Science Features

Don't buy a house too close to the beach, experts warn

Apr 16, 2008, 10:04 GMT

Vienna - Global sea levels are likely to rise faster than predicted by the United Nations climate panel, possibly endangering millions in developing countries, scientists said in Vienna Thursday.

Global sea levels are likely to rise faster than predicted by the United Nations climate panel, possibly endangering millions in developing countries, scientists said in Vienna Thursday. EPA/SIMELA PANTZARTZIThe increase was largely due to the world's glaciers melting faster that previously estimated, geoscientists speaking at the European Geosciences Union's (EGU) annual meeting taking place this week in the Austrian capital said. A statistical reconstruction of sea levels over the past 2,000 years showed that while sea levels remained stable within 20 centimetres in the past two millenia, they can be expected to rise by 0.8 to 1.5 metres by 2100, Svetlana Jevrejeva of Britain's Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory said. Those projections, up to three times the estimates published by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Chance (IPCC), are likely to raise some hackles in the scientific community. 'The IPCC's estimates are regarded as conservative in the scientific community,' Simon Holgate of Proudman said. IPCC was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize together with climate campaigner Al Gore. IPCC's 2007 assessment did not provide an upper bounds for sea level changes, as the projections did not include uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle feedbacks nor the full effects of changes in the ice sheet flow, the UN climate panel said in its report. Scientists said they still lacked exact data, but the broad consensus was that a rise of more than 1 metre was not out of the question. IPCC had predicted rises between 18 and 59 centimetres. In order to determine the speed of these changes, the main challenge now was to analyze the factors contributing to the rising waters. Increasing amounts of water from the planet's land masses were entering the oceans from Greenland and Antarctica's melting ice sheets and glaciers from around the world. Sea levels were also pushed higher by the thermal expansion of water due to higher temperatures, Steve Nerem of the University of Boulder, Colorado said. One possible explanation for the lower IPCC predictions was that the UN model did not take into account the ice sheet dynamics, the scientists at EGU said. Scientists had to revise downwards the calculations regarding the speed of glaciers melting due to ice sheet dynamics, Holgate said. While in the past, they believed it would take 8,000 years for the ice covering Greenland to melt, this was revised down to 1,000 years. Meltwater was running down through cracks in the glacier to the bottom, becoming a lubricant which caused glaciers to flow a lot faster, Holgate explained. Jevrejeva's findings seemed to be corroborated by the latest results from satellite-based studies on global sea levels. 'We noticed an increase of sea levels by 3.5 millimetres per year over the past 15 years,' Nerem said. This ratio was likely to increase, he added. The rise in sea levels would of course have regional differences, with the situation becoming worse in areas already affected by extreme tidal differences. The scientists at the Vienna panel admitted that much more research was needed, but agreed that the world's poorest countries, which are often most densely populated in coastal regions, are likely to suffer most. A 1-metre-increase in sea level would for example cover around 90 per cent of Bangladesh, Holgate said. 'If you live in the Ganges delta, you are in big trouble,' he said. In China, sea level rises as predicted by the scientists could force around 72 million people to relocate. Asked whether they would rely on IPCC predictions or their own, more alarming, estimates when considering where to buy a house for their grandchildren, the scientists said that they would rather move a little further off the beach.

Headlines from The Tech Herald

Talkback

Add your comment

page: 1

tonny from belgiumApr 16th, 2008 - 17:24:19

Dare I offer my seaside property for sale to SP4 ?

Report this comment

Fool on the hillApr 16th, 2008 - 20:26:59

If all mountain glaciers melt they have the potential to raise sea levels by one half a metre but that is the least of our worries about mountain glaciers because long before that the rivers that flow from them in the dry season will cease to flow, causing crops to fail for about a billion people.

Report this comment

SP4: In other news,Apr 18th, 2008 - 22:33:59

...the sky is falling.

Report this comment

Science NewsApr 19th, 2008 - 08:36:59

The sky is not falling, the seas are rising.

Sell, sell, sell Tonny! Of course, SP4 may like Venice.

Report this comment

Whooo HaaaApr 19th, 2008 - 08:38:18

SP4 might like Atlantis!

Report this comment

MayBe BabyApr 22nd, 2008 - 21:55:36

After doing my own calculations, I expect to see my current residence under water within 7 to 10 years. I live less than a mile inland -
I can see the Atlantic ocean from my front yard at present. That would displace more than a few hundred thousand local residents, and much of the U.S. navy's atlantic fleet as well.

I like my tin foil hat. SP4, maybe YOU should get fitted for one too.

Report this comment

tonny from belgiumApr 23rd, 2008 - 14:20:18

There is a difference in mentality between the USA and Europe that needs to be adressed in order to curb the looming menace .It is a matterof regulating big industry before it is too late .I understand there is a tendency i the USA to think such a thing is impossible ,as it goes against ruling thinking patters and political history.Most of the republicans will scream and wail at this attempt of interfering with the so called 'free market' .In fact the dunce that is still governing the USA has put all his money on the bet that corporate business will take care of the problems without the government interfering .None of that is happening at all.The oil lobby is doing the exact opposite and getting even richer and richer .
Not only would effective laws dminish carbon emissions ,they would also help save oil and as a result keep the price of it down.Less consumption is less demand;,less demand means lower price .
I guess it is time to consider nationalizing the big oil industry and use the money for better puropose than filling the bank accounts of a few with billions of dollars.The money would be most welcome to curb global warming,pride decent health care,better education for all.

Report this comment

lanceApr 26th, 2008 - 18:35:03

There are two kinds of people in this world ...

Those that buy below sea level.

And those that buy above sea level.

Well, OK. there are other types ...

Those that sell to people that buy below sea level.

Report this comment

it's overpopulation stupidApr 28th, 2008 - 22:27:38

having more than 2 children add to overpopulation

having zero children is the best thing to do if you care about the environment

having one child is okay if you really must

having 2 children - I hope you have great genes and can pay for their education yourself

Report this comment

andrewApr 30th, 2008 - 17:09:58

which beach are we talking about?

Report this comment

Fool on the hillMay 6th, 2008 - 06:32:26

At the end of the last ice age [If it did end?] sea levels rose so fast it is calculated they rose at 2cm PER DAY for several years swamping huge tracts of land. World temperatures rose 7deg C in 15 years. There is ample evidence of this all around the UK and in the North Sea on the seabed.
When trying to predict the future it is important to look at the past because if it happened in the past it can happen again.
The reason for the rapid rise in the worlds temperature and sea levels can only be guessed but it is important to keep all options open and not be dismissive and be very aware of any evidence that may cause a repeat.

Report this comment

lanceMay 7th, 2008 - 23:23:06

'it is important to look at the past'

Did you know 50% of the people in the USA think the world is less than 10,000 years old? So, at least 50% of the people are completely out of touch with this issue. I would imagine that includes Bush. Heck, Bush can't even learn from events less than 100 years old. Even allegedly educated people and people that (cough, cough) hold positions of leadership are oblivious to these type of issues.

Report this comment

TomMay 10th, 2008 - 13:04:59

given that the IPCC latest reports shows no 'global warming' trend, and certainly not related to CO2 output (global temperatures are steadily declining while CO2 is increasing). according to IPCC the hottest recorded year was 1934 (based on their latest findings). this is another power grab based on fear mongering and greed. not that we shouldn't try to do the right thing for the right reasons, but global warming isn't one of them...

Report this comment

page: 1

Add your comment

Monsters and Critics

Science

Science Features

Don't buy a house too close to the beach, experts warn

Headlines from The Tech Herald

Talkback

Most Popular Articles on M&C Today

Additional Headlines

Similar articles

In Monsters and Critics

Corporate

The Fine Print