24 Jul 2013: Interview

Leaving Our Descendants
A Whopping Rise in Sea Levels

German scientist Anders Levermann and his colleagues have released research that warns of major sea level increases far into the future. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, he raises important questions about how much we really care about the world we will leave to those who come after us.

by fen montaigne

Last week, a group of scientists led by Anders Levermann of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Change Research released a paper that made a stark forecast: For every 1 degree Celsius of temperature increase, the world will eventually experience a 2.3-meter increase in sea level. That means that should carbon emissions continue to rise at or near current rates, and temperatures soar 4 to 5 degrees C in the next century or two, the world could well experience sea level increases of many meters — dozens of feet — in the centuries and millennia to come.

Anders Levermann Interview
Potsdam Institute
Anders Levermann
Levermann is a scientist, not an ethicist — he is lead author of the sea level chapter in the upcoming fifth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — but he is acutely aware of the import of his research for future generations. In an interview with Yale Environment 360 senior editor Fen Montaigne, Levermann discusses how he and his colleagues reached their conclusions, how much disruption such large sea level increases might cause, and why we need to ponder the effect of our actions on future generations. “Society needs to decide about how much damage it wants to do in the future and how much damage future generations can actually cope with,” he says.

Yale Environment 360: What are the main points that you think readers should take away from this paper?

Anders Levermann: The real new thing is we have asked the question not how much sea level rise will there be in 2100, but rather how much sea level rise are we already committed to at a certain level of global warming? And these numbers are much higher than the numbers we expect in 2100.

Sea level is like a big ball — it takes a while until you get it rolling, but once it’s rolling you can’t stop it easily. The projections by 2100 are significantly below 2 meters [6.6 feet] of global sea level rise. But we expect over a period of 2,000 years a sea level rise of 2 meters for each degree Celsius of warming. Now if you look at the projections for temperature by 2100, a business-as-usual scenario in which we increase the CO2 emissions every year like we have done in the past would lead to a warming of about 4 to 5 degrees Celsius [7 to 9 degrees F]. And long-term, 4 to 5 degrees in our study translates to something in the vicinity of 9 meters [29.6 feet] of sea level rise. So it’s less than 2 meters sea level rise projected for 2100, but in the long term it’s 9 meters.

e360: So you’re saying once this warming is in the atmosphere, it’s going to take a while for the melting of various ice sheets and the thermal expansion of water to catch up to it?

Levermann: What I’m saying is once you put a certain amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, you’ll have to live with the corresponding warming for a long time. This is a problem we look into with respect to sea level rise because this long-term warming results in a long-term sea level rise that will not stop in 2100, but will go on and on for a long time.

e360: Could you discuss your confidence in your findings and what measurements and models you used to make sure that the numbers you came up with represent a pretty reasonable forecast.

Levermann: What we have done is we take the state of the art physical models for each component that is relevant for sea level rise — the thermal expansion of the ocean, melting of [mountain] glaciers, and melting of the
What I would say is we simply put expiration dates on certain cultures and societies.’
Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets — we take these four models and ask the question: How much sea level rise do you get after 2,000 years when you elevate the temperature? Then we add them all together and we get a result for the total sea level contribution for different levels of warming and then we compare this to the paleological data. All of this gives a consistent picture, which says we can expect an increase in sea level of 2.3 meters for each degree of warming.

e360: Tell me a little bit about the paleo data?

Levermann: When you go into paleo records you can never use direct measurements because there was obviously no one around taking measurements 10,000 years ago or even longer. So that’s why you use what we call proxy data, where we use certain chemical components or isotopes in order to make statements about, first, the temperature, and then the sea level. Sea level has an additional way we can derive it from, and that’s simply from looking at the sea level that you see in the geological record. In some places around the world, you can simply see where the sea level was at certain times in history.

e360: Let’s say we continue on the current path of emissions and that by 2100 we are 4-5 degrees Centigrade hotter than we are now. How long after that do you think you could begin to see significant sea level rise as the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets begin to melt at a more rapid rate?

Levermann: Significant is very much defined here by society. The 20 centimeters [8 inches] that we have observed in the last 100 years are significant for the smaller island states in the Pacific, which are inevitably going to vanish in the future. And also, for example, tropical storm Nargis in Myanmar in 2008 went much farther inland because of this additional 20 centimeters than it would have in pre-industrial times.

So the question of what is significant is very much dependent on the coastline you look at and what society wants or can adapt to. I would say that a meter in the 21st century would be highly significant for the Netherlands
People will have to reconsider what’s home and how long you build a home for.’
and Europe, but also for London and Florida and New York and so on because you always have to add on top the storm surges.

We picked the 2,000 years date because it is far enough in the future so that the small scale variations and the sea level rise have been averaged out. So we can be quite certain that after 2,000 years this kind of sea level rise will be observed, but it could be well before that.

e360: If the conclusions of your research are correct, civilization is going to be looking at sea level rise that could well exceed 5 meters [16 feet], or could be 10 meters within the next 2,000 years. These are really massive increases. What do you think your paper says about adaptation and what the world needs to be doing now about adaptation?

Levermann: What I would say in short is that we simply put expiration dates on certain cultures, on certain societies around the globe. Definitely for some small island states in the Pacific and in the tropics in general, but also for regions that are now low-lying, like the Netherlands and Bangladesh, and also regions in the U.S. And that simply poses the question of what kind of infrastructure we build, what buildings we build — the churches, the power plants, and so on. For what time period do we build them and is there a cultural heritage we have to abandon in the long run?

e360: Your term “expiration date” is striking. With 5 or 10 meters of sea level rise, you would be looking at an expiration date, if you would, for much of the world’s coastal areas, would you not?

Levermann: I think it’s culturally very important whether we have an open-ended future or whether we can say there’s a limit to it. If you are living on a Pacific island, and you simply know that in 100 years your home won’t be there anymore, then I would assume you build your society differently, you think differently about your children, about your grandchildren. And with these kinds of numbers we’ll have to do something similar. People will have to reconsider what’s home and how long you build a home for.

e360: How would you characterize society’s understanding and acceptance of these facts at this point?

Levermann: There’s one very important aspect to the adaptation problem and that is that people consider this to be a local problem and I would strongly argue against it. We are living a globalized world and our societies are relatively fragile already. Now after Fukushima — the Japanese catastrophe — we had supply failures in Europe in the automobile industry.
I haven’t decided myself what is the price we are willing to pay for saving the coastline of Florida.’
The same was true after the great recent Thailand flood — we had a shortage of hard drives in the U.S. and in Europe for months in 2012 and this was really not expected. So we had a remote event which impacted us from afar. Now if we don’t get hard drives for a while that won’t collapse a society obviously. But what happens if we get a whole series of these kinds of impacts like Katrina and Sandy in the same year, and a drought and a heat wave that brings the California electricity sector into collapse or something. Will this stay within the U.S. or will it spread around the world? And this is why we need to consider adaptation as a global problem.

A lot of transportation routes at the moment depend on harbors or infrastructure that is close to the coastline. If, for example, a storm surge would destroy the harbor of Rotterdam, where a lot of containers go through, you would strongly disrupt the supply chains for a lot of production in different countries. This is why sea level rise and the associated storm surges directly lead into a global adaptation problem because what we have to do is we have to rearrange our supply network in a way that is robust against terror attacks of nature, if you like. That’s in a sense what it is — it’s not intentional, obviously that’s why it is not a terror attack, but it’s a localized disruption by nature on our supply chain, which requires a robust supply network. I believe that this global supply network would adapt by itself, if it was given the information about its vulnerability. We are planning to set-up a Web-platform similar to Wikipedia where such information is gathered and provided. It will be launched at www.zeean.net.

e360: When we are talking about 500 years, 1,000 years, 2,000 years, that’s really distant in time. In 100 years one can imagine one’s grandchildren for example, but in 2,000 years of course that’s unimaginable. How do you get society to care about potential long-term impacts when they and their grandchildren will be long gone?


Too Big to Flood? Megacities
Face Future of Major Storm Risk

Too Big to Flood? Megacities Face Future of Major Storm Risk
As economic activity and populations continue to expand in coastal urban areas, particularly in Asia, hundreds of trillions of dollars of infrastructure, industrial and office buildings, and homes are increasingly at risk from intensifying storms and rising sea levels.
Levermann: This is a really difficult problem. It’s not for climate scientists to decide — that should be decided by society. So society needs to decide about its time horizons with respect to its cultural heritage and how much damage it wants to do in the future and how much damage future generations can actually cope with. I haven’t decided for myself what is really worthwhile saving and what is the price we are willing to pay for saving, for example, the coastline of Florida. But this cannot be solved by natural science obviously, so what we do is we put out the information about what is going to happen and then society needs to decide what to do. Do we want to keep the Tower of London, or do we just say this was nice for a few centuries but now it will be flooded in the next few hundred years.

I personally believe that we cannot adapt to a warming of 4 or 5 degrees [C] because the increase in extreme events and also sea level rise, combined with extreme storm surges, will simply increase the pressure on our complex societies, which might bring them to the verge of collapse. Obviously, we do not know whether this will happen, but I think that such a threshold is out there somewhere — we just do not know where. We do need to adapt to the climate change that cannot be avoided anymore, but we definitely need to mitigate any warming that we cannot adapt to.

POSTED ON 24 Jul 2013 IN Biodiversity Climate Oceans Oceans Policy & Politics Pollution & Health Europe Europe 


The PIK has always been notoriously über-alarmist. In the 20 or so years they have been in existence, not a single one of their many predictions has been right. With predictions such as those from Levermann, it's little wonder.

Posted by Pierre Gosselin on 24 Jul 2013

The tide gauge at Lower Manhattan shows a constant rate of sea level rise since 1860. California tide gauges show no change in sea level over the last 30 years.

There is no empirical evidence that sea level has been affected by "global warming" to date.

Posted by Steve Goddard on 24 Jul 2013

Denial comments should be removed. What they say is so clearly off topic, and irrelevant that I wonder why those comments were posted in the first place. Clearly they are irrationally incorrect and what they cite is utter nonsense. Furthermore, they deflect from the past-due "discussion" we are supposed to be having and urgently need to have. Lastly, its dangerous. Since the interests at work behind them don't play fair, why should Bulldogs?

Bears '83

Posted by Jack Wolf on 25 Jul 2013

The New York State Sea Level Rise Task Force, charged by the Legislature with developing recommendations for adapting to sea level rise, has adopted sea level rise projections based on tide-gauge observations that indicate the rate of relative sea level rise in New York State were greater than the global mean, ranging from 2.41 to 2.77 millimeters per year (0.9 to 1.1 inches per decade) over the last century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), projects a rate of sea level rise during the 21st century faster than the rate observed since 1970 and publish "empirical" evidence to back up their claim.

Posted by Bruce Maine on 25 Jul 2013

These are the kinds of exaggerated claims we have come to expect from the notorious Potsdam Institute, and from the Yale forum which seems to go out of its way to find the most extreme claims. Levermann is completely wrong, there is not going to be 4 or 5 degrees of warming this century. In the first 1/8th of this century there has been no warming at all. The IPCC estimates about 2 or 3 degrees, and even that is an exaggeration.

Of course by the time these political activists have been proven wrong, none of us will be around, which is very convenient for their promotion of their political agenda.

Posted by James on 25 Jul 2013

@ Bruce Main:

Ok, so what IS their political agenda?

Have you heard about the loss of coastline the size of Delaware in Louisiana? There are hints of a lawsuit about this against the oil companies whose pipelines have caused subversion of the soil due to death of the wetland plant formations that held the land in place--once upon a time, including presenting a land barrier to hurricanes better than what they have today.
With climate change hurricanes will become more prevalent.

Posted by Jo on 25 Jul 2013

To argue the existence of mans' impact on the environment is ludicrous. The temperature IS rising, and on a curve associated with ocean acidification. SLR is like a side effect. And a NOBEL, free hat and a bowl of soup to the first leader who can begin to make the changes necessary to minimize our foot prints. If we are truly concerned about generations eight and nine... into our future, the time to cut the nonsense is now.

Posted by Neil on 26 Jul 2013

It's unfortunate that some are of the opinion that there is a political agenda behind climate science. Am I to dismiss James Hansen's call for more nuclear because it may not fit into a sustainable energy equation and therefore a political agenda? Facts should not be distorted. Solutions may reflect a political agenda. I'd like to see e360 do a paper on the "falling" water levels in the Great Lakes and the environmental causes and economic implications.

Posted by Bruce Maine on 27 Jul 2013

The numbers aren't accurate. Even if the Earth does warm cyclically, it would take a complete meltdown of Greenland and all the other glaciers to cause a 20-foot rise. Antarctica won't be affected for at least another 1000 years if this cyclic trend continues, which it won't.

Antarctica, which contains 70% of the worlds fresh water, is actually getting colder and will not play a roll in rising oceans, quite the opposite.

Factors that cause the cycle of global cooling/warming: sunspots, angle/tilt of the earth, cloud cover, volcanic, ocean currents, etc. Man's influence is completely unmeasurable. Any real scientist will tell you that we don't have control over our Earth's temperature for hotter or colder.
Posted by Greg on 06 May 2014


Comments are moderated and will be reviewed before they are posted to ensure they are on topic, relevant, and not abusive. They may be edited for length and clarity. By filling out this form, you give Yale Environment 360 permission to publish this comment.

Email address 
Please type the text shown in the graphic.



El Niño and Climate Change:
Wild Weather May Get Wilder

This year’s El Niño phenomenon is spawning extreme weather around the planet. Now scientists are working to understand if global warming will lead to more powerful El Niños that will make droughts, floods, snowstorms, and hurricanes more intense.

How Science Can Help to Halt
The Western Bark Beetle Plague

Entomologist Diana Six is focused on the beetle infestation that is wiping out conifer forests in western North America. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, she explains why the key to combating this climate-related scourge is deciphering the trees’ genetic ability to adapt.

To Protect Monarch Butterfly,
A Plan to Save the Sacred Firs

Mexican scientists are striving to plant oyamel fir trees at higher altitudes in an effort to save the species, as well as its fluttering iconic winter visitor — the migrating monarch butterfly — from the devastating effects of climate change.

Why Paris Worked: A Different
Approach to Climate Diplomacy

A more flexible strategy, a willingness to accept nonbinding commitments, and smart leadership by the French all helped secure a climate deal in Paris. The real work lies ahead, but Paris created a strong, if long overdue, foundation on which to begin building a carbon-free future.

Turning Point: Landmark Deal
On Climate Is Reached in Paris

In what could be a turning point, the world’s nations reached an agreement in Paris that would commit them to cutting emissions and keeping global warming below 2 degrees. Although the pledges are not binding, the deal includes a review process to determine if countries are meeting their commitments.


MORE IN Interviews

Why CO2 'Air Capture' Could Be
Key to Slowing Global Warming

by richard schiffman
Physicist Klaus Lackner has long advocated deploying devices that extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to combat climate change. Now, as emissions keep soaring, Lackner says in a Yale Environment 360 interview that such “air capture” approaches may be our last best hope.

Bringing Energy Upgrades
To the Nation’s Inner Cities

by diane toomey
Donnel Baird has launched a startup that aims to revolutionize how small businesses and nonprofits secure funding for energy efficiency and clean energy projects in low-income neighborhoods. In a Yale Environment 360 interview, he talks about how he plans to bring his vision to dozens of U.S. cities.

From Mass Coral Bleaching,
A Scientist Looks for Lessons

by katherine bagley
For climate scientist Kim Cobb, this year’s massive bleaching of coral reefs is providing sobering insights into the impacts of global warming. Yale Environment 360 talked with Cobb about the bleaching events and the push to make reefs more resilient to rising temperatures.

For James Hansen, the Science
Demands Activism on Climate

by katherine bagley
Climate scientist James Hansen has crossed the classic divide between research and activism. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, he responds to critics and explains why he believes the reality of climate change requires him to speak out.

How Ocean Noise Pollution
Wreaks Havoc on Marine Life

by richard schiffman
Marine scientist Christopher Clark has spent his career listening in on what he calls “the song of life” in the world’s oceans. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, he explains how these marine habitats are under assault from extreme—but preventable—noise pollution.

How to Talk About Clean
Energy With Conservatives

by diane toomey
Angel Garcia, of Young Conservatives for Energy Reform, is working to persuade Republicans about the need for renewable energy. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, he explains why his group avoids mentioning climate change when it makes its pitch to conservatives

In Flint Crisis, A New Model
For Environmental Journalism

by cynthia barnett
Curt Guyette is an investigative reporter who dug deeper into the Flint water crisis. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, he explains his work as a journalist employed by a Michigan nonprofit and how it could be a model for in-depth, local reporting on the environment.

Rethinking Urban Landscapes
To Adapt to Rising Sea Levels

by winifred bird
Landscape architect Kristina Hill focuses on helping cities adapt to climate change, particularly sea level rise. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, she discusses the challenges, solutions, and costs of saving cities from encroaching oceans.

How Science Can Help to Halt
The Western Bark Beetle Plague

by richard schiffman
Entomologist Diana Six is focused on the beetle infestation that is wiping out conifer forests in western North America. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, she explains why the key to combating this climate-related scourge is deciphering the trees’ genetic ability to adapt.

Why Brazil’s New Pledges On
Carbon Emissions Fall Short

by diane toomey
Brazil has won international acclaim for curbing deforestation. But Brazilian forestry expert Maria Fernanda Gebara says her country has not gone far enough in its pledges to cut carbon emissions and continues to have a dismal record on developing wind and solar power.

e360 digest
Yale Environment 360 is
a publication of the
Yale School of Forestry
& Environmental Studies


Donate to Yale Environment 360
Yale Environment 360 Newsletter



About e360
Submission Guidelines

E360 en Español

Universia partnership
Yale Environment 360 articles are now available in Spanish and Portuguese on Universia, the online educational network.
Visit the site.


e360 Digest
Video Reports


Business & Innovation
Policy & Politics
Pollution & Health
Science & Technology


Antarctica and the Arctic
Central & South America
Middle East
North America

e360 VIDEO

Tribal people and ranchers join together to stop a project that would haul coal across their Montana land.
Watch the video.


The latest
from Yale
Environment 360
is now available for mobile devices at e360.yale.edu/mobile.


An aerial view of why Europe’s per capita carbon emissions are less than 50 percent of those in the U.S.
View the photos.

e360 VIDEO

The 2015 Yale e360 Video Contest winner documents a Northeastern town's bitter battle over a wind farm.
Watch the video.

e360 VIDEO

Food waste
An e360 video series looks at the staggering amount of food wasted in the U.S. – a problem with major human and environmental costs.
Watch the video.

e360 VIDEO

Colorado wildfires
An e360 video goes onto the front lines with Colorado firefighters confronting deadly blazes fueled by a hotter, drier climate.
Watch the video.


A three-part series Tainted Harvest looks at the soil pollution crisis in China, the threat it poses to the food supply, and the complexity of any cleanup.
Read the series.