21 Oct 2013

Rising Waters: How Fast and How Far Will Sea Levels Rise?

Although the latest U.N. climate report significantly increases its projections for sea level rise this century, some scientists warn even those estimates are overly conservative. But one thing is certain: Predicting sea level rise far into the future is a very tricky task.
By nicola jones

When the scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sat down to hash out the chapter on sea level rise for their new report, which was released last month, they had their work cut out for them.

Sea level forecasts were the most controversial part of the previous report, issued in 2007: Scientists and the public alike bristled at the lowball estimate of under 60 centimeters (nearly two feet) by 2100, which, the IPCC admitted, did not include the possibility of rapid ice flow from
Sea level rise in Miami
Getty Images
North Miami, Fla., is one of the cities on the U.S. East Coast with sea level rise well above the global average.
Greenland or the Antarctic into the sea. That was clearly important — those two ice sheets alone hold enough water to raise sea level by 65 meters, compared to 0.4 meters from all the world’s mountain glaciers. But researchers' understanding of the ice sheets was so uncertain, the IPCC said, they just couldn’t bring themselves to put a number on it. "Some things had to be neglected," says Don Chambers, sea level researcher at the University of Texas. "Because of that, the projections were on the low side."

Things today are more certain. In its latest report, released on September 27, the IPCC finally could and did put a number on ice flow from the poles. The result was an estimate of sea level rise of 28 to 98 centimeters (a maximum of more than three feet) by 2100 — more than 50 percent higher than the 2007 projections. "We have our arms around the problem well enough to say there’s a limit to how crazy things are going to get," says Ted Scambos, head scientist at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center.

But that doesn’t mean that everything about sea level is now understood. Far from it. Big questions still hang over the fate of the ice sheets, which, the IPCC admits, could bump up the most recent projections by tens of
'We all think that we’re committed to a meter of sea level rise. We just don’t know exactly how quickly.'
centimeters. And there are a ton of smaller factors for researchers to come to grips with.

The ocean doesn’t rise steadily like water poured into a bathtub — instead there are splashes and jiggles in its rise. Weather patterns like El Niño can shove tens of centimeters of water up onto shores for months at a time, as they did in California in 1998. Floods in Australia in late 2010 strangely resulted in water piling up on that continent, robbing the oceans of enough water to lower global sea level by 7 millimeters for more than a year. While the ocean grows, the land also shifts: The ground rises where it was once pressed down by glaciers, and river deltas sink as loose sediments compact. What looks like sea level rise in one place might really be the result of the land falling.

All this means that unravelling what the oceans are doing today is a heinously complicated task. Extrapolating their behavior is even trickier. "Predicting that into the future is very problematic," notes Chambers. Says Steve Nerem at the University of Colorado, "We all think we’re committed to a meter of sea level rise. We just don’t know exactly how quickly."

Some facts are well established. Researchers can say that global ocean levels have risen about 19 centimeters in the last century. And the rate of rise has sped up. The 20th-century average is about 1.7 millimeters per year; since 1993 the average rate has nearly doubled — to about 3.2 millimeters per year. Those sweeping statistics about decades-long trends haven’t changed much since the last IPCC report in 2007. The devil, of course, is in the details.

One problem has been attributing what, exactly, has caused the rise seen so far. Since the 1970s, for example, it is thought that about 40 to 50 percent of sea level rise was caused by 'thermal expansion' — the fact that water simply takes up more room as it gets warmer; 35 percent by melting glaciers; 5 percent because people have been extracting groundwater, using it, and pouring it into the ocean; and the remaining amount probably from melting ice at the poles. The primary reason this accounting is tricky is spotty data: Satellite measures of ocean height only go back to 1993, for example, and of the world’s more than 100,000 glaciers, there are only 17 with melt records going back 30 years or more. "We have to make huge assumptions," says Chambers.

Another problem is untangling short-term from long-term trends. The rate of sea level rise has mysteriously slowed down in the most recent decade, for example. The leading theory is that this blip is due to heat being sucked
The biggest question remains how fast and how far the polar ice sheets will melt.
up by the deeper, colder parts of the ocean; cold water simply doesn’t expand so much on heating as warmer water does, so the sea level rise is less, says Nerem. But the slowdown isn’t expected to last.

By far the biggest question remains how fast and far the polar ice sheets will melt. For this, researchers have one key helper: the Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment (GRACE). Launched in 2002, these two satellites detect the mass of the ground beneath them, and so can be used to monitor the changing weight of the ice caps. "GRACE was a game changer," says Jerry Meehl, a climate modeler at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. "Before that they were guessing."

Even GRACE is not clear-cut, however. The satellites detect the end result of a combination of effects, including the change in mass caused by the shifting crust and mantle, increased snowfall, and loss of ice from melt or iceberg calving. So results are open to interpretation: The 2012 GRACE estimate for ice loss from the Antarctic was just half the best guess from 2006.

In Greenland, researchers have seen the rate of ice melt double since the 1990s, and warm water licking at the edge of the island has increased glacier calving into the sea. More snow is falling, but overall the island is losing weight and is expected to continue to do so. "For Greenland we can be confident now we really know what’s going on. All the methods are converging," says Philippe Huybrechts, an ice modeler at the Brussels Free University. Worryingly, the IPCC expects there is some global threshold — as low as 1 degree C, or as high as 4 degrees C above pre-industrial temperatures — beyond which Greenland will irreversibly melt away over hundreds of years. We’re already 0.85 degrees C warmer than 1880.

The picture of the Antarctic is far fuzzier: The error bars on IPCC projections mean that the panel cannot even say for certain that the continent will lose mass by 2100; it may actually gain a bit in the short term. The IPCC expects to see much more snowfall, particularly in the east,
When ice experts were surveyed, their best guesses for polar ice loss were all over the map.
and it should remain too cold for the ice to simply melt away. But the continent is also losing ice from its edges as warmer water causes ice shelf collapse. There is a chance that this ice outflow could cause runaway collapse of the entire western Antarctic ice sheet. This could add several tenths of a meter to global sea level rise by 2100. "There is a lot of ice there," says David Vaughan with the British Antarctic Survey. "If it is knocked out of balance, Antarctica could quite easily become the dominant contribution."

In the face of all these uncertainties, some have taken a different predictive approach. Instead of trying to model the physics behind every process contributing to sea level rise (from thermal expansion to melting ice), they argue, why not instead simply look at how sea levels have corresponded to temperature over hundreds of years and extrapolate? These so-called 'semi-empirical' models tend to top out twice as high as the 'process-based' models, making 2 meters of sea level rise feasible for 2100 — enough to flood the homes of 187 million people. But the IPCC says it doesn’t have much confidence in these results. "They’re interesting," says Chambers, "but I don’t think they should be given as much weight as the process-based models."

A few scientists disagree, including Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Research, who works on semi-empirical models. "We have two different approaches, and they give different results," says Rahmstorf. "I don’t know which one is closer to the truth. But I object to the IPCC selecting one type and dismissing the other." Other reports, notes Rahmstorf, including a 2012 assessment by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, give more pessimistic sea level predictions, going up to 2 meters by 2100.

Another way to capture the range of expert opinions is to do a formal "expert elicitation" — a structured way of simply surveying experts and asking them what they think. When two dozen ice experts were surveyed in 2012, their best guesses for polar ice loss were all over the map — but their average was higher than the IPCC’s estimates, and their range easily put sea level rise over a meter by 2100. For a middle-of-the-road emissions scenario, for example, this group guessed at a sea level rise of 33 to 132 centimeters; the upper bound of that is roughly in line with semi-empirical
The Yellow River delta is sinking so fast that local sea levels are rising at nearly 100 times the global average.
models, but nearly double the IPCC’s most recent estimate (which allows, to be fair, tens of centimeters of wiggle room for possible dramatic ice sheet flow from the Antarctic). "The [IPCC’s latest] AR5 process-based projections appear optimistic and over-confident when compared with views of ice sheet experts," writes glaciologist Aslak Grinsted of the University of Copenhagen on his website. There is "no good reason" for this, he adds.

This debate about whether there will be 1 or 2 meters of sea level rise by 2100, however, pales in comparison to the numbers for the long-term outlook. The last time the planet was steadily 2 degrees C warmer than pre-industrial times, some 120,000 years ago, sea levels were 5 to 10 meters higher than today. It’s likely we’ll hit 2 degrees C of warming by 2100, unless we take extreme measures to mitigate emissions. "The bigger concern is the longer term," agrees Scambos. "By the end of this century the rate of change in Greenland will be so high that the next hundred years will be dialed in for significant sea level rise."

And any given city may have to contend with worse. While 70 percent of the world will see local waters rise within 20 percent of the norm, others will see extremes. In China, the Yellow River delta is currently sinking so fast that local sea levels are rising by up to 25 centimeters per year, nearly 100 times the global average. Places that were once covered by kilometers of ice, like northern Canada, are now rebounding upwards — which means local sea levels are actually falling in some parts of Alaska. But that upward-moving land is hinging nearby areas, like the U.S. East Coast, downward by millimeters per year — adding millimeters per year to the local sea level rise there. The U.S. East Coast has another problem too: Climate change is weakening the Gulf Stream current, and that is allowing water to slop back towards shore. Overall, the U.S. East Coast is seeing


Has the U.N. Climate Panel
Now Outlived Its Usefulness?

Some scientists contend the panel is no longer fulfilling its mission of informing policy makers of the risks of global warming. READ MORE

Top Climate Scientists Assess
Latest Report from U.N. Panel

E360 asked leading climate scientists to discuss noteworthy findings in the recently released IPCC report on climate change. READ MORE
rates of sea level rise that are 3 to 4 times the global average. The tropics, meanwhile, are seeing extra sea level rise thanks to a strange gravitational effect. As high-latitude ice melts, there is less mass at the poles to pull ocean water towards them; instead, the water slopes more towards the equator.

No matter which way you look at it, the result is cause for concern. "I always tell people if they live under 3 feet above sea level, they should be worried about the next 100 years," says Chambers. "We probably can adapt to a certain extent. The problem is that we’re not planning for it."


Nicola Jones is a freelance journalist based in Pemberton, British Columbia, just outside of Vancouver. With a background in chemistry and oceanography, she writes about the physical sciences, most often for the journal Nature. She has also contributed to Scientific American, Globe and Mail, and New Scientist and serves as the science journalist in residence at the University of British Columbia.

SHARE: Tweet | Digg | | Reddit | Mixx | Facebook | Stumble Upon


I recently visited Norfolk, Virginia, a low-lying city on the Atlantic Ocean. I was amazed at all the recent development — high rises, hotels, etc. Quite beautiful. I then read that the mayor of the city was pushing for a billion-dollar sea wall. Why? To protect all the recent investment in development! I'm trying to figure out why they built all this in the first place. It is true, most squirrels plan for the future better than humans do.

Scientists can predict and plan all they want, but people still need to listen and understand.
Posted by John Dyer on 21 Oct 2013

One of the best overview articles yet about rising sea level. Very responsibly done, comprehensive, and in language that is quite easy to understand. As I say in my book on the subject (High Tide On Main Street: Rising Sea Level and the Coming Coastal Crisis) the scientific community and the IPCC in particular has a cautious bias. There is serious cause to consider the possibilities of truly catastrophic sea level rise this century, as suggested by Rahmstorf and others, and also by those looking at the long-term geologic record. The fact is that several meters of SLR are already guaranteed. The signs from the West Antarctic glaciers and the methane levels suggest that the IPCC and the "consensus opinion" may be very optimistic.
Posted by John Englander on 22 Oct 2013

Sea levels have been rising naturally for the past 20,000 years and at much, much faster rates in the past (up to 40 times faster than today).

Sea levels are currently rising 4 to 8 inches per century, and there is no acceleration, which means there is no evidence of a human influence on sea levels:

References finding no acceleration:
JM Gregory et al Journal of Climate 2012, M Beenstock et al 2013, NOAA 2005-2012 Sea Level Budget, Dean & Houston 2011 & 2013, Scafetta 2013, Holgate 2007, Boretti 2012, Morner 2004, Jevrejeva et al., 2006 & 2008, Wöppelmann et al., 2009

IPCC 2007:
"no long-term acceleration of sea level has been identified using 20th-century data alone."

IPCC 2013:
"It is likely that GMSL (Global Mean Sea Level) rose between 1920 and 1950 at a rate comparable to that observed between 1993 and 2010"

Sea level rise is a local, not global, phenomenon:
...the authors find that sea level rise is a localized rather than global phenomenon, with 61 percent of tide gauge records demonstrating no change in sea levels, 4 percent showing a decrease, and a minority of 35 percent showing a rise. This implies relative sea level change is primarily related to subsidence or post-glacial rebound (land height changes) rather than melting ice or steric sea level changes (thermal expansion from warming).
Posted by Hockey Schtick on 25 Oct 2013

Please explain why sea levels during the last interglacial were 31 feet higher than the present, and Greenland 8 degrees C warmer than the present, without anthropogenic forcing.

What evidence suggests the current interglacial is any different?
Posted by Hockey Schtick on 25 Oct 2013

How have prior sea level projections done in the past?

1990 IPCC Assessment Report only missed by a
factor of 5:
Posted by Hockey Schtick on 27 Oct 2013

Here's an interesting presentation by Dr. R. Steve Nerem, who is well quoted in the article:

"Why has an acceleration of sea level rise not been observed during the altimeter era?" R. Steven Nerem (University of Colorado)

Here's the link:\%203\%20SCI/04\%20Nerem\%20ostst_2011_nerem.pdf

One has to wonder what all the excitement is about if for the last twenty years there has been no acceleration of the rate. Couple that with the fact that it's rather easy to determine that there's been a good deal of inflating the rate of sea level rise by those same CU Sea Level Research Group scientists.

Simply put the URL of their home page ( into the Internet WayBack Machine ( and see for yourself.

This archived time line ( differs from the current one ( in a rather interesting fashion. Changes have been made to the data resulting in an increase in the rate of reported sea level rise by nearly a millimeter per year.

Posted by Steve Case on 28 Oct 2013

Climate change is going to affect countries such as Ireland with large coastlines much more than we are currently prepared to admit.

In order to reduce GHG emissions, Ireland is using smart technology such as to try to help people make the "smart" choice to use green energy and start on the path to sustainability.
Posted by Joe Borza on 30 Oct 2013

Dear Ms. Jones,
You write that GRACE is a key helper to understanding changes in ice distribution. However, during the last few years GOCE has allowed scientists to compute a much more detailed gravity map and to sketch a new reference geoid. How can these results be put into use?

Posted by Massimo Roscio on 31 Oct 2013

In reply to Massimo Roscio,

GRACE+ARGO are used to determine global and regional sea level rise. The NOAA 2005-2012 sea level budget shows global sea level rise determined by GRACE+ARGO was only about 1.2 mm/yr, equivalent to 4.7 inches per century
Posted by Hockey Schtick on 31 Oct 2013

NOAA tides and current data reveal 1.13 ft sea level rise per century (data up to 2006) with no rapid increase in SLR.
Posted by CptWayne on 26 Nov 2013

I have lived on Lord Howe Island on the Lord Howe Rise off NSW coast Australia and there is significant rise in sea level over the years, both in data and definitely anecdotally. About 60 cm over the last 50 years or so in areas all over Australia. I feel from other evidence I see and hear that sea level rise is massively understated and suffers from paid interference from vested real estate interests. I would suspect most are now agreeing with the higher end of the projections , none of which allow for rapid climate shift events, so revealing I guess 1-2 meters of rise over the next 50 -80 years with the enhanced warming and coming increases in carbon dioxide from biofeedback enhancement. 1 to 2 meters is catastrophic, let alone the ecological effects of even minute warming on reefs and marine ecosystems. We are in deep trouble. Courtesy of GREED and MONEY.
Posted by Dean Connolly on 19 Jun 2014

"likely we’ll hit 2 degrees C of warming by 2100,"

I think it's been observed that it's ~20m of [sea level rise] per 1C. Lets halve that for a conservative eg. We've warmed .85C over last 100yrs and seen 8in of rise. That means we have 10m of SLR pent up that will come more suddenly in the next 50yrs or so.

I think we are in for a shock soon.
Posted by Paul Magnus on 10 Nov 2014



Fast-Warming Gulf of MaineOffers Hint of Future for Oceans
The waters off the coast of New England are warming more rapidly than almost any other ocean region on earth. Scientists are now studying the resulting ecosystem changes, and their findings could provide a glimpse of the future for many of the world’s coastal communities.

What Is the Carbon Limit? That Depends Who You Ask
Scientists are offering widely varying estimates of how much carbon we can emit into the atmosphere without causing dangerous climate change. But establishing a so-called carbon budget is critical if we are to keep the planet a safe place to live in the coming century.

The Case for a Climate Goal Other Than Two Degrees Celsius
Scientists and climate negotiators have largely agreed that limiting global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius is an important goal. But political scientist David Victor disagrees, arguing that the benchmark is too simplistic and should be abandoned in favor of other indicators.

Beyond Treaties: A New Way of Framing Global Climate Action
As negotiators look to next year’s UN climate conference in Paris, there is increasing discussion of a new way forward that does not depend on sweeping international agreements. Some analysts are pointing to Plan B — recasting the climate issue as one of national self-interest rather than global treaties.

Peak to Peak: An Intimate Look at The Bighorn Sheep of the Rockies
The third-place winner of the Yale Environment 360 Video Contest focuses on a herd of bighorn sheep in Montana and features remarkable scenes of lambs as they gambol along the slopes of the northern Rockies. Produced by Jeremy Roberts, the video follows a field biologist as he monitors the sheep and talks about the possible impact of climate change on the animals’ future.


Donate to Yale Environment 360