Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By News Staff | September 5th 2008 12:00 AM | 5 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments

You may have seen projections by some scientists of global seas rising by 20 feet or more by the end of this century as a result of warming, and you may have seen others projecting less than two feet in a worst case scenario. There are a lot of projections but a new University of Colorado at Boulder study concludes that global sea rise of more than 6 feet is not only a top end of the projection, it is a near physical impossibility.

Tad Pfeffer, a fellow of CU-Boulder's Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research and his colleagues made calculations using conservative, medium and extreme glaciological assumptions for sea rise expected from Greenland, Antarctica and the world's smaller glaciers and ice caps -- the three primary contributors to sea rise. The team concluded the most plausible scenario, when factoring in thermal expansion due to warming waters, will lead to a total sea level rise of roughly 3 to 6 feet by 2100.



While the disintegrating Columbia Glacier is adding to ocean levels this century, the total global sea rise by 2100 may be lower than many are anticipating, according to a new University of Colorado at Boulder study. Photo Credit: Tad Pfeffer, University of Colorado

A paper on the subject was published in the Sept. 5 issue of Science. Co-authors of the study were of the University of Montana's Joel Harper and Shad O'Neel of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego. The study was funded by the National Science Foundation and a University of Colorado Faculty Fellowship.

"We consider glaciological conditions required for large sea level rise to occur by 2100 and conclude increases of 2 meters are physically untenable," the team wrote in Science. "We find that a total sea level rise of about 2 meters by 2100 could occur under physically possible glaciological conditions but only if all variables are quickly accelerated to extremely high limits."

"The gist of the study is that very simple, physical considerations show that some of the very large predictions of sea level rise are unlikely, because there is simply no way to move the ice or the water into the ocean that fast," said Pfeffer.

The team began the study by postulating future sea level rise at about 2 meters by 2100 produced only by Greenland, said Pfeffer. Since rapid, unstable ice discharge into the ocean is restricted to Greenland glacier beds based below sea level, they identified and mapped all of the so-called outlet glacier "gates" on Greenland's perimeter -- bedrock bottlenecks most tightly constraining ice and water discharge.

"For Greenland alone to raise sea level by two meters by 2100, all of the outlet glaciers involved would need to move more than three times faster than the fastest outlet glaciers ever observed, or more than 70 times faster than they presently move," said Pfeffer. "And they would have to start moving that fast today, not 10 years from now. It is a simple argument with no fancy physics."

In Antarctica, the majority of ice entering the ocean comes from the Antarctic Peninsula and the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers, said Pfeffer. Most of the marine-based ice in West Antarctica is held behind the Ross and Filcher-Ronne ice shelves, which Pfeffer's team believes are unlikely to be removed by climate or oceanographic processes during the next century. The researchers used varying glacier velocities to calculate sea-rise contribution estimates from the Antarctic Peninsula, Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers.

The team also used assessments of the world's small glacier and ice cap contributions to sea level rise calculated by a CU-Boulder team and published in Science in July 2007. That study indicated small glaciers and ice caps contribute about 60 percent of the world's ice to oceans at present, a percentage that is accelerating.

Considering all major sources of sea level rise, including Greenland, Antarctica, smaller glaciers and ice caps and the thermal expansion of water, the team's most likely estimate of roughly 3 to 6 feet by 2100 is still potentially devastating to huge areas of the world in low-lying coastal areas, said Pfeffer.

Some scientists have theorized that continuing warming trends in Greenland and Antarctica could warm the Earth by 4 degrees F over the present by 2100. The last time that happened, roughly 125,000 years ago during the last interglacial period, glacier changes raised sea level by 12 to 20 feet or more. But the time scale is poorly constrained and may have required millennia, Pfeffer said.

"In my opinion, some of the research out there calling for 20 or 30 feet of sea rise by the end of the century is not backed up by solid glaciological evidence," said Pfeffer.

Policymakers need to be able to predict sea level accurately if communities, cities and countries around the world are going to be able to plan effectively, Pfeffer said. "If we plan for 6 feet and only get 2 feet, for example, or visa versa, we could spend billions of dollars of resources solving the wrong problems."


Comments

It's a good article. The problem is it's irrelevent. The ice melting is offseting ocean temps and creating a illusion. It's fixin to get hottttttt. Can you spell climate collapse...

Stellare's picture
Sea level rise is important no matter how much or little - just one cm will be devastating for large areas on our planet. Knowing exactly how and when sea level will rise is of great economic importance. This is regardless all end-of-the-world scenarios of climate collapse etc.

The big unknown is still the large icecaps. How will they respond to increased temperature? The distribution of water that has melted is more complex than just an average sea level rise. Coastal managers needs to closely monitor the latest research and make sure they model local sea level rise including probabilities and error budgets.

It is going to be very expensive to continue focusing on whether climate change is real or not, and if it is man made or not. Facing the facts (observations) and closely monitor and improve the models emphasizing mitigation are what need be done.

The research described in this article is of great value for the topics mentioned above. It is a waste of precious time to use this new information to argue that sea level rise will never happen at all and there is no climate change - or the opposite for that matter, that we will all drown anyways. Both are expensive distractions!

Bente Lilja Bye is the author of Lilja - A bouquet of stories about the Earth

I didn't mean to belittle the science. Yes it is relevant in the short term if you live on the water. But to me the real question is where is all of this leading. The earth is warming because of us. And will continue to warm because of us. Most of the powerful people continue to believe these changes will be slow and methodical, we'll deal with them when they get here. We are seeing the ice melting and gauging it's progress. Something that hasn't been brought up is for years the ice has been getting softer. Losing it's integrity. Now huge chunks are breaking off which are even more effective at cooling the oceans. It is a graduating scale that is graduating quickly. At some point in the near future the effect of melting ice will not be enough to offset the heat generated by us and things will change quickly. Then we are not talking about effecting only the people who live on the coast.

Hank's picture
Part of the issue is that people will become skeptical if they know things are being exaggerated in order to raise money - and environmental groups exist to raise money.

Al Gore should never have said in his movie there could be 20 foot sea rises. It wasn't science and by saying it was he cast all the science into doubt, including the 95% in his movie that was correct. In the US we have stories of 'Chicken Little' and 'The boy who cried wolf' and they are parables to teach children that exaggeration or lies for attention end up being a very bad thing.

If only politicians could remember what every 5 year old child knows.

Hank you are so right. I never questioned the validity of AGW prior to Algorism. As soon as I see a politician getting involved in science I assume profit motive and start to investigate. From my investigation I have become very skeptical about CO2 sensitivity. I still see the GW issue, but with a totally new viewpoint. Thanks for opening my eye Al.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.