SEA-LEVEL RISE: Rising waters as a result of climate change will reshape the world's coastlines.
Image: flickr/notsogoodphotography
LA JOLLA, Calif. -- Sea-level rise threatens cities around the world, and academic leaders must talk about it differently to help people grasp the potential dangers and costs, climate experts said last week.
Researchers must detail effects at the local and regional levels, members of the Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU) Sustainability and Climate Change Program said as they met at the University of California, San Diego. They need to talk shorter time windows, mentioning impacts in 2050 as well as in 2100. And they should drive home to people that actions to limit climate change can help protect their children and grandchildren from huge economic and social impacts.
"Sea-level rise is not a problem that's going away," said Dan Cayan, a climate researcher at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego. "In some sense, this is an important investment. This is a multigenerational issue."
Climate researchers from around the world gathered for three days at UC San Diego to share information and formulate strategies. They discussed the importance of talking about sea-level rise and climate change as they brainstormed what advice they should give to university presidents. During that session, some of the APRU members urged more of an activist role, saying too much time already has been lost.
"People who don't believe climate change is real, and sea-level rise is real, are really few and far between," said Bernard Minster, a UC San Diego professor and Scripps researcher.
The conference took place just after sea-level rise and climate change happened to surface on the national stage. At the Republican National Convention, presidential nominee Mitt Romney in his acceptance speech derided President Obama's position on the issues.
"President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans," Romney said as some in the audience snickered, "and to heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family."
Obama in his speech at the Democratic National Convention said that "climate change is not a hoax."
"More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They are a threat to our children's future. And in this election, you can do something about it."
The scientists who met here asserted that spreading some basic facts about sea-level rise may be helpful. Higher temperatures are causing oceans to swell and glaciers to melt, they said, spawning sea-level rise. Increases now and over the next few decades are the result of greenhouse gas emissions over the past 50 years, making some change inevitable.
By the end of this century, they said, seas will climb 80 centimeters, or roughly 2.6 feet. That number could grow to as much as 2 meters, or 6.6 feet, particularly if the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica melt entirely, said Helen Fricker, an associate professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
By 2300 sea levels could lift 10 feet to 13 feet, she added.
The rising seas will affect the lives of millions of people and cost billions of dollars, the researchers said. Half the world's population lives within 62 miles of a coast.
Some areas more threatened than others
Sea-level rise has the potential to affect some places more than others, even within the same state, the experts said.
For example, in California, the impact will be felt more in the south than it will in the state's north or in Oregon and Washington, Cayan said. Two trends contribute to that phenomenon, he said.
The ocean plate is descending below North America at the Cascadia subduction zone, which runs from northern Vancouver Island, British Columbia, to Northern California. The land there is rising as seismic strain builds, Cayan said, making sea level rise less.
It's likely not permanent, however. An earthquake with a magnitude of 8 or higher would stop the land from rising and also likely would bring about additional sea-level growth of 1 to 2 meters (3.3 to 6.6 feet) in the area, he said.
"This could be a great game changer as far as sea-level rise," Cayan said. It would be "instantaneous sea-level rise of the sort Japan saw a year ago" after its magnitude-9 temblor.
The other factor making sea-level rise higher in Southern California could be winds, Cayan said. There was a study that surmised east-to-west winds are driving storm surges that are pushing waters. If those winds calmed, he said, that likely would stop the comparably higher sea effect in the region.
In California, sea-level rise threatens the coastline's homes and other buildings, including San Francisco International Airport, APRU members said. It also endangers freshwater supplies, which in turn could have a big impact on agriculture. The state exports many of its crops across the country.
The bulk of California's water passes through the Bay Delta region roughly between San Francisco and Sacramento. Rising seas could cause saltwater intrusion. Additionally, as the state's snowpack melts earlier because of warming, Cayan said, there is more runoff from higher elevation, which increases flooding.
Key cities threatened
Large population centers in the United States already imperiled by sea-level rise include New York, Boston, Miami and Tampa, Fla., said Trevor Davies with the Tyndall Centre at the University of Southampton in England. Elsewhere in the world, rising waters are likely to affect London, Bangkok, Hong Kong, Tokyo and Shanghai.
"Asia has the largest overall exposure," Davies said.
Predicted urban population growth will compound the hazards, he said. London expects to grow to 9 million people within a decade. The U.K. government has a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050, Davies said.
Desalination plants could help provide water in large population centers, but they also increase carbon pollution, Davies said.
Sea-level rise also could be a major problem in Australia, where 80 percent of people live in coastal cities, said Steffen Lehmann, director of the Centre for Sustainable Design and Behaviour at the University of South Australia. He is urging widespread use of demonstration projects to develop superior green building districts that would cut energy use.
"We are running out of time," Lehmann said. "We need real action on the ground. We need to have real breakthroughs."
Jakarta, Indonesia, faces significant water inundation, said Jatna Supriatna with the University of Indonesia, Jakarta. Gov. Fauzi Bowo wants to build a large sea wall at a cost of $20 billion.
Some at the conference argued that walls aren't the best solution to manage rising seas, however. They damage sea environments and are prohibitively expensive for most places in the world, said Charles Kennel, director emeritus of the Scripps Institution.
The Netherlands has a 100-year strategy and plans to spend $2.5 billion per year for the next century, he said, but that country has a short coastline. Venice, Italy, decided to invest €5 billion ($6.4 billion) on tidal gates to hold back water, because the city sees its buildings as priceless, Kennel said.
"The expense of doing that is an instructive number," he said of the gates.
The gates are supposed to be built to withstand 80 centimeters of sea-level rise, but it is not clear how long that will protect the city, some at the conference said.
Some argue it would make more sense just to retreat from certain areas, Kennel said.
"I cannot imagine that the right solution out is to keep the ocean out via sea wall," Kennel said. "The better solution is to learn how to live with the dynamic ocean."
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
26 Comments
Add CommentSome argue it would make more sense just to retreat from certain areas, Kennel said.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPompeii was buried more than once by Mt. Vesuvius. Right across the water, on the very foot of Mt. Vesuvius, is Naples, population 1.3 million. Nearly every year we see footage of some hurricane or typhoon doing damage to low-lying areas, yet people continue to inhabit and even expand living in those areas.
Point being you cannot ignore human nature in the equation. We already know politicizing the issue is counterproductive.
Scientist need to educate people that sea-level rise and fall has been going on for billions of years, it's part of the normal cycle and we need to be flexible and adjust to it.
"People who don't believe climate change is real, and sea-level rise is real, are really few and far between," said Bernard Minster, a UC San Diego professor and Scripps researcher."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease identify those people who think climate doesn't change.
Please identify those people who do not believe sea level hasn't been rising for 12000 years.
"particularly if the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica melt entirely, said Helen Fricker, an associate professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography."
Please indicate which scientist believes that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets can "melt completely" anytime during the next thousand years.
It seems these climatologists would be better off actually paying attention to science, than having conferences, to figure out, how to increase funding, by increasing rhetoric and alarm. Disgraceful! GK
Karst - how about the GOP legislators in the southern states that have passed legislation explicitly forbidding state flood control authorities from including climate change induced sea level rises in their forward planning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs that good enough for you? Or do we need to wait for the first modern Scopes trial when then try to legislate against teaching science again???
sparcboy write: "Point being you cannot ignore human nature in the equation."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat? Do you think these people live there because they like the beach scene? Are you suggesting that the people of southern Bangladesh stop choosing those fun, cool seaside huts and instead rent a flat in Geneva? What were they thinking?
I think it's funny that if the sea level isn't rising, then it's going to fall due to an Ice Age. What would be the consequence of regions north of the Mason Dixon line being under 2 miles of ice? If you look at the last few million years of temperature change, it has been an Ice Age most of the time. Just because we've lived in a time of moderate temperatures in recorded history, that does not make it the "Norm". In fact, we're due for another Ice Age to start, but our "Horrific" global warming emissions of CO2 may have disrupted the cycle and it is going to keep us warm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI really don't think it's possible for us to decide an ideal world average temperature and sea level and then try to maintain it. At the end of the day, that's what the scientists are really trying to do.
Good luck with that!
unScientific American tries to spread more propaganda!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe truth is that sea level is rising much slower that the cAGW supporters believed it would. It has been rising at a completely uneventful rate of about 3mm per year, or about 2 foot per century. Those who wish you to have fear have claimed that sea level will rise by 1 to 2 meters by 2100, but there is no evidence in the rate of sea level rise increasing. Is it possible that the rate of rise will increase- yes. Is it also possible that it won’t or will decline- yes. What we know is that it is not rising at an alarming rate.
Scientific American- stop lying and spreading propaganda and go back to publishing true science!
Sorry for my typo error- sea level is rising a 1 foot per century
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are in Denial Central. The scientists were quoted in the article or were you actually reading the article?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Karst - how about the GOP legislators in the southern states that have passed legislation explicitly forbidding state flood control authorities from including climate change induced sea level rises in their forward planning."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, I am NOT political. I don't belong to any party and I vote on the issues, not the party. I am aghast at the political polarization, of what essentially is a scientific issue.
Second, I am not entirely sure of what you are referring to.
I am aware that planners have been told to use actual empirical data for planning instead of ideological based model projections. MSL (mean sea level) has essentially been rising at 3mm/a since this interglacial warm period began. It would be wise to plan for that to continue.
If that rate stalls or plateaus, (some say it is presently) then we should begin thinking about our actions for a cooling world. What use will your video game science be then??
The truth of the matter is: Mankind has not reached the state of technology or understanding yet, where we can control weather, hence climate. Even if we had, who gets to determine which (of all the possible climates) is the ideal one. Do Canadians get to decide? How about the Nordic peoples... Do they want to cool another 4 degrees so that Florida is a half degree cooler, and a fraction less sea level rise?! People... give your heads a good shake and clear you minds, to what actually IS. GK
Denial? the polar ice sheets coud melt in a thousand years?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's utter and complete rubbish. Temperatures of Earth could rise 50c in the next hundred years and we'd still have ice sheets in a 50 thousand years, let alone a thousand.
geojellyroll,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour thermal mass calculations are off by more than an order of magnitude. Your point about various interpretations of the current hockey stick are valid; Wild exaggerations like minimal effect from a 50C temperature rise for 50K years are way off. Did you accidentally add a '0' one of the figures?
Solution seems simple. Vote Romney and the sea level doesn't rise - at least not in the US, but maybe elsewhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVote Obama and we will need to continue to address the truth.
Only in America.
To make the population aware require by zoning the painting of the projected hundred year high water mark in all metropolitan areas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs people are optimists it may be for naught. For example people keeping moving back and investing in flood plain areas like New Orleans which is already 20' below sea level.
I just don’t believe you anymore. I believed in global cooling and the coming ice age announced in the 1970s. I believed that the hole in the ozone was a serious threat. I became skeptical when Y2K was the next disaster, and after that, I began laughing whenever the Federal government warned of the next flu inspired pandemic. But the “scientific” community has cried “wolf” once too often. I just don’t believe you anymore.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrue scientists don’t make such conclusive statements, especially not with an issue that is so young. True scientists are skeptical and thus very careful about their conclusions. True scientists don’t attack their opponents with ad hominem arguments.
If you’re right, the seas are rising, and some land will be underwater, it can’t be all bad. Will warmer weather provide longer growing seasons? Will the changes turn deserts into farmland? Will the changes force farmlands to lie fallow and rejuvenate? Will the growth of the oceans produce more food from those oceans?
It’s hard to see the global warming champaign as anything more than “the sky is falling” that government forces use as means for controlling the population.
MILEHIGH1,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCaps Lock key stuck. Buy a new keyboard. No one reads comment in all-caps.
Maybe insulting the opposition will convince them. Call them stupid. Call them ostriches. Tell the opposition how smart you are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd don't forget to write everything in caps because that convinces more people yet.
MM Thomas,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou forget to mention how much more convincing those statements are when you leave out most of the punctuation (but double up in the question marks and exclamation points).
As I stated before and the SCIAM editors objected to so greatly that they censored my comment:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" Why do scientists feel that finding the "winning combination" of words is necessary? Is not the truth strong enough?
Apparently not in this case, as the truth of sea-level rise is that man's effect is much less than even insignificant. And that does not help the Alarmist cause.
I predict a sea level yo-yo for 2013. It will start to fall during a solar storm. Or it could rise during a solar storm. I am not certain which effect is larger. Is it evaporation or ice melt. After the storm, there will be the long heavy rain. This should raise sea levels....or lower. The temperature of the crust will then be higher. That should raise sea levels. The ice should hit in 2014. Sea level should drop. I am assuming that Dec 21 ,2012 is the correct date.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe predicted asteroid hit should also change the landscape.
MILEHIGH1:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCaps-lock is stuck. I am sorry to hear about St. Mary's. I used to ski there, as I was a CO resident ski bum. Where do you ski/ride?
sorry for the caps i'll write in little letters so its harder to read.as for my grammar sorry not an English major.but fact remains that some may choose to ignore the science and all the data collected by the worlds leading scientist and say oh it's just the alarmist crying wolf.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisso why then do people who live in northern climates say that u.s. glaciers have all but disappeared, Nordic fiordes are now stone canyons, Alaskan permafrost is no longer present and causing coastal erosion, Siberian permafrost melted exposing woolly mammoth ,polar bears may go extinct because of polar shrinking, satellite photos of once frozen areas now show massive and increasing melting of ice packs? once again think for yourself s "where does all that fresh water go? To the oceans, hmmm maybe that will cause ocean levels to rise?
no way it just doesnt make sense.(sarcasm for those that missed it) why then are pacific islands submerging into the ocean and their inhabitants being relocated to other areas? and for the bigger question of will it affects coastal regions and populations, yes. will those people continue to inhabit those areas, of course we will until its too late.darwinism at its finest,the planets over populated anyway so if a large part of population is lost to global warming water cycles it might be a good thing huh? popluation control, stay where you are there's no need for future concern. living in the mountains i'll welcome a new beach front in Grand Junction Colorado.oh well lets not make plans for the days coming,lets just call our scientist idiots and wait and see what happens.
I find it difficult to take seriously the claims of global warming when I see its proponents use energy in ways contrary to the sacrifices they demand of us. It’s nice to find that Al Gore makes improvements to the energy consumption of his house, but I don’t see him making any real sacrifices. He lives alone in a huge house that consumes a lot of energy for one person. I see Hollywood demanding that we consume less energy, and then they have their award shows that use huge amounts of energy. (Of course, some people who are concerned about global warming make personal sacrifices.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI remember two interviews of common folk on NPR who were touted as being energy conscious and very concerned about global warning. But one person said that no matter what happens, she refused to discontinue her family’s annual flights to Germany. The other person acknowledged that barbequing with charcoal was worse for the environment than using gas, but the flavor was much better, so he wasn’t going to change his habits. I guess the message was that we could curb our use of energy except for those activities that are important to us. Now, how worried can I be about global warming when its greatest proponents aren’t that concerned?
I am not complaining about the hypocrisy. I am concluding that many proponents really do not believe their own comments on the need for conservation or the concern for global warming.
Again, the whole thing smacks of government lovers demanding that we common folk change our ways through the force of law, without them sacrificing anything. It resembles those rich people who complain that they don’t pay enough in taxes, and then fail to make charitable donations to the Federal government.
If you want me to take you seriously, then I’d like to see you collect charitable donations to buy coal mines and close them down. It’s easy to get government to close them. It’s much more difficult when you pay the bill yourself.
MILEHIGH1:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with you on most points, but you did not answer my question.
Milehigh
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe that you are seriously concerned, but please understand that regarding the topic of AGW and specifically sea level rise, there is no scientific consensus regarding how much sea level will rise by 2100.
Several climate scientists claimed that they knew that sea level would rise dramatically as a result of ice melt etc. and stated that a rise of over 2 meters was probable between 2000 and 2100. The IPCC predicted a rise of .59 M by that timeframe. Both of those predictions were based upon the idea that a slight warming of the planet would bring into play additional forcings that would accelerate the warming and the melting and would thereby accelerate the rate of sea level rise.
The truth is that those predictions have turned out to be wrong. The additional forcings have simply not occured. The rate of sea level rise has been at a rate of only about 1 foot per century since the early 1990's when we were able to accurately measure the change.
MILEHIGH1,iamnot surewhy,youthink youronlypersonwho sees theseproblemsandwants actiontaken.forsure angerisnota solution,doyou oftengetpositiveresponsewhenyouCALL SOMEONEANIDIOT?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJamesMoore says:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"As people are optimists it may be for naught. For example people keeping moving back and investing in flood plain areas like New Orleans which is already 20' below sea level."
That is exactly how rising sea levels are handled through history. As storm surges gradually reach further inland, the frequency of rebuilding becomes too expensive and people gradually start rebuilding on higher ground (move off the flood plain). How gradual, this movement is, will depend largely on the wealth of the nations involved.
Sea inundation is very slow, and cities gradually migrate higher. It is not really noticed, because it is so slow, over many generations. Sooner or later there will be a super storm, which will convince N.O. to abandon the flood plain completely... for a generation or two. GK