Climate Change

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 9° London Hi 14°C / Lo 10°C

Global warming alert

Sea levels rising twice as fast as predicted

Melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica force UN scientists to issue dramatic warning

By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor

Floods in Bangladesh last year, where coastal areas are already affected

AFP/Getty

Floods in Bangladesh last year, where coastal areas are already affected

Sea levels are predicted to rise twice as fast as was forecast by the United Nations only two years ago, threatening hundreds of millions of people with catastrophe, scientists said yesterday in a dramatic new warning about climate change. Rapidly melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are likely to push up sea levels by a metre or more by 2100, swamping coastal cities and obliterating the living space of 600 million people who live in deltas, low-lying areas and small island states.

Low-lying countries with increasing populations, such as Bangladesh, Burma and Egypt, could see large parts of their surface areas vanish. Experts in Bangladesh estimate that a one-metre rise in sea levels would swamp 17 per cent of the country's land mass. Pacific islands such as Tuvalu, where 12,000 people live just a few feet above sea level, and the Maldives, would face complete obliteration.

Even Britain could face real challenges in lower-lying areas along the east coast, from Lincolnshire to the Thames estuary, with a much greater risk of catastrophic "storm surges" such as the great flood of 1953 that killed 307 people.

Yesterday's urgent wake-up call to governments about global warming – telling them the data on which they are basing their official advice is flawed – came from four scientists from the US, Australia, France and Germany, who gave a press conference at a scientific meeting on climate change in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Professor Konrad Steffen, from the University of Colorado, Dr John Church, of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research in Tasmania, Dr Eric Rignot, of Nasa's jet propulsion laboratory in Pasadena, and Professor Stefan Rahmsdorf, from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, are all experts in sea-level rise. Their views represent the mainstream opinion of researchers in the field, taking account of the most recent data.

Only two years ago, the UN's Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its Fourth Assessment Report, or AR4, that the worst-case prediction for global sea-level rise was 59cm by 2100. But the scientists in Copenhagen suggested that the 2007 report was a drastic underestimation of the problem, and that oceans were likely to rise twice as fast.

Yesterday's meeting was a scientific overture to the global conference on climate change, which takes place in the Danish capital in December. The four researchers underlined how critical it is that world leaders act to slash the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from industry and transport which are causing the atmosphere to overheat.

Advance negotiations begin in three weeks in Bonn. On pages 20 and 21, we illustrate in detail just how great the task is, profiling the main emitters of CO2 and what they are doing – or not doing – to cut back. Yesterday's alarm call was clearly intended to inject more urgency into the process.

Rising sea levels are caused by the thermal expansion of the ocean – where water increases in volume as it warms. But although the melting of ice already floating in the sea does not add to the level, because it is already displacing its own mass, melting into the sea of land-based ice most definitely does.

It is the accelerated melting of the vast, land-based ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, caused by rapidly rising temperatures at high latitudes, which is now speeding up the increase beyond anything previously forecast. The Greenland ice sheet, in particular, is not simply melting but melting "dynamically" – that is, it is collapsing in parts as meltwater seeps down through crevices and speeds up its disintegration. Critically, the four scientists said, this process was not taken into account in the AR4 report, leading to estimates of sea-level increase which were far too low.

They revealed remarkable figures showing just how fast it is now happening. Professor Steffen said Greenland was losing 200 to 300 cubic-kilometres of ice into the sea each year – about the same amount as all the ice in Arctic Europe. This on its own is causing the global sea level to rise by more than a millimetre a year, he added, whereas a decade ago Greenland's contribution to sea level rise was non-existent.

Dr Church said that the most recent satellite and in situ data showed seas were now rising by more than 3mm a year – more than 50 per cent faster than the average for the 20th century.

"As a result of improved estimates of the observed rise, the thermal expansion, the melting of the glaciers and of the ice sheets, we now have a much better quantitive understanding of why sea level is rising," he said. "Without significant, urgent and sustained emissions reductions, we will cross a threshold which will lead to continuing sea level rise of metres."

Professor Steffen added: "What we have learnt in the past three or four years is that the ice dynamic is much stronger than the models indicated, and the prediction has to be revised up to a metre or more – which is enormous if you look at the impact."

Britain's Environment Agency was apparently unique when it discarded the IPCC's 2007 advice as flawed. Based on its own estimates, it is planning flood defences for 2100 on the basis of a one-metre rise in sea levels – with a "worst-case scenario" of 2.7 metres.

"These startling new predictions spell disaster for millions of the world's poorest people," said Rob Bailey, Oxfam's policy adviser on climate change. "Poor coastal communities in countries such as Bangladesh are already struggling to cope with a changing climate, and it can only get worse. This must be a wake-up call for rich countries who are not doing anywhere near enough to prevent these cataclysmic predictions from becoming a reality."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>
'urgent wake-up call to governments'????
[info]someofusknow wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 01:01 am (UTC)
This is just another of many predictions that will have to be revised upwards in the near future as positive feedback mechanisms take global warming to the rapidly self-reinforcing runaway stage.

In view of the fact that there is enough ice on Greenland to raise sea level by 7 metres, a more realistic projection would be a sea level rise of 5 metres by mid century.

'urgent wake-up call to governments'???? They had the urgent wake up call on limits ot growth in 1972, and chose to ignore it!!!! And the urgent wake up call on global warming was in 1988 -which again governments totally ignored.

No dire warning will generate any rational response to the situation from the 'criminals and clowns' that constitute most governments, since they fully committed to consumption at any cost (hence the recent so-called bailouts and stimulus pakages, designed to keep defunct systems running a bit longer) and are simply in power to facilitate the short term interests of multinational corporations and money lenders. (They of course, could not care less what happens to ordinary folk or to the planet, since they are abstract 'beings' geared only to short term profit generation).

Wake UP!!!
[info]ddraig_ddu wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 02:42 am (UTC)

With much of England being low lying (Wales and Scotland will fare much better) it's time the British Government scrapped their stupid plans to continue building houses on floodplanes!

The water's not going to be going down again any time soon!

If your house IS on a floodplane, be grateful that when you lose it it won't be worth as much as you thought it was anyway!

I would recommend going into the kayak trade to anyone foolish enough to continue living so low down - in 10 years London could become New Venice! All it takes is planning - the Venitians have managed for quite a long time. You could just move upstairs, and tie your canoe up to the balcony when you get home.

Great Britain will look quite strange at first, whenit's split into five or six smaller islands, but people will get used to it.

I wonder if they'll get used to not being able to race around (or more commonly nowadays - sit in traffic jams!) in their cars so much.
[info]thomasth wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 04:19 am (UTC)
since we aren't going to do anything about it, what are we going to do?
We Still Have Options
[info]redroseandy wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 05:05 am (UTC)
We need a Near-Zero CO2 plan now, mine also has the funding for it. But what is obvious is that we also have to reverse the CO2 already produced and the only way that we can do so is to produce enough biochar. Enough trees and plants die each year to offset all man-made CO2 emissions, everything organic can and must be biochared. And yet I cannot get a reasoned reply from the Prime Minister on this most important of issues. Saving the Banking System was done with the urgency that cutting CO2 emissions should have been done. The Labour Government has been washing it's hands over my correspondence for ten years. We now have less than 100 months. Come on Gordon Brown.
[info]mikebrisco wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 05:27 am (UTC)
If this article is correct, I would say we are in deep s*it.

There have been straws in the wind for a while, about quick large changes in sea level ie several m a century. Based on geological evidence, suggestions only - but if it happened once, it is possible again, and circumstances like these, might just force it. These reports were seen as alarmist & speculative- Yet here we have it. A 1 meter rise in a century. 1 cm a year.

The message I take from this - not so much, about sea level is rising - more, science whose predictions a few years ago seemed incredible and far fetched - those predictions look now to have been in the right ballpark. Though against the above there are 2 other bits of research showing the greenland ice sheet unlikely to collapse entirely this century & thus thinking rises of 7 meters, unlikely. Unless there is someting else going on that we havent measured yet.

Worth keeping a very very close eye, on the results emerging from this area, about how fast things are actually changing.

& worth doing all you can in your own life, to limit your contribution.
Sea level Rise
[info]max230 wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 06:05 am (UTC)
During the medieval warm period 900/1300 ad Greenland was being farmed. i guess not much ice cap then and presumably sea levels much greater than today.

Why is is that the Tower gate is at the same Thames water level today and not 6 metres above.

This is all baloney
Re: Sea level Rise
[info]johnnynorfolk wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 07:43 am (UTC)
Spot on. What we see does not confirm what we read.

If we do have priblems the main cause is over population. Reduce this and we reduce the problem.
Re: Sea level Rise - [info]sudseax - Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 08:49 am (UTC) Expand
Sea level
[info]max230 wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 06:21 am (UTC)
Re the Tower of London.

Construction started about 1078. Tapestries circa 1150 show the building in relation to the Thames level.

Too many people are dependant on climate change for their salary.
no worries - life goes on dudes
[info]mackname wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 06:28 am (UTC)
by year 2100 all these people who are leaving comments here have already given 2/3 of their body weight to the seas.

as for the future generation, let me think about it... well, did our parents give a care for us?

everyone has to fight for her/his own being.
live long survivors!

ps: please don't waste your time living some of those naughty professor messages for me.
thank yo.
Nonsense
[info]gcmackay wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 06:43 am (UTC)
How come Greenland's warmest year on record was 1946?

Have a look at the science: Holgate, S. J., 2007. On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century, Geophysical Research Letters, 34

The data shows that the rate of rise was fastest in the first half of the 20th century.

It just doesn't add up or make very dramatic reading. If only the Independent was peer previewed ;)
Oh Really?
[info]evilbughead wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 07:08 am (UTC)
Strange how is this "suppose" to happen when the earth is in fact cooling and not heating up as the "scientists" insist that this is the case. Climate Change is nothing new and has been an ongoing thing since the dawn of time. Wake Up sheeple the Governments are controlled not by the people but by the banksters and robber barons , just another sad excuse to further tax us. Global Warming my arse.
Re: Oh Really?
[info]neil_mcgowan wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 11:25 am (UTC)
Well according to knuckledraggers like yourself, the earth is flat - any excess water will just drop off the edges, where the dragons live, right??
Re: Oh Really? - [info]daveyboy103 - Wednesday, 8 April 2009 at 07:48 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Oh Really? - [info]merdencore - Friday, 20 March 2009 at 10:00 pm (UTC) Expand
deep trouble
[info]buroshiva wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 07:34 am (UTC)
people living near the seaside particularly are in deep trouble. phenomena like tsunami come once in a while dangers like sealevel rising above the that of land means trouble everyday every flow and tide. we have done enough damage to our environment; now let the world get together and draw stringent laws against pollution. we are turning the world into a cauldron.
Far More Proof Needed
[info]johnnynorfolk wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 07:38 am (UTC)
You cannot take data from 3 or 4 years and come up with this sort of thing.They are just trying to panic people. Monitor yes panic no.

Lake Superiour has frozen over this year so it not all melting.

Global temps. have dropped but then they say its only tempory. How do they know.

We do not evwn get weather forecasts right.
Basic physics.
[info]bob_crowe wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 07:39 am (UTC)

If floating ice melts it has no effect on sea water level. Try it, take a part filled glass of water, add some ice cubes, mark the water level, wait for ice to melt. The water level will not change.
Re: Basic physics.
[info]steve_wilds wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 08:01 am (UTC)
Antarctica isn't floating in water, it's a continent covered in melting glaciers. Also, the huge number of mountain ranges that are shedding their glaciers contribute to more unlocked water in the rain cycle.
Re: Basic physics. - [info]sableagle - Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 06:06 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Basic physics. - [info]someofusknow - Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 09:10 am (UTC) Expand
Strange Brew
[info]humble_sparrow wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 07:40 am (UTC)
Why is it 90% of Scientists believe that global warming is happening, 90% of the populous don't and 99% of governments are paralysed by a fear of both, what a strange brew of belief, non-belief, action and inaction.

Glug, glug, help !, glug, glug, help!
polar bears can swim
[info]mrjohn01 wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 07:42 am (UTC)
"Sea levels rising twice as fast as predicted"

"Sea levels are predicted to rise twice as fast as was forecast by the United Nations only two years ago,"

So the headline gives the impression it is a fact, and the first line say's it is a prediction. We are supposed to accept this prediction is correct, and discard the last one is inaccurate.
Extraordinary.
[info]aegian wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 07:52 am (UTC)
"Professor Konrad Steffen, from the University of Colorado, Dr John Church, of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research in Tasmania, Dr Eric Rignot, of Nasa's jet propulsion laboratory in Pasadena, and Professor Stefan Rahmsdorf, from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, are all experts in sea-level rise. Their views represent the mainstream opinion of researchers in the field, taking account of the most recent data."

Some of the commentators here think they know better than the scientists named above...
Skeptic maybe: denier, please not
[info]richardjeff wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 08:16 am (UTC)
The science of Global Warming/Climate Change is complex, relies greatly on statistical trends and extrapolations and has to use derived rather than direct data which increases the "error" potential in the very data being extrapolated. It therefore contains a high degree of uncertainty. But that is also true of many other areas including economics, which many sceptics use as there arguments against taking note of Climate Change. They argue that it would have too great a negative impact on economic growth, is an excuse for greater government intervention and that their are other non-human activity drivers to Global Warming that for outweigh the areas humans can influence.

The fact remains that the balance of probabilities shows Climate Change is likely to be largely human activity driven in its current phase. Also can we risk using up fossil fuels at an accelerated rate.Those who point to greater extremes of cold forget that Global warming means and increase in the mean temperature across the globe and that means an increase in the total energy stored within the global system. This means more energetic activity, in other words expect more extremes and greater variability but the the underlying mean trending upwards.

Those who argue that it impinges "freedoms" but freedom TO is always the other side of the coin freedom FROM. You only have human rights by virtue of also taking on human duties or obligations. Individual freedoms are achieved only by accepting co-operation and compromises.

We note the skeptics views, but on balance, feel it is imperative to act.
More climate alarmism
[info]ptstroud wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 08:29 am (UTC)
Here we go again, shock, horror we are all going to die unless we go back to living as we did in medieval times. Sea levels are rising even more than we thought. The oceans are acidifying, oh my God!
Let us just calm down and look at the facts. Sea levels are being measured with incredible accuracy for many years and the world expert is Prof Neils Axel Morner. His expert view in 2004 is that sea levels will not rise more this century than in the past. ie. about one foot per century and has been since the last ice age. Actually it rose only eight inches in the last century. Now, all reliable data shows that global temperatures have not increased for ten years even though all climate models forecast that they would rise monotonically with carbon dioxide. So just where are these doom and gloom forecasts coming from?
As to the Greenland ice melting. Vikings colonised it a thousand years ago and farmed there. Their graves are found beneath the permafrost proving that it was much warmer then than now and the world did not flood.
No, I am sorry but this rabid alarmism is political and ensures vast sums of money go into researching the effects of man made global warming.
But watch out for what will really be stressed. Words like "well of course we cannot be absolutely sure."
Are we doing enough to save the planet
[info]dkitchlion wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 08:33 am (UTC)
Two key current problems are lack of liquidity and global warming which no one appears to properly grasp.

We should be looking at the cause of these problems which might be associated with the demographics of this planet.

Quick answer. Reduce the 6 billion of population by 0.5 billion initially with a target of maximising population to sensible sustainable levels of 5 billion. Limit human rights to a maximum of threescore years and twenty (note 15% increase on what we should be working to). Give rights to all rain forests, deserts and sea levels to grow or shrink as required with no human interference permitted. This should release significant amounts of "pension pots" reduce revenue demands and give the planet a breathing space while it sorts itself out. The new challenge then is How. Why not a giant lottery with "oblivion" as the prize.
How's Right?
[info]mike4626 wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 08:39 am (UTC)
We are suffering from global warming
W are suffering from global cooling
We are suffering from drought
We are suffering from floods

The only people who seem not to be suffering are those who are earning huge amounts of money from such scare mongering.

OK in five hundred years I might be proved wrong - but then I may also be proved right
Sounds like we're in the Age of Stupid
[info]jered1 wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 08:47 am (UTC)
As Franny Armstrong's new film THE AGE OF STUPID seems to be saying (but strangely the Independent seems to be ignoring) - why did we not stop the disaster when we had the chance?

See the film.

Spread the word.
Re: Sounds like we're in the Age of Stupid
[info]medit2 wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 10:37 am (UTC)
The only encouraging post I have read. If you do nothing else, at least see the Age of Stupid
HAI WATER
[info]charityplayer wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 08:57 am (UTC)
HAI D HAI DAI WATER TAFFTAN
HAO NAO OX IN LEDLOQKXS
TAO LIAO TALLi KNUGHT
ITS* A HOOTA YNYT
An expert's comment
[info]ptstroud wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 09:17 am (UTC)
Further to my last posting, I find that Prof Morner, the world expert on sea levels and coastal erosion has emailed a comment on the Copenhagen paper I quote: "Misused data! Satellite altimetry nineteen ninety three to two thousand was horizontal, same data set two thousand to two thousand and three was tilted. On top of the physical corrections (giving horizontallity) they added a 'personal correction' to fit IPCC's claims. What do we call this if not falsification?"

I think that says it all. But we must keep the research grants coming in.
TIME AND TIDE
[info]charityplayer wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 09:40 am (UTC)

THE TYME HAS KHUHMM
THE TYDE HAS GON
THE DEVYLL KNEADS A GNU HOHM

ALL HE HAS LEFFT
IS THE GNHUMBER ON HIS BAQK
AND THE DyyD 2 THE MILLENIUM DOME


LAYMAN PANG TO OXYUQKHONDOR


KOHPENHAYGANDER KNOT IN Py
BEDROP

FFUNNi INIT
Sea level rises
[info]margaret222 wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 09:19 am (UTC)
I attach a link to a graph of recent worldwide sea level changes.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SeaLevel_TOPEX.jpg

I have some difficulty with the factual basis of the article when I observe that sea levels appear to have fallen since 2006.

Also, the "Antarctic melting" statement does not sit well with the recent record [since satellite measurements began] extent of the Antarctic Ice Shelf.

I think the article represents sheer alarmism.
Deal with reality or reality will deal with you.
[info]someofusknow wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 09:31 am (UTC)
It is interesting to see the so-called sceptics out in force again, trying to tell us the Earth is cooling down when the data indicates the opposite, telling us Greenland was warmer a thousand years ago than now when it wasn't, telling us the melting of ice floating on water makes no difference when we are concerned with the melting of ice on land masses, and pretending that there really is no problem at all.

Presumably these same fools think that there is no such thing as Peak Oil or Global Dimming, and presumably have not got the foggiest idea of the intimate conection between the industrialised oil economy and their own food supply. They are in for a very rude awakening, possibly as soon as the end of this year.

As Dr 0Colin Campbell said' Deal with reality or reality will deal with you.

Professor Albert Bartlett put it this way: Nature will deal with the problem [of humans and their idiotic way of living] in ways we won't like much.

The saddest aspect of all this is the utter selfishness of present day adults who are all too very happy to pass on a degraded, overpopulated and impoverished planet to the next generation, who will be faced with a grim Darwinian battle for survival that the majority will not win.
Re: Deal with reality or reality will deal with you.
[info]colinru wrote:
Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 01:49 pm (UTC)
The Data indicates that Global Temperatures have been flat of falling slightly since 1997 so your statement is incorrect! Please see first column in : - http://hadobbs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual

Please post a link to the data that shows Greenland was colder A.D. 900-1,300. I understood that there was farming in Greenland in this period so your statement seems counterintuitive.

Notwithstanding the above, I still think that we should be making more effort to carry out the easier & cheaper changes to our Economy (just in case AGW is true in its more extreme predictions).
Re: Deal with reality or reality will deal with you. - [info]someofusknow - Wednesday, 11 March 2009 at 09:59 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Deal with reality or reality will deal with you. - [info]daveyboy103 - Wednesday, 8 April 2009 at 08:01 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Deal with reality or reality will deal with you. - [info]someofusknow - Thursday, 9 April 2009 at 12:19 am (UTC) Expand
Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date