1.5m Sea Level Rise by 2100

i-ae62c273b4a22c33a72800ef04789a63-floodno.jpg

The good news is...more ocean!

Svetlana Jevrejeva of the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, UK, says a new, more accurate reconstruction of sea levels over the past 2000 years suggests that the prediction of a an 18-59 centimetre rise by 2100 made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is wildly inaccurate. Meeting at European Geosciences Union conference in Vienna, Austria, this week, researchers including Jevrejeva said in a statement that the pace at which sea levels are rising is accelerating. They predict they will be 0.8-1.5 metres higher by next century.

I managed to find this wonderful Google Map Hack that allows you to observe sea level increases. Surf around and take a look at Thailand and Amsterdam under 2m of water. Feel free to post links to other extremely flooded areas below. Only one thing left to do sing!

More like this

1.5 m sea level rise this century, that is. Nature sez the "estimate released today says that it could be as as much as 1.5 metres (4.9 feet) by the end of this century". Their source seems to be Reuters, and we'll pause briefly to condemn the oh-so-typical inflation of the worst case from the…
Sipping from the internet firehose... This weekly posting is brought to you courtesy of H.E.Taylor. Happy reading, I hope you enjoy this week's Global Warming news roundup (skip to bottom) Top Stories:Food Crisis, Do Nothing Speech, Paris Greenland, Ward Hunt, Antarctic Salinity, Stern, EGU, Jet…
There's a good reason why of all the consequences of anthropogenic global warming, nothing garners as much attention as sea level rise ;;;; with the possible exception of those darn charismatic polar bears, that is. It's the same reason Al Gore devoted half a dozen slides in his climate change…
OK. I've read Hansen's new paper, which has been submitted to Environmental Research Letters, but not published. It's basically a review of existing, well-established science followed some personal opinion on the responsibility of scientists to express themselves, so I doubt it will be edited much…

I wish you'd at least put a question mark after that headline, if you're not willing to include the range and insist on using only the maximum value.

This is perhaps entirely obvious to the scientists reading, but it looks like exaggeration to anyone willing to believe that could be possibly going on.

Just saying. I try to be an equal opportunity critic of this kind of .... stuff. No personal offense meant.

By Hank Roberts (not verified) on 19 Apr 2008 #permalink