• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • If IPCC Sea Level Numbers Aren’t Bad Enough, Try Tripling Them

    A recent study authored by Mark Crowell of the Federal Emergency Management Agency estimates that in the U.S., climate change will increase the area subject to flooding by 45 percent in 2100. But to get this number, the study used estimates of sea-level rise that were more than 200 percent higher than the estimates of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Even with its questionable temperature projections, the IPCC’s various projections of sea-level rise are between .18 and .59 meters (about 7 to 23 inches) (See chart above.). However, the Crowell study uses a range of 0.75 to 1.9 meters (about 2.5 to 6 feet).

    Sea-level rise over the past several decades—in reality—has been closer to the low end of the IPCC projections. Though some researchers claim the rate will accelerate, lately it has slowed down.

    So the rule for climate hysteria seems to be: Trumpet the infallibility of the IPCC when its numbers are scariest, but ignore the IPCC when somebody else has scarier predictions. What is more galling is to ignore the IPCC projections while implying that new research is still based on them, as the media coverage of the Crowell study does.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    6 Responses to If IPCC Sea Level Numbers Aren’t Bad Enough, Try Tripling Them

    1. John Englander says:

      You are so astute. But, did you miss that the IPCC figures of 18 – 59 cm explicitly excluded dynamic changes in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets by the end of century, because the melt rates were changing so quickly that they could not project what would happen by the end of century? This was noted atop the column of figures, and was the subject of the first footnote. Their rules only allow objective data published in peer reviewed literature by a cutoff date, which was in 2006. Things were changing so quickly they could not responsibly quantify them, so they omitted that from the projection, causing many to misread the report. Since Greenland and Antarctica will likely account for 99% of the sea level rise by the end of this century that is a small problem, no?
      As for the account of "slowing sea level ris" that is according to select tide gauges. Those analyses conveniently omit the satellite measurements, and the geologic uplift that can offset sea level rise when measured by tide gauges. If you want further explanation on either, see my blog johnenglander.net

    2. John Englander says:

      You are so astute. But, did you miss that the IPCC figures of 18 – 59 cm explicitly excluded dynamic changes in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets by the end of century, because the melt rates were changing so quickly that they could not project what would happen by the end of century? This was noted atop the column of figures, and was the subject of the first footnote. Their rules only allow objective data published in peer reviewed literature by a cutoff date, which was in 2006. Things were changing so quickly they could not responsibly quantify them, so they omitted that from the projection, causing many to misread the report. Since Greenland and Antarctica will likely account for 99% of the sea level rise by the end of this century that is a small problem, no?

    3. jwh says:

      The IPCC's report did not include the potential SLR due to ice sheet melt since at that point, the research was not conclusive. The report clearly states this.

      Additional study has now shown much larger impacts are expected. These studies are based on actual observations, paleoclimate records along with models. Though not extreme at this point, many scientists are expecting a multi-meter sea level rise this century. And, with this I agree.

    4. John Englander says:

      Did you miss that the IPCC figures of 18 – 59 cm explicitly excluded dynamic changes in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets by the end of century, because the melt rates were changing so quickly that they could not project what would happen by the end of century? This was noted atop the column of figures, and was the subject of the first footnote. Their rules only allow objective data published in peer reviewed literature by a cutoff date, which was in 2006. Things were changing so quickly they could not responsibly quantify them, so they omitted that from the projection, causing many to misread the report. Since Greenland and Antarctica will likely account for 99% of the sea level rise by the end of this century that is a small problem, no?

    5. David Kreutzer, Ph.D. David Kreutzer says:

      Certainly there are models that show all kinds of sea-level rise. But it's not like everybody has changed their minds about sea-level rise since the last IPCC report and now believes sea-level rise is accelerating. Here's a peer-reviewed study by an IPCC expert reviewer and former editor of a climate-science journal that concludes that the IPCC report's estimates were too high: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MLK2.pdf

      What is not true is that the 6 feet of sea-level rise used by Crowell is a projection that was vetted for the most current IPCC report.

    6. Pingback: Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, July 28th 2011 « The Daily Bayonet

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×