Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

Greenland study

Sea-level rise could be double IPCC projections

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 1:52 PM on 12 Feb 2008

Last year, Nature Geoscience and Science (PDF) published major articles suggesting that the consensus projection for sea-level rise this century was far too low -- and could be as high as five feet. Now the Journal of Glaciology joins in with a remarkable analysis, "Intermittent thinning of Jakobshavn Isbræ, West Greenland, since the Little Ice Age" (PDF).

The lead author, Beata Csatho from the University of Buffalo, explains implications of this work for the traditionally very simplified ice sheet models, such as those used by United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to make projections of sea-level rise:

Ice sheet models usually don't include all the complexity of ice dynamics that can happen in nature. This research will give ice sheet modelers more precise, more detailed data.

If current climate models from the IPCC included data from ice dynamics in Greenland, the sea level rise estimated during this century could be twice as high as what they are currently projecting.

jakob.jpgThe study "focuses on Jakobshavn Isbræ, Greenland's fastest moving glacier and its largest, measuring four miles wide." It documents the behavior of Jakobshavn Isbræ since the late 1800s by combining "field mapping, remote sensing, satellite imaging and the application of digital techniques in order to glean 'hidden' data from historic aerial photographs as many as 60 years after they were taken." It is a very impressive piece of work. (The photo on the right is from 1944 -- click to enlarge.)

For the record, five feet of sea-level rise would displace more than 100 million people worldwide -- the equivalent of 200 Hurricane Katrinas!

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Good point, but IPCC said ice model was bad

I think any prediction a century out is rather bogus, but it is true the rate of existing erosion of arctic ice and northern glacial ice is at a much faster rate than anticipated by IPCC.

One thing causes me some difficulty because most polar ice melt models assume the Earth is flat; that is, if "x" many billion tons of glacier ice melts, the ocean would rise uniformly as "y" in millimeters per year, similar to pouring water into a cookie sheet for baking.

Well the Earth is not flat, nor is it perfectly spherical. Trust me, the ocean turns out to be quite lumpy.
-sam

Onward through the fog

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks