Quantcast
issue
Read articles, including Science News stories written for ages 9-14, on the SNK website.
Modern-day sea level rise skyrocketing
Increase began with the Industrial Revolution
A+ A- Text Size

Increase began with the Industrial Revolution

By Janet Raloff

Web edition: June 20, 2011
Print edition: July 16, 2011; Vol.180 #2 (p. 13)

Enlarge
LOSING GROUND
This North Carolina house was filmed for the movie Nights in Rodanthe while researchers nearby studied the history of sea level rise in the area. The team found that seas have risen much faster in the last 150 years or so than in the previous two millennia.
A. Kemp/Yale University

Sea levels began rising precipitously in the late 19th century and have since tripled the rate of climb seen at any time in at least two millennia, a detailed analysis of North Carolina marsh sediments shows.

“This clearly shows the recent trend is not part of a natural cycle,” says Ken Miller of Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey, who was not associated with the analysis.

Andrew Kemp of the University of Pennsylvania and his colleagues spent five years plumbing salt marsh sediments that had remained largely undisturbed for millennia. Kemp, now at Yale, and his team drilled cores at two sites, unearthing the microscopic remains of single-celled shelled organisms known as foraminifera.

Foraminifera vary in their salt tolerance. So as sea level changed over millennia, so did the mix of species living at any given site, explains University of Pennsylvania coauthor Benjamin Horton. Knowing the modern-day distribution of foraminifera at various water depths along the modern-day coast, the researchers could infer past sea levels at the two core sites from the abundance of different species in successive sediment layers. Radioisotope dating showed that the sediments recorded 2,100 years of sea level history, the researchers report online June 20 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“We know what sea level has done, in a broad sense, going back 20,000 years,” Miller says. But detailed records of what’s happened over the past 2,000 years have been spotty, he says. 

The cores show that sea level at the North Carolina sites was largely unchanging from 100 B.C. until A.D. 950. Then sea level underwent a four-century rise averaging 0.6 millimeters per year. Sea level didn’t rise again until after 1865. Since then, it’s been climbing an average of 2.1 millimeters annually. And at least for the last 80 years, Horton says, “the fit with North Carolina tide gauge data is one to one: It’s perfect.”

The results validate the use of general equations relating past temperatures and sea level changes to predict sea level rise as the climate continues to warm, says Aslak Grinsted of the University of Copenhagen’s Centre for Ice and Climate.

“What’s great about this new record is that it’s really high resolution and continuous,” Grinsted says, “and quite consistent with records all around the world.”

Comment
Print Friendly and PDF

A.C. Kemp, B.P. Horton, et al. Climate related sea-level variations over the past two millennia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Early edition posting online 6/20/2011. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1015619108 [Go to]


A. Grinsted, J.C. Moore, S. Jevrejeva. Reconstructing sea level from paleo and projected temperatures 200 to 2100 AD. Climate Dynamics Vol. 34, p. 461. doi:10.1007/s00382-008-0507-2 [Go to]

S. Perkins. Scour power: Big storms shift coastal erosion into overdrive. Science News, Vol. 178, August 28, 2010, p. 14. Available to subscribers: [Go to]

C. Russell. First wave: The presidents of two island nations draft escape plans, anticipating sea level rise. Science News, Vol. 175, February 28, 2009, p. 24. Available to subscribers: [Go to]

M. Vermeer and S. Rahmstorf. Global sea level linked to global temperature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 106, Dec. 22, 2009, p. 21527.doi: 10.1073/pnas.0907765106 [Go to]

Comments (13)

Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.

  • How can you preach Global warming on one hand, and then turn around and say the "Sun" is going into a decades long cycle that long ago produced the "little Ice age". Is there any wonder people don't believe scientists!
    theizy theizy
    Jun. 21, 2011 at 9:09am
  • As a geologist I find this connection to climate change as a stretch. there can be a dozen reasons for sea levels for rise or fall in a particular location.

    'Perhaps' climate change is a variable but there is nothing to connect the two in this study. Science is about evidence and not the agenda of idle speculation.
    Ray Avalon Ray Avalon
    Jun. 21, 2011 at 9:10am
  • From the article:

    Sea levels began rising precipitously in the late 19th century and have since tripled the rate of climb seen at any time in at least two millennia, a detailed analysis of North Carolina marsh sediments shows.

    “This clearly shows the recent trend is not part of a natural cycle,” says Ken Miller of Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey, who was not associated with the analysis.

    ----------

    Dr. Miller's statement does not seem to me to be scientifically accurate. While the sea level rise is clearly anomalous when considered over the previous two millenia, to say that the recent trend is not part of a natural cycle implies more knowledge on Dr. Miller's part than the data, as presented here, warrants.

    Please don't construe this as an anti-climate change argument. It is an anti-going-past-the-limitations-of-the-data argument.
    Robert Woodman Robert Woodman
    Jun. 21, 2011 at 9:10am
  • A graph showing sea level on the y axis and date on the x axis would be nice. Not essential, but useful.
    Also, I notice that the author refrains from offering an explanation for either the rise in sea level from AD 950 to (approx) AD 1350 or the rise since 1865. This is certainaly inoffensive but I'm sure "inquiring" readers would want to know what the author's opinion is, if he/she has an opinion.
    Conrad Seitz Conrad Seitz
    Jun. 21, 2011 at 10:16am
  • Addendum: Miller says "not part of the natural cycle"--but he didn't author the report, he's just a commenter on it. Clearly the rise is anomalous; but "natural" or "unnatural" doesn't really explain anything. Related to rises in average temperatures? How about a graph showing average temperatures vs the observed rises? I hunger for a graph.
    Conrad Seitz Conrad Seitz
    Jun. 21, 2011 at 10:16am
  • So why is Andrew Miller, who has nothing to do with the study, mentioned in the article before Andrew Kemp, and Benjamin Horton who wrote the study? Why does not Andrew Miller, and Aslak Grinsted, write there own papers to support the statements attributed to them in this article, and have those papers published in some scientific journal?
    Robert Mielke Robert Mielke
    Jun. 21, 2011 at 11:16am
  • "Sea levels began rising precipitously in the late 19th century." Well, the IPCC's 4th report suggests that sea levels will rise 18 to 59 cm by the end of the century, that averages out to 1.8 to 5.9 mm per year. This paper says sea levels have "been climbing an average of 2.1 millimeters annually" since 1865.

    So, is the rate expected to increase more than precipitously over the rest of the century or is the IPCC estimate too high?
    Ric Werme Ric Werme
    Jun. 22, 2011 at 10:29am
  • This looks like a good piece of reporting on a very useful study. "Skeptics" will always be able to produce objections, but this looks like science to me.
    Ralph Dratman Ralph Dratman
    Jun. 22, 2011 at 10:29am
  • Ralph,

    Healthy skepticism is part of good science. If you eliminate skepticism and objections from scientific reporting, then you have effectively changd science into a religion. Not all scientific reports are worthwhile, and not all skeptics have valid objections, but it is that process of research, report, criticize, more research, further reports, more criticism, etc., that makes science different from religion. Science is always looking for the truth and welcomes criticism and objection, while religion claims to have found Truth and usually does not welcome skepticism and objection.
    Robert Woodman Robert Woodman
    Jun. 23, 2011 at 9:01am
  • I take issue with saying a 2 mm rise per year is skyrocketing. I do believe the earth is getting warmer and we use too much fossil fuel. and man is destroying the envirnoment. but the main problem in the environmental movement is too many crazies and extremists. we need people with good heads not chicken littles.
    Richard DiFranco Richard DiFranco
    Jun. 27, 2011 at 10:42am
  • This article is an example of bad science: selecting data to fit a paradigm. 2 mm is not a "skyrocketing" rate of increase. From 11,000 ya to 7,000 ya, the ice age melting averaged around 12 mm increase in sea level every year. Around 14,000 ya, the rate was even faster around 35 mm per year rise in sea level. Obviously these are probably natural causes since it appears there were not that many people on earth and industrialization and fossil fuel burning had not occurred yet. The problem is that the scientists in the article limited themselves to only the last 2000 years, a tunnel vision problem. When we look at the global warming, we need to look at the complete picture over long periods of time and develop models that explain all the natural cycles which has not been done yet. Prior to 3 million years ago there was not much ice around when this current series of glaciation periods started so if lal the current ice melts, it is simply repeating an old pattern. This site will not allow me to attach URLs so you will have to find them yoursellf, but you can start with Wikipedia and "ice ages" and "sea levels". Typically the sea levels rise and fall about 110,000 mm during each ice age cycle.
    Paul Dennis Paul Dennis
    Jun. 27, 2011 at 9:19pm
  • @ Ric Werme:

    "is the IPCC estimate too high?"

    It is consistent, as per your own figures.

    @ Richard DiFranco, Paul Dennis:

    Clearly "skyrocketing" is correct in the time period given. The data is primarily testing earlier data, testing a new proxy and extending the data set, as the article describes. Other data is confounded by crustal rise as the ice mass disappears.

    Finally, no one is claiming that ice ages doesn't exist. What climate scientists have found out is that the current rise in global temperatures can no longer be explained by natural variation on any time period, but is well explained by AGW. [IPCC 4.]
    Torbjörn Larsson, OM Torbjörn Larsson, OM
    Jul. 18, 2011 at 9:23am
  • “This clearly shows the recent trend is not part of a natural cycle,” says Ken Miller of Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey,


    This is ridiculous. Even the IPCC doesn't suggest that global warming before 1950 is anthropogenic. IF the sea level in the marsh has been rising steadily since 1880, that is proof, if anything, that the rise is not related in any way to anthropogenic warming.
    dlr dlr
    Jul. 25, 2011 at 10:38am
Registered readers are invited to post a comment. To encourage fruitful discussion, please keep your comments relevant, brief and courteous. Offensive, irrelevant, nonsensical and commercial posts will not be published. (All links will be removed from comments.)

You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.

Follow Us