More predicted sea-level rise for each delay in peaking emissions

February 20, 2018, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Peaking global CO2 emissions as soon as possible is crucial for limiting the risks of sea-level rise, even if global warming is limited to well below 2 degrees C. A study now published in the journal Nature Communications analyzes for the first time the sea-level legacy until 2300 within the constraints of the Paris Agreement.

Their central projections indicate global between 0.7m and 1.2m until 2300 with Paris put fully into practice. As emissions in the second half of this century are already outlined by the Paris goals, the variations in greenhouse-gas emissions before 2050 will be the major leverage for future sea levels. The researchers find that each five year delay in peaking global CO2 emissions will likely increase median sea-level rise estimates for 2300 by 20 centimeters.

"Man-made climate change has already pre-programmed a certain amount of sea-level rise for the coming centuries, so for some, it might seem that our present actions might not make such a big difference—but our study illustrates how wrong this perception is," explains lead author Matthias Mengel from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). "Every delay in peaking emissions by five years between 2020 and 2035 could mean additional 20 cm of sea-level rise in the end—which is the same amount the world's coasts have experienced since the beginning of the pre-industrial era."

Global sea-level rise is driven by and expanding ocean water, as well as the melting of mountain glaciers, ice caps, and the vast Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. These contributors respond in different ways and within different timescales to a warmer climate, ranging from centuries to millennia—a delayed response to today's atmospheric warming. To analyze the sea-level rise under the Paris Agreement and the legacy of delayed mitigation, the scientists used a combined climate-sea-level model. They fed it with a set of scenarios of emission reductions in line with the Paris goals that span different reduction rates and peak years.

Large ice loss from Antarctica seems possible even under modest warming

The model represents the sea-level contributors individually and can thus reflect their different responses to a warming world. The authors incorporate new scientific insights pointing to an Antarctic ice sheet very sensitive to atmospheric warming. "Indeed, the uncertainty of future sea-level rise is at present dominated by the response of Antarctica. With present knowledge on ice sheet instability, large ice loss from Antarctica seems possible even under modest warming in line with the Paris agreement", says Matthias Mengel. "Even a sea-level rise of up to three meters until 2300 cannot be ruled out completely, as we are not yet fully certain how the Antarctic ice sheet will respond to ."

"The Paris Agreement calls for emissions to peak as soon as possible," adds co-author Carl-Friedrich Schleussner from PIK and Climate Analytics, a non-profit research and policy institute in Berlin. "This might sound like a hollow phrase to some, but our results show that there are quantifiable consequences of delaying action. So even within the Paris Agreement range, swift climate mitigation is crucial to limit additional risks. For millions of people around the world living in coastal areas, every centimeter can make a huge difference—to limit sea-level risks immediate CO2 reduction is key."

Explore further: More ambitious climate targets could save coastal ecosystems

More information: Matthias Mengel et al, Committed sea-level rise under the Paris Agreement and the legacy of delayed mitigation action, Nature Communications (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-02985-8

Related Stories

More ambitious climate targets could save coastal ecosystems

December 14, 2017

The difference between the Paris climate agreement's two alternative temperature targets – 1.5°C (2.7°F) and 2.0°C (3.6°F) above pre-industrial levels – may be the difference between life and death for some coastal ...

The lasting legacy of climate change

October 15, 2015

An international team led by Dr Nicholas Golledge, who holds a joint position at Victoria University's Antarctic Research Centre and GNS Science, has published a paper in the respected scientific magazine Nature titled 'The ...

Timely action needed to meet climate targets

January 21, 2016

The Paris Agreement of the UN climate change conference is deemed a historic step for climate protection, but its success depends on rapid implementations. The consequences of delaying global CO2 emission reductions for the ...

Recommended for you

22 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Turgent
1 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2018
Let's be real. A disclaimer should be at the front stating "Projecting sea level rise to the year 2300 amounts to a SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess)." For the mathematically impaired, equation 1 of the paper is the derivative of sensitivity with respect to time. This is not a D.E.

All humor intended.
Turgent
1 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2018
Repeat all humor intended.

tblakely1357
1 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2018
I coulda swore that twenty some odd years ago it was prophesied that unless we immediately stopped sinning against Gia our coasts would be many feet under water by now.
Turgent
1 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2018
Nothing from corrupt governments can be trusted. With so many data sets we can make a cherry or a pig. The choice is yours.

Yes it is from Breitbart, but the yellow press will never report it.

http://www.breitb...istence/
greenonions1
5 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2018
Turgent writes -
Yes it is from Breitbart, but the yellow press will never report it.


But this is a science site - and where you get your information from is certainly telling. Quoting from Breitbart - an article from James Delingpole is all the information you need to understand Turgent. Here is an interview between Alex Jones and Delingpole. He is a radical journalist - who has made a name now as a denier. He is a liar. On this interview - he says that polar bears have gone from a population of 5,000 - to 25,000. A complete lie.

We report - you decide. https://www.youtu...BWUp4dPM

Turgent
1 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2018
I promised I wasn't going to waste effort to your dysfunctional blurts, I lied. Polar bears recovered because of a ban on hunting, so as to yield an estimated current pop. of 25,000. Like so much out of context crap from the ignorant zealots. Ban on hunting = increased numbers. AGW = decreasing numbers. Ban on hunting wins!

Onion = Waste Think before you start throwing your feces around.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2018
Figures cited by government officials do show an increase – though not as big a jump as Stevens claims. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said at the department's press conference that the polar bear population increased from "a low of about 12,000 in the late 1960s to approximately 25,000 today." But the size of the world's polar bear population is subject to much debate
Claiming that Polar Bear populations have risen 500% - is just a lie - and shows that you and Delingpole not only know nothing about the subject matter - but look to fake news sites for your information - and then broadcast fake news. Breitbart? For real????

Quote from - https://www.factc...ulation/
Turgent
1 / 5 (1) Feb 20, 2018
Very impressive!
leetennant
4.7 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2018
I coulda swore that twenty some odd years ago it was prophesied that unless we immediately stopped sinning against Gia our coasts would be many feet under water by now.


If only science based all its work on the half-assed recollections of people who comment on articles instead of actual data. This is like "The Arctic Should Be Melted By Now!" and "Why Is There Still Snow?!"

Either your recollection is wrong and you never bothered to actually check in the first place. I suspect the latter.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2018
Turgent
Very impressive!
No - not at all. As a non scientist - who spends a fair bit of time looking at web sites that talk about climate change, renewable energy, electric cars etc. - I think I have picked up an important understanding. Science is really about turning over rocks - and seeing what is under there. Science faces an onslaught of anti science. Anti science is actually pretty easy to spot - if you look for a few factors. Eg -"I personally know more than the scientists doing the hard work". Also - "scientists are in a conspiracy to ..." A good sign of anti science - is having very bias sources of information - often individuals with very clear agenda. Other than that - google is my friend - and yes I have huge confirmation bias in terms of what I dig up - but science doesn't.
Turgent
1 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2018
Impressive very
MeddleEarth
1 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2018
This site has demonstrated a bias towards what information it releases in this area vs. what it chooses not to release. Earth has some flexibility that counters their one-way bias, but visiting other sources/sites are required to learn about such information.
Here is an example:
Search elsewhere for recent articles on "ocean bottom is sinking".
antigoracle
1 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2018
More predicted BS and Pathological lies from the AGW Cult and their Pathological "science"
aksdad
1 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2018
Meanwhile sea level rise refuses to cooperate with the wild predictions and inches along at around 3.2 or 1.5 mm per year, depending on whether you believe the tide gauge data or the satellite data.

https://climate.n...a-level/
Gigel
5 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2018
Right now it's not so bad, but for the future it'd be good to have an anti-warming measure at hand. Ocean fertilization seems to be a good, efficient and quick one, with more research.
Turgent
1 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2018
Per the WSJ major oil companies are now predicting peak (usage not reserves) oil being reached between 2025 and 2030. With atmospheric CO@ having a half-life of 7 years, things should begin to improve before the apocalypse. Tons of effort and money is going into battery research. Green energy despite mandates and subsidies are increasing. With the decline in solar radiance, we're going to make. Don't worry be happy. God loves fools and buffoons.

Apocalypse 2300 is just more GW porn.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2018
aksdad
and inches along at around 3.2 or 1.5 mm per year, depending on whether you believe the tide gauge data or the satellite data
Well - being that the first graph on your site is satellite data from about 1990 to the present, and the second graph is ground data from 1870 to 2,000 - it is pretty obvious why NASA chose to juxtapose those two graphs. NASA is pointing out the acceleration in sea level rise between the two time periods. You make the case for us - by using the exact link I provided you earlier - to make that exact point. Sea level rise is accelerating.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2018
Turgent
Apocalypse 2300 is just more GW porn
It is amazing how cavalier, and childlike - commenters can be. There is a great deal to be concerned about - concerning human impact on our biosphere. An example if you are interested - http://www.resili...ollapse/

So Turgent throws in this gem -
With the decline in solar radiance, we're going to make. Don't worry be happy.
But the " director of High Altitude Observatory of the National Center for Atmospheric Research" said this
And predicting the future of the sun's activity and its impact on Earth's temperatures? Forget about it.


Interesting right? Quote from - https://www.cbsne...-change/
barakn
not rated yet Mar 03, 2018
With atmospheric CO@ having a half-life of 7 years, things should begin to improve before the apocalypse. -turgent.

The atmospheric half-life of CO2 is 27 years. You were off by a factor of almost 4x. Any other lies you feel like telling?
Turgent
not rated yet Mar 04, 2018
My error you are correct.

G.O. = Waste
Turgent
not rated yet Mar 04, 2018
barakn

No need to call people liars if there are differences. Perhaps some civility, stated why you disagree.

I looked into the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere and found numbers between 5 and 33. For brevity I don't care what is right.

There must be something wrong with my math. Maybe you can find a significant difference between a half-life of 7 versus 27 years.

-λ is the decay and λ increase rate constant

N is the amount after some interval of time

N(0) is the initial amount

t(0) is initial point of time

Solve the D.E. for decay dN/dt=- λN

Solution N(t)=N(0)e^- λt

Choose 10 years as the time for which you desire to know the amount of N(t)

Consider N of CO2 as increasing at a rate of 2.11 ppm per year or .00000211

Let N(0) of CO2 = 300 ppm = .0003

The annual rate of increase for CO2 is .0067

The annual rate of decrease for CO2 is .025 (using a 27 year half-life)

Turgent
not rated yet Mar 04, 2018
The equation for the increasing amount of sometime t is the future is simple N(t)= )=N(0)e^ λt

The equation for the decreasing amount of sometime t is the future is simple N(t)= )=N(0)e^ -λt

This is over simplified but figure time into the future of 10 years. There are 2 equations:

(a) = N(t)=N(0)e^ λt = amount in ten years

(b) = N(t)=N(0)e^- λt = decay attributable to

(a) - (b)= 0.00032 - 0.00023 = .00019

Are we doomed in 2028?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.