Web edition: June 20, 2011
Print edition: July 16, 2011; Vol.180 #2 (p. 13)
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.”
Citations
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]
Suggested Reading
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]
Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.
'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.
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.
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.
So, is the rate expected to increase more than precipitously over the rest of the century or is the IPCC estimate too high?
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.
"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.]
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.
You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.