New model: Coastline erosion due to sea level rise greater than previously thought

Sep 04, 2012

A new model allows researchers at UNESCO-IHE, Delft University of Technology and Deltares to much more accurately predict coastline erosion due to rising sea levels. It would appear that the effects of coastline erosion as a result of rising sea-level rise in the vicinity of inlets, such as river estuaries, have until now been dramatically underestimated. The scientists have published their research in the online edition of Nature Climate Change on Sept. 2, 2012.

The anticipated rise in sea levels due to will result in coastlines receding worldwide through erosion. This is a known phenomenon that can in principle be calculated and predicted based on a given sea-level rise, by means of the so-called Bruun effect. However, things are a little more complicated when it comes to coastlines in the vicinity of inlets, such as river mouths, and estuaries. These places are affected by other factors, such as changes in rainfall due to climate change, and certain compensating effects (basin infilling).

Until now, science has lacked a model that takes all these effects into account in the calculations of a coastline's future development, even though a demand for this existed among engineers, and planners. The majority of coastline only took the Bruun effect into consideration.

Scientist Rosh Ranasinghe, employed as associate professor at TU Delft and at UNESCO-IHE, has now succeeded in developing a new model that is able to produce much more accurate prognoses. He did so together with researchers of the faculty of Civil Engineering and at TU Delft, UNESCO-IHE and knowledge institution Deltares. With the model, it is possible to make quickly – within a few minutes – of how the coastline will develop in the vicinity of inlets as a result of .

The new model was in turn applied to four different and representative coastal areas (in Vietnam and Australia). The research showed that only 25 to 50 per cent of anticipated coastline change in these areas can be predicted using the Bruun effect. The other processes that occur in the vicinity of inlets are of at least equal importance and coastline change in these areas as a result of rising sea levels has until now been strongly underestimated.

This new model makes it possible to make significantly improved prognoses of coastline erosion due to a rise in sea-levels. Coastal management projects that are being launched shortly will be able to benefit from this model, which means it can make a valuable contribution to coastal management and planning in practice.

Explore further: Synchronization of North Atlantic, North Pacific preceded abrupt warming, end of ice age

More information: 'Climate-change impact assessment for inlet-interrupted coastlines' by Roshanka Ranasinghe(1,2,3*), Trang Minh Duong(1,3), Stefan Uhlenbrook(1,2), Dano Roelvink(1,2) and Marcel Stive(2), DOI 10.1038/nclimate1664

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Chilling climate-change related news

Feb 17, 2012

A presentation at the world’s largest science fair by a Simon Fraser University earth sciences professor promises to make the skin crawl of even the most ardent disbelievers of the predicted impacts of climate change.

Rising sea threatens coastline

Jan 23, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Experts at The University of Manchester are to produce a detailed picture of the public’s views on the uncertain future of a 250-mile-stretch of coastline.

Recommended for you

Fires in Central Africa During July 2014

11 hours ago

Hundreds of fires covered central Africa in mid-July 2014, as the annual fire season continues across the region. Multiple red hotspots, which indicate areas of increased temperatures, are heavily sprinkled ...

NASA's HS3 mission spotlight: The HIRAD instrument

21 hours ago

The Hurricane Imaging Radiometer, known as HIRAD, will fly aboard one of two unmanned Global Hawk aircraft during NASA's Hurricane Severe Storm Sentinel or HS3 mission from Wallops beginning August 26 through ...

Fires in the Northern Territories July 2014

Jul 23, 2014

Environment Canada has issued a high health risk warning for Yellowknife and surrounding area because of heavy smoke in the region due to forest fires. In the image taken by the Aqua satellite, the smoke ...

User comments : 31

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

NotParker
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 04, 2012
"The anticipated rise in sea levels".

Still waiting ... for 60 years.
lengould100
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2012
"The anticipated rise in sea levels".

Still waiting ... for 60 years.

Wrong, dummy. This from the USGS paper "Global Warming, Sea-level Rise, and Coastal Marsh Survival" in article at http://www.nwrc.u...1_97.pdf

"Findings from a submerging marsh at Bayou Chitigue, Louisiana, provide an excellent example of the processes influencing elevation (Fig. 3). The relative sea-level rise rate for this
marsh is 1.38 cm/yr, estimated from local tide gauges."

Assuming you're from the US and don't know metric, lets translate. 1.38 cm / yr proven measured rise works out to > .5 inches / yr , 5 inches / decade, 4 feet / century.
lengould100
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2012
See also this from NOAA, http://www.ncdc.n...icators/

Since 1993, global sea level has risen at an accelerating rate of around 3.5 mm/year. Much of the sea level rise to date is a result of increasing heat of the ocean causing it to expand. It is expected that melting land ice (e.g. from Greenland and mountain glaciers) will play a more significant role in contributing to future sea level rise.

.35 cm per yr = about 1.5 in. per decade, 15 in per century.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 04, 2012
See also this from NOAA, http://www.ncdc.n...icators/

Since 1993, global sea level has risen at an accelerating rate of around 3.5 mm/year. Much of the sea level rise to date is a result of increasing heat of the ocean causing it to expand. It is expected that melting land ice (e.g. from Greenland and mountain glaciers) will play a more significant role in contributing to future sea level rise.

.35 cm per yr = about 1.5 in. per decade, 15 in per century.


Tide Gauges suggest slight deceleration of the already low 1.7mm per year.

http://www.jcronl...-00157.1
Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2012
You appear to be the only person left waiting Tard Boy...

http://www.skepti...voir.gif

"Still waiting ... for 60 years." = ParkerTard

Poor, mentally diseased ParkerTard.

NotParker
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 04, 2012
You appear to be the only person left waiting Tard Boy...

http://www.skepti...voir.gif


Hilarious. The same straight line from 1930 on. No change in 80 years.

Kind of demolishes global warming doesn't it?
djr
4 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2012
"Kind of demolishes global warming doesn't it?"

It blows AGW theory, and all the little cultists members right out the f**king water. Sea levels have been rising for the last 80 years - we can all go to bed tonight and sleep well - knowing that there is no global warming - sea levels have been rising for 80 years (repitition added for sarcastic emphasis).

All those hours I have spent debating with Parker - thinking maybe it was making me a better person - I will never get that time back.......
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 04, 2012
"Kind of demolishes global warming doesn't it?"

It blows AGW theory, and all the little cultists members right out the f**king water. Sea levels have been rising for the last 80 years - we can all go to bed tonight and sleep well - knowing that there is no global warming - sea levels have been rising for 80 years (repitition added for sarcastic emphasis).

All those hours I have spent debating with Parker - thinking maybe it was making me a better person - I will never get that time back.......


Sea Level has been rising for 20,000 years.

http://commons.wi...evel.png

The issue is that AGW cult leaders claim CO2 only affected climate since about 1950. If sea level has risen the same amount from 1930 on, it has nothing to do with CO2.

AGW is a fraud. Claims of catastrophic sea level are a sick joke.
djr
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 04, 2012
"Sea Level has been rising for 20,000 years." But not at a constant rate.

From the Wiki article that you got your graph from - you are so good at cherry picking

"during the last 2,000 years, sea level change was small, with an average rate of only 0.0–0.2 mm per year. This compares to an average rate of 1.7 ± 0.5 mm per year for the 20th century.[26]"

From http://en.wikiped...vel_rise

Parker only posts data that validates his/her narrative. Parker does not read the articles he/she posts - just spams the internet with rubbish. Cherry picked data to support his/her own bias. Then we all spend hours and hours in circular arguments -accomplishing nothing - I am not sure what the game is - maybe Parker thinks it is fun - maybe gets paid for it - hard to tell.

djr
4 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2012
There were about 5 articles on Physorg today that touched on climate issues. Parker started fights on every one of the articles - at the same time as carrying on other fights on articles from previous days. I don't get it!!! I don't go to young earth creationist web sites and start fights - why do the anti science mob need to mess up a great sight. I still don't get it.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 04, 2012
"Sea Level has been rising for 20,000 years." But not at a constant rate.



NOAA says sea level is barely rising.

http://sunshineho...-rising/

Remember, to rise 1 meter (AGW alarmist prediction) in 100 years that would be 10mm per year. Instead it is rising around 0 - 3mm per year, as it always has done for the last 100 years.

Parker started fights on every one of the articles


I disagree with articles. A new thought-crime according to the cult.

The cult wishes no one to ever disagree with them.

"Results indicate that the benches were formed during mid to late Holocene sea-level transgressions, reaching a maximum highstand level of 2 m above present at about 4,000 years ago."

http://www.agu.or...83.shtml

Sea Level is 2000mm lower than it was 4,000 years ago.
djr
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2012
"NOAA says sea level is barely rising."

From your own web site - talk about clueless.

"The mean sea level (MSL) trends measured by tide gauges that are presented on this web site are local relative MSL trends as opposed to the global sea level trend."

Don't even think about tieing me up with all your endless circular bullshit tonight - I am not going there - the world can see your cherry picking rubbish - I am done...
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 05, 2012
"NOAA says sea level is barely rising."

From your own web site - talk about clueless.

"The mean sea level (MSL) trends measured by tide gauges that are presented on this web site are local relative MSL trends as opposed to the global sea level trend."



Yes. Sea Level is local. If most local sea level rise is 0 to 3 mm then global has to be 0 - 3 mm.

Duh.

Unless AGW has its own twisted math to go with its twisted logic!
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 05, 2012
"Yes. Sea Level is local. If most local sea level rise is 0 to 3 mm then global has to be 0 - 3 mm."

When I took math 1.7 mm +/- .5 mm fitted within the range of 0 - 3mm perfectly. So read the post again from the wiki article - and conclude that you not only spend your life starting fights on science web sites because you hate science, but also that you can't do elementary school math. And you are the victim!!!!!!

"during the last 2,000 years, sea level change was small, with an average rate of only 0.0–0.2 mm per year. This compares to an average rate of 1.7 ± 0.5 mm per year for the 20th century.[26]"

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2012
In your first message you said that you were waiting for a change in ocean levels.

Now you admit that they have been steadily rising since 1920.

"Hilarious. The same straight line from 1930 on. No change in 80 years." = ParkerTard

Make up what is left of your diseased mind, Tard boy.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2012
Nope.

"Kind of demolishes global warming doesn't it?" - ParkerTard

In fact it supports it very well. Water has a very high specific heat compared to air, and there is lots of it. So heating is much slower and much more linear.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 05, 2012
Poor ParkerTard. He can't tell the difference between the melting of mile high glaciers that covered half of the Northern and Southern Hemisphere, during de-glaciation and the nearly zero rate of rise in sea level that followed.

ParkerTard's own source shows a rise of 0 meters over the last 8,000 years.

Current rates of sea level rise are around 20 meters per 8,000 years, a rate that is expected to increase as melt rates increase.

"Sea Level has been rising for 20,000 years." - ParkerTard

Poor ParkerTard. He can't even understand his own data source.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 05, 2012
"Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year.

This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years." - NOAA

http://oceanservi...vel.html

"NOAA says sea level is barely rising." - ParkerTard

Poor ParkerTard. Even his own references don't agree with him.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2012
Remember how the entire surface of Greenland turned to slush for several days this year due to record air temperatures above that continent?

Expect more of that as the ice caps continue to melt.

The Northern Ice Cap reached a new sea ice area minimum today, of 2.37 million square kilometers. Around 2.5 million square kilometers lower that historical norms.

From the rate of melt, it looks as if there are still several days of ice melt left.

"Remember, to rise 1 meter (AGW alarmist prediction) in 100 years that would be 10mm per year. Instead it is rising around 0 - 3mm per year, as it always has done for the last 100 years." - ParkerTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 05, 2012
ParkerTard, like all denialists believes that he is entitled to his own facts.

"I disagree with articles." - ParkerTard

Conservatives always do.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2012
And is now rising at a rate of 12,000 mm per 4,000 years.

"Sea Level is 2,000 mm lower than it was 4,000 years ago." - ParkerTard

This is 6 times faster than your claimed decline.

From your own reference...

"Given that meltwater contributions from the major North American and European ice sheets had largely ceased by 7,000 years ago, these independent lines of evidence, taken together, indicate that melting of the Antarctic ice sheet ended by 4,000 years ago."

Poor ParkerTard. Not even his own sources of data agree with his vapid nonsense.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 05, 2012
Given the time and effort ParkerTard puts into posing here, and in his nonsense denialist blog, it is clear that he is being employed to post anti-science nonsense.

Which explain$ hi$ motivation.

"There were about 5 articles on Physorg today that touched on climate issues. Parker started fights on every one of the articles - at the same time as carrying on other fights on articles from previous days." - Dir
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 05, 2012
How sad for ParkerTard that his reduction in sea level rise doesn't show up anywhere in the data.

http://www.skepti...el-1.gif

http://stevengodd...ng?w=640

http://www.cencoo...1_sm.gif

"Tide Gauges suggest slight deceleration of the already low 1.7mm per year." - ParkerTard

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2012
"Yes. Sea Level is local. If most local sea level rise is 0 to 3 mm then global has to be 0 - 3 mm."

When I took math 1.7 mm /- .5 mm fitted within the range of 0 - 3mm perfectly.



But it is not 10mm per year, the alarmist prediction.

And it has not accelerated over the last 100 years.

Sea Level rise has nothing to do with CO2.
djr
4 / 5 (4) Sep 05, 2012
"But it is not 10mm per year, the alarmist prediction." You have absolutely no shame. You say there is no rise in sea levels. Then you change to saying the sea level rise is not accelerating, finally you morph to - well it is not 10mm per year. You cannot see your own lies, and morphing position. You alone hold the keys of truth - it must be a very lonely position. It is not possible to have a meaningful dialogue with someone who lives in their own fantasy world - and knows better than all the thousands of scientists studying the climate. On this one thread you have presented lies multiple times - but it is clearly futile trying to reason with people who are in a parallel universe.
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 05, 2012
"And it has not accelerated over the last 100 years.

Sea Level rise has nothing to do with CO2."

Could you tell us why you have better facts than National Geographic? Any one who wants to see the extent of your lies would do well to read this National Geographic article.

http://ocean.nati...el-rise/
PinkElephant
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2012
NotParker needs to look at the actual responses to the objectionable paper he cited:

http://www.realcl...erating/

Here's an enlightening look (also linked from the rebuttal above) at how bad analysis and poor understanding of statistics can lead one to incorrect findings and the wrong conclusions:

http://tamino.wor...ge-data/

Reminds me of the "arguments" that the atmosphere stopped warming since 1998 (pick the most ridiculous high outlier in recent times, then use it as a touchstone to construct trendlines...)
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2012
"And it has not accelerated over the last 100 years.

Sea Level rise has nothing to do with CO2."

Could you tell us why you have better facts than National Geographic?


What references do they provide for their "facts"?

Keep fooling yourselves.
djr
4 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2012
What references do they provide for their "facts"?

You state that "Sea Level rise has nothing to do with C02" I don't see any references for your facts. Why hold others to a different standard? When National Geographic publishes an article that is totally in line with consensus of current science - and you publish a NotParker fact that is in total contradiction to current science - who is fooling themselves? Here is a link with references that show up your rubbish once again.

"The new record reveals a systematic equilibrium relationship between global temperature and CO2 concentrations and sea-level changes over the last five glacial cycles" From - http://www.scienc...3833.htm

Here is your quote "Sea Level rise has nothing to do with CO2"

Do you see how stupid you look? Is that not enough to shame you into going some place else and spreading your rubbish?
VendicarD
3 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2012
ParkerTard spends his days listening to voices in his head telling him that he must fight a holy war against science and reason.

"Do you see how stupid you look?" = dir

At this point he barely knows his own name.
VendicarD
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2012
There is good news for ParkerTard

Today arctic ice area did NOT reach a new minimum, but in fact increased by 0.07 million square kilometers.

If this growth in ice cover continues at that rate for the next 1000 years then the entire surface of the Earth and the Sun will be covered in a thick layer of ice thus proving that the earth and the rest of the universe is actually cooling just as ParkerTard and the other QuackTard denialists have claimed for years.

Kaus dey knows dem sciencie stuff.