1.5 °C and 2 °C warming levels“, Michiel Schaeffer et al, Nature Climate Change, 24 June 2012 — Excerpt:
Limiting warming to these levels with a probability larger than 50% produces 75–80 cm {30 – 32 inches} Sea Level Rise above the year 2000 by 2100. This is 25 cm {10 inches} below a scenario with unmitigated emissions …
(e) “Sea Levels Rising Fast on U.S. East Coast“, National Geographic, 25 June 2012 — “Not clear whether human-caused global warming is to blame, experts say.” Based on “Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the Atlantic coast of North America“, Asbury H. Sallenger Jr. et al, Nature Climate Change, 24 June 2012. Their extrapolations forecast a rise of sea level of 20-29 cm {8-11″} by 2100; which is 1.1″/year. The causes are uncertain; their forecast depends on the relative impact of natural cycles, aerosols and CO2. Conclusions:
Aerosols may also play a role in explaining variations in NEH {northeast hotspot}SLRDs (sea-level rate differences}. The mid-century low (Fig. 4) may have been forced by volcanic aerosols reflecting radiation and lowering air temperatures25 and slowing14 SLR. The authors of ref. 26 found 76% of the variance of detrended North Atlantic sea surface temperatures from 1860–2005 could be explained by aerosol emissions and volcanic eruptions. … With our limited series length, the presence of cycles, for example associated with natural ocean variability and/or AMO {Atlantic Meridional Overturning}, is indeterminate. In the Holocene geologic record of an NEH marsh, the authors of ref. 28 found evidence of several rapid SLR increases separated by 900 yr or more that they associated with gyre changes.
Regardless, our correlations suggest that should temperatures rise in the twenty-first century as projected, the NEH SLRD will continue to increase. If future sea-level variability is forced by aerosols and/or is part of a cycle, SLR in the NEH may also alternately fall below and rise above projections of IPCC scenarios alone.
Our analyses support a recent acceleration of SLR on ~ 1,000 km of the east coast of North America north of Cape Hatteras. This hotspot is consistent with SLR associated with a slowdown of AMOC.
(f) “Earth still probably doomed no matter which way court rules“, Alex Pareene, Salon, 26 June 2012 — “Don’t worry, even if the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare, we’re still destroying the planet.”
(3) For more information
See this FM Reference Page for
- links to a wide selection of general media articles since 2000 about Science & Climate.
- links to articles about the History of Fears about the Climate
About extreme climate change:
- Summary with useful links: “A Handy Bullshit Button on Disasters and Climate Change“, Roger Pielke Jr (Prof of environmental studies, U CO – Bolder), 23 March 2012
- “Changes of regional climate variability in central Europe during the past 250 years“, R. Böhm (Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics, Austria), The European Physical Journal Plus, May 2012
Other posts about rising sea levels:
- Climate science articles which you might enjoy reading!, 18 January 2009
- An example of important climate change research hidden, lest it spoil the media’s narrative, 22 May 2009
- About that melting arctic ice cap, 17 April 2010
- Fear or Fail: about the melting Greenland ice sheet, 24 May 2010
- Today’s good news, about rising sea levels, 3 June 2010 — Esp note the links to articles and studies!
- It’s time to worry (again) about disappearing arctic ice, 8 June 2010
- Climate Armageddon postponed (again): the melting polar ice, 9 October 2010
- More about the forecast for flooded cities in the late 21st century, 16 October 2010
- Looking into the past for guidance about warnings of future climate apocalypses, 17 October 2010
- Shaping your view of the world with well-constructed propaganda, 21 June 2012
.
I see no mention of the rising and sinking of the land caused by the rebound from the massive weight of the 3 kilometers of ice after the thawing of the last ice age 20,000 years ago. This is causing the Northeast Atlantic coastlines to rise after being depressed by the glaciers and the coastlines further south to sink because they were pushed up from the bulge that formed around the depression. Goggle the terms “isostatic rebound” or “post glacial” rebound. A table in the Wikipedia article on Post Glacial rebound seems to indicate the North Carolina Coastline is sinking about 1.5mm a year due to this non-global warming effect.
That’s an important factor, and is mentioned in several of the articles. They distinguish the various factors driving sea level changes, and “glacial isostatic adjustment” is among them. For details see the Wikipedia entry on Post-glacial rebound.
There are other causes of local land movements. For example, San Francisco (like much of NC) is sinking (exaccerbating any sea level rise). Which makes this especially interesting, showing the importance of local factors as well as global trends:
For context see this graph from Eschenbach’s article. The “alarmist projection” is from the National Academy of Sciences (cited in this post).
There’s that hockey stick again…
With a difference. Mann’s “hockey stick” was an estimate of past temperatures based on proxies. It’s now largely disproven.
The subject here are estimates of future temperatures, based on models.
The 75-80 cm number also matches an older study from 2008 DOI: 10.1126/science.1159099
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5894/1340
Another older study from 2006 suggests 28-34 cm of rise and an accelerating trend but there are probably better data sets currently than then. doi:10.1029/2005GL024826
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL024826.shtml
Let’s look at those two studies MT cites, nicely representative of the good work being done on this important subject. Neither provides any basis for strong public policy action, except for more research.
(1) “The 75-80 cm number also matches an older study from 2008”
This study examines various sea rise scenarios to determine their physical plausibility in terms of polar ice flows. They clearly state that their conclusions are tentative, and this is early-stage research.
“Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise“, W. T. Pfeffer1 et at, Science, 5 September 2008 — Abstract:
Excerpt:
(2) “Another older study from 2006 suggests 28-34 cm {11″-13″} of rise and an accelerating trend but there are probably better data sets currently than then.”
The second study confirms the results of the other studies cited: a 20th century acceleration (many studies date this to the early part of the century), and a rise of aprox 8″-12″ to 2100. Not a catastrophe, and far short from the catastrophic forecasts of a meter-plus (39″) rise.
“A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise“, John A. Church and Neil J. White, Geophysical Research Letters, 6 January 2006 — Ungated version here. Abstract:
Most GCM’s forecast accellerated rise in the coming decades. These models are as yet untested, so only time can validate their forecasts.
What we do know: there is a large body of research showing no acelleration in sea level rise so far since the early 20th century.
(1) “Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses , J. R. Houston and R. G. Dean, Journal of Coastal Research, May 2011 — Acelleration:
(2) “Is There Evidence Yet of Acceleration in Mean Sea Level Rise around Mainland Australia?“, P. J. Watson, Journal of Coastal Research, 27, May 2011 — Abstract:
Lets not find out, shall we?
Shall we spend fortunes to protect against every shockwave, so that we “don’t find out”? Earthquakes, volcano, exotic effects of pollution, peak oil, peak coal, massive solar storms, mega-tsunamis, asteroid/comet impact, etc. It’s a long list, of varying probability, reliability of estimates, and impacts. While we fight nightmares we’ll have to ignore the pressing needs of people alive today. Or we could vastly increase taxes.
For more about this — and a rational response — see More shockwave events to worry about, in addition to peak oil and global warming.
Yes we should! Lets just get rid of the idea of money all together. It’s destroying the earth and it keeps a vast portion of the human race in extreme poverty anyway.
From watching the Star Trek series, I believe we have to wait until the 24th century until money becomes obsolete. Unfortunately, by then we’ll have invented the holodeck and the human race will be doomed.
lol! What’s a holodeck?……but why not now instead of the 24th?
From Wikipedia:
It can simulate almost any environment, and situation. It’s distant future technology. Perhaps imaginary future technology.
Are you patronizing me for my liberal perspective Mr.Fabius? ; )
Star Trek and Dilbert are the highest forms of philosophy in our time. ;)
We will likely continue on our present course, simply because those with the power and money have made that choice. I hope they are right, because if they are wrong there is nowhere else to go.
Political views: I stand with George Washington and his fairwell address.
.
.
FM Note: see Washington’s farewell speech here.