New study about the rise in global sea levels

In summary, the study found that if the world continues on the current path, sea levels will rise by 2 meters by the year 2100. This could result in the displacement of up to 187 million people, loss of food production in critical regions, and the displacement of salt marsh wildlife.
  • #1
lomidrevo
433
250
Here is the BBC article, I've read today.
Conclusion from the original study:
... We find it plausible that SLR could exceed 2 m by 2100 for our high-temperature scenario, roughly equivalent to business as usual. This could result in land loss of 1.79 M km2, including critical regions of food production, and displacement of up to 187 million people (38). A SLR of this magnitude would clearly have profound consequences for humanity.

This sounds really alarming to me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #3
Thanks Dave, I realize that the topic might be perceived sensitively. But is it a sufficient reason to avoid any discussion?

I have carefully read the Policy, and I believe that I haven't break any rule so far. I have provided a reference to a peer-review journal. Also, I rather submitted the thread under General Discussion, because I haven't come with any technical/scientific question. I am more or less curious about the sociological/psychological aspect of this topic. What particularly I cannot understand is the passivity, lethargy or understatement that I can observe when discussing this topic in my surroundings or when I see politics to deny the threat.

If mentors decide that the thread is not consistent with PF rules and close the discussion, I will accept it, of course.
 
  • #4
ah, I see the thread was moved to Earth Sciences meanwhile...
 
  • #5
lomidrevo said:
Thanks Dave, I realize that the topic might be perceived sensitively. But is it a sufficient reason to avoid any discussion?

I have carefully read the Policy, and I believe that I haven't break any rule so far. I have provided a reference to a peer-review journal.
Which is fine.
Also, I rather submitted the thread under General Discussion, because I haven't come with any technical/scientific question. I am more or less curious about the sociological/psychological aspect of this topic.
Which is not so fine, because here you open the doors for political statements and anything will be allowed to say, since you cannot reason on psychological effects unless supported by a study.
What particularly I cannot understand is the passivity, lethargy or understatement that I can observe when discussing this topic in my surroundings or when I see politics to deny the threat.
Which again is about human behavior. I cannot understand murder, nevertheless it happens all the time.
If mentors decide that the thread is not consistent with PF rules and close the discussion, I will accept it, of course.
That's why I moved it to earth. We can debate the paper and its implications, but not the politics behind.
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970, davenn, Evo and 2 others
  • #6
  • #7
I recently participated in "Hazard Mitigation" studies for two local cities, and since they border the San Francisco Bay, SLR and inundation were part of the studies. One complaint from the folks on the committee (including some representatives from the local Water Boards) was that the studies of SLR in the Bay Area varied quite a bit in their models and results. Still, we looked at various models and used them to bracket the minimum and maximum expected SLR in our area, and used that in our Hazard Mitigation planning (and infrastructure improvement planning).

The USGS website has some good resources, including links to recent studies. We used the 1.0m to 1.9m SLR predictions by 2100 and the USGS Inundation Maps in our planning...
https://www.usgs.gov/centers/werc/s...ce_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects
Rising Concerns

Accelerating sea-level rise (SLR), shifting precipitation patterns, and frequency and intensity of storms will affect coastal ecosystems, including salt marshes. Global sea-level rise projections range from 1.0 to 1.9m by 2100 (IPCC 2007; http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042947.shtml; Vermeer and Rahmstrof 2009), which will result in the loss of salt marshes and their associated wildlife species.

It is the aim of our program to provide site specific sea-level rise predictions to land managers through the intensive collection of field data and innovative predictive modeling. In 2009 and 2010, thousands of elevation and vegetation survey points were collected in salt marsh at 12 sites surrounding San Francisco Bay. The elevation data was synthesized into a continuous elevation model for each site, providing land owners valuable baseline data.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes lomidrevo and Evo
  • #8
To the OP - We humans need to understand that as we come out of the last ice age that melting will continue . Human activity may be accelerating what would happen anyway. We need to realize that just because we planned cities on coasts and like things the way they have been the past couple of generations does not mean that they can or should remain that way. Things always change.

Look at history. Look at all of the cities we are finding under water. Look at the settlements we are finding that were destroyed under glaciers. Look at the sea fossils we are finding at the top of mountains. Where I live now was once a sea. New York City was once under a glacier 2,000 feet high.

We need to accept that we planned and built without understanding the impact that natural climate change would eventually make. Now that it may be speeding up, people are saying that it can't happen?

Anyway, enough of the panic about changes, change will happen. We don't discuss the repercussions of the changes, we only discuss the science if you wish to understand the science behind what is happening.
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc, MikeeMiracle, Steelwolf and 4 others
  • #9
berkeman said:
I recently participated in "Hazard Mitigation" studies for two local cities, and since they border the San Francisco Bay, SLR and inundation were part of the studies. One complaint from the folks on the committee (including some representatives from the local Water Boards) was that the studies of SLR in the Bay Area varied quite a bit in their models and results. Still, we looked at various models and used them to bracket the minimum and maximum expected SLR in our area, and used that in our Hazard Mitigation planning (and infrastructure improvement planning).

The USGS website has some good resources, including links to recent studies. We used the 1.0m to 1.9m SLR predictions by 2100 and the USGS Inundation Maps in our planning...
https://www.usgs.gov/centers/werc/s...ce_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects
This is the type of common sense things we should be doing to address the changes and how we should adapt.
 
  • Like
Likes jim hardy and berkeman
  • #10
Evo said:
Look at the settlements we are finding that were destroyed under glaciers.
I don't know of any settlements that have been found that were destroyed under glaciers.

Evo said:
Anyway, enough of the panic about changes, change will happen. We don't discuss the repercussions of the changes, we only discuss the science if you wish to understand the science behind what is happening.
Evo said:
This is the type of common sense things we should be doing to address the changes and how we should adapt.

These two statements seem to be in conflict with each other. Discussing repercussions is preliminary to addressing the changes and how we should adapt to them.
The panic aspect just accentuates the seriousness of the conditions that some people perceive.

The main difference between our current climate crisis and previous changes in climate that did not involve humans is the rate of change. Outside of the Chicxulub impact and some catastrophic events like the formation of the Columbia gorge, most of these changes are thought to have occurred slowly over extended periods of time. The rates of change we are seeing today are on a human's historical time scale, no on a geolgoical time scale that previous big changes are thoguht to have occurred over.
The rapid rate of change is what is seems really threatening to me, since the biological processes that we all depend upon will not be able to keep up with ordinary evolutionary processes. This is added to by non-climate changes that humans have been involved in like, distribution of invasive species and habitat destruction. We therefore may have to make our own changes to organisms to maintain their important ecological functions in the face of these changes. This is an approach that is slowly being developed.

By the way, here is a NY Times story about a town in the mid-west where a similar approach to @berkeman's, in a Republican (or conservative if Republican is too political) area where they want to make changes to deal with ongoing weather issues (has to do with floods), but do not want to get into climate change issues for political reasons. I support this approach because it is currently more feasible in the real (and political) world in which we live. It does not seem to me to be the best approach since it is ignoring certain relevant information that could be useful.
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc, Evo and lomidrevo
  • #11
  • Like
Likes jim hardy, Evo, BillTre and 1 other person
  • #12
Evo said:
We humans need to understand that as we come out of the last ice age that melting will continue .
By "last ice age", do you mean Last Glacial Period (ending around 11,700 years ago)?
I am not sure you are correct with the continual melting since then. Let me quote from this study:
Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago.
... it suggests a cooling trend lasting over 5000 years in this interglacial period. See also the graph of Global Temperature Anomalies (figure B) taken from the same study:
Mod note: Graphs removed due to paywall violation, see link for graphs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes BillTre
  • #13
Evo said:
Human activity may be accelerating what would happen anyway.
Yes, maybe. But saying "that would happen anyway" looks to me like we are refusing to take responsibility for that...

Evo said:
We need to realize that just because we planned cities on coasts and like things the way they have been the past couple of generations does not mean that they can or should remain that way. Things always change.
Agreed, the current living style is not sustainable from long-term point of view.

Evo said:
We need to accept that we planned and built without understanding the impact that natural climate change would eventually make.
It is hard to blame humans at the the earlier stages of the industrialization, because they didn't understand the possible consequences of combustion of fossil fuels and other negative activities. No data and no studies were available to predict climate changes. But now, we are in different situation. We have many proofs that currently observed climate changes are caused mainly by human activities. We have also many studies predicting negative scenarios of the further climate evolution (within some uncertainties of course). Despite of that, we do very little to mitigate the consequences. I don't find any excuse for such behavior.

And that annoys me, because in my opinion, humans are capable to take responsibility for their actions and to mitigate the negative impacts of their behavior if there is enough of will-power. Let me provide a positive example: Montreal protocol, which led to the reduction of substances that deplete the atmospheric ozone layer. It is not perfect, but it is working, quote from this report:
The Montreal Protocol is working: There is clear evidence of a decrease in the atmospheric burden of ozonedepleting substances and some early signs of stratospheric ozone recovery

I am not naive, we cannot revert all negative changes which were already done. But we should do our best to not continue in this trend.EDIT:
In the sense of post #5, I will not contribute in this line of discussion anymore. It is truth, it could be never-ending story. I will constrain my contributions only to the scientific papers, and facts.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes BillTre
  • #14
lomidrevo said:
By "last ice age", do you mean Last Glacial Period (ending around 11,700 years ago)?
lomidrevo said:
I am not sure you are correct with the continual melting since then
I should have referred to it as the Holocene for clarity. "The Holocene, starting with abrupt warming 11,700 years ago, resulted in rapid melting of the remaining ice sheets of North America and Europe. The retreat of glaciers altered landscapes in many ways and is currently still acting as a result of climate change. " As I said.

The Holocene ( /ˈhɒləˌsiːn, ˈhoʊ-/)[4][5] is the current geological epoch. It began approximately 11,650 cal years before present, after the last glacial period, which concluded with the Holocene glacial retreat.[6] The Holocene and the preceding Pleistocene[7] together form the Quaternary period. The Holocene has been identified with the current warm period, known as MIS 1. It is considered by some to be an interglacial period within the Pleistocene Epoch.[8] (
An interglacial period is a geological interval of warmer global average temperature lasting thousands of years that separates consecutive glacial periods within an ice age. The current Holocene interglacial began at the end of the Pleistocene, about 11,700 years ago.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene
But, let's both get back to the science of understanding why climate changes. You sounded a bit worried and I wanted you not to be. As Berkeman pointed out, there are level headed people that are using the information to make decisions to mitigate damage and make proper decisions going forward, so yes people are addressing the issues.
 
  • Like
Likes jim hardy and davenn
  • #15
lomidrevo said:
By "last ice age", do you mean Last Glacial Period (ending around 11,700 years ago)?
I am not sure you are correct with the continual melting since then. Let me quote from this study:

... it suggests a cooling trend lasting over 5000 years in this interglacial period.
That study is from 2013! Sorry you should check your sources to make sure they are not outdated. See my reply to you above.
 
  • Like
Likes davenn
  • #16
Evo said:
"The Holocene, starting with abrupt warming 11,700 years ago, resulted in rapid melting of the remaining ice sheets of North America and Europe. The retreat of glaciers altered landscapes in many ways and is currently still acting as a result of climate change. " As I said.
This text you have updated to your post #14, does it come from this wikipedia article: Holocen glacial retreat? Just at the beginning there is a warning:
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
This article needs additional citations for verification. (July 2011)

This article possibly contains original research. (July 2011)

Could you please provide a more reliable source? On my side, I have requested access to this article and waiting for approval:
The early Holocene sea level rise (DE Smith, S Harrison, CR Firth, JT Jordan)
This figure should come from the article (I will confirm once I get the access):

EDIT:
I have removed the figure, in order to not violate any copyrights. However, the same figure can be seen on this wikipedia link.


It looks like during last 2000 years the sea levels were approximately constant, which suggest that retreat of glaciers during this period was zero, or at least very close to zero. To confirm, it would require more detailed data. Moreover, between 4000 and 3000 years ago, the data suggest that the sea levels might be even decreasing!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
Evo said:
That study is from 2013! Sorry you should check your sources to make sure they are not outdated. See my reply to you above.
It doesn't mean the study is outdated. As per Info&Metrics of the article, I don't see any significant decreasing trend in the usage of the article since 2014. It seems it is still being frequently quoted. In the wikipedia articles you can find much older references.
 
  • #18
For future discussions in the topics related to climate changes, is it OK if I use wikipedia articles as a reference?

From the policy/rules mentioned in the post #2:
CC/GW threads in this forum are intended for discussion of the scientific content of well-researched models of weather, climatology, and global warming that have been published in peer-reviewed journals and well-established textbooks.
So I thought that wikipedia is not accepted reference for the CC/GW topics. But as it was already used in this thread, I am wrong apparently. To work with peer-reviewed papers requires much more effort, and many times the papers are not available to public users. So indeed, it might be more easier and quicker to use wiki (although not fully reliable).

Thanks in advance for your feedback!
 
  • #19
lomidrevo said:
Could you pls provide a more reliable source?
What, an explanation of Holocene being the interglacial warm period we are currently in?

Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago. The last period of glaciation, which is often informally called the “Ice Age,” peaked about 20,000 years ago. At that time, the world was on average probably about 10°F (5°C) colder than today, and locally as much as 40°F (22°C) colder.

https://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/su.../ice-ages-what-are-they-and-what-causes-them/
lomidrevo said:
It doesn't mean the study is outdated. As per Info&Metrics of the article, I don't see any significant decreasing trend in the usage of the article since 2014. It seems it is still being frequently quoted. In the wikipedia articles you can find much older references.
Your study wasn't relevant to my response, I was addressing the current warm interglacial (now) and you were posting graphics dating back thousands of years, why, I have no idea.
 
  • #20
lomidrevo said:
For future discussions in the topics related to climate changes, is it OK if I use wikipedia articles as a reference?

From the policy/rules mentioned in the post #2:

So I thought that wikipedia is not accepted reference for the CC/GW topics. But as it was already used in this thread, I am wrong apparently. To work with peer-reviewed papers requires much more effort, and many times the papers are not available to public users. So indeed, it might be more easier and quicker to use wiki (although not fully reliable).

Thanks in advance for your feedback!
I wasn't addressing the climate change science issue of the thread, I was addressing "you" to try to put "you" at ease, and I went on to say to move past the panic as we only address the science, if you wanted to learn.

So the answer is no, if you wish to discuss the science, then please go by the rules.
 
  • #21
Evo said:
I wasn't addressing the climate change science issue of the thread, I was addressing "you" to try to put "you" at ease
I just read in a serious news magazine (https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft...oeser-fckw-emissionen-entdeckt-a-1268733.html) that China still produces CFC-11, 32 years after China signed Montreal.

It is difficult to keep calm if you read those news on a regular basis. Three countries are responsible for the vast part of emissions and neither of them actually cares.
 
  • Like
Likes davenn, lomidrevo and Evo
  • #22
fresh_42 said:
I just read in a serious news magazine (https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft...oeser-fckw-emissionen-entdeckt-a-1268733.html) that China still produces CFC-11, 32 years after China signed Montreal.

It is difficult to keep calm if you read those news on a regular basis. Three countries are responsible for the vast part of emissions and neither of them actually cares.
It's upsetting, but panic and despair won't help, it will just make you sick, level headed action is the best course if you want to get involved.

Anyway, we're still going off topic. :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes fresh_42
  • #23
Here is a Science mag news article on the CFC-11 issue.

They seem to be coming from certain areas of the country and not really legally.
To quote the rticle:
“The Chinese have been doing the best they can” to identify and shut down the rogue operations, Rae says. “But regulators have real trouble keeping tabs on what is going on” throughout the country.
Its my feeling that this will probably be corrected.
 
  • Like
Likes Michael Price, Evo and lomidrevo
  • #24
Evo said:
I wasn't addressing the climate change science issue of the thread, I was addressing "you" to try to put "you" at ease, and I went on to say to move past the panic as we only address the science
Evo, I appreciate your concern, but I can assure you that I do not panic. I live around 500 km from the nearest coast, so the increasing sea levels are not the immediate or direct threat to me. What makes me worried (but not panicking yet) are the further consequences of such evolution. With all due respect, this discussion is not making my worries to disappear. But that is OK, it is not the aim of this discussion.

Evo said:
Your study wasn't relevant to my response, I was addressing the current warm interglacial (now) and you were posting graphics dating back thousands of years, why, I have no idea.
Looking back at the previous posts (starting from #8), I think we both have talked about the same period: after last glacial period, which means current interglacial period, or Holocene in another words, i.e. period from 11 700 year ago till now. So I don't understand how were the studies I referred not relevant.
 
  • Like
Likes Evo
  • #25
Forecasts have been very wrong before. Instead of panicking about a forecast, please provide some data that shows how much change there has been in the last 50 or 100 years. Be sure to provide data that has uncertainties, so that we all can evaluate the situation together.
 
  • #26
lomidrevo said:
Here is the BBC article, I've read today.
Conclusion from the original study:

This sounds really alarming to me.
berkeman said:
I recently participated in "Hazard Mitigation" studies for two local cities, and since they border the San Francisco Bay, SLR and inundation were part of the studies. ...

Based on the ranges in those studies, what were your ""Hazard Mitigation" action items (I'm curious is all)?Related to this, I started a thread about 9 months ago:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/42-of-sea-level-rise-due-to-human-water-use.953422/
It was surprising to me that it seems within the realm of possibility that ~ 40% of sea level rise is related to human water use, rather than global warming. Yet, we don't seem to hear of that, or actions to take?
 
  • #27
StandardsGuy said:
Forecasts have been very wrong before. Instead of panicking about a forecast, please provide some data that shows how much change there has been in the last 50 or 100 years. Be sure to provide data that has uncertainties, so that we all can evaluate the situation together.
Truth. The problem with extrapolating from past data is that the same data with uncertainties can fit multiple curves. The advantage of models is that they can give you a basis for 'which curve?' It's still a crap shoot.

In military strategy, you plan not for what you think the opponent will do, but instead plan for what you think he can do. You plan for capability, not intent.

For planning public policy, you plan for worst outcomes, at least to the point where you aren't totally gobsmacked when it happens. FEMA's for Katrina is a good counter example.

Another consideration is the reputation of the forecasters. The IPCC has consistently under reported the situation. Trends have been just beyond their most pessimistic estimates.

Were I in a planning role, I would take the most pessimistic prediction available, and make it 20% worse, and use that as my main scenario. E.g. If now the worst forecast is 6 feet, I would plant for 7.2 to 8 feet SLR.

First tier planning is often cheap. It's a change in policy, change in building codes.

Consider New Orleans. If new construction were on stilts, with the under story used for storage, parking, and a place for the kids to play on a rainy day, then when the evac order comes, the boxes of stuff come upstairs, the car takes people out of town. If the under-space is on a separate subpanel and devices such as furnace and water heater and air conditioner are on the main floor, then the house is habitable as soon as the flood waters recede. Cost: Building code change.
 
  • #28
NTL2009 said:
Based on the ranges in those studies, what were your ""Hazard Mitigation" action items (I'm curious is all)?
I think the results of our study/report were two-fold with respect to the rising Bay water levels. First, the results enabled the local cities to apply for additional FEMA funds to increase the height of existing levees, and perhaps adding more of them. Second, it probably will prevent building permits for new home developments in some areas that are expected to be inundated in the future. Good question. :smile:
 
  • #29
NTL2009 said:
It was surprising to me that it seems within the realm of possibility that ~ 40% of sea level rise is related to human water use, rather than global warming. Yet, we don't seem to hear of that, or actions to take?
It's probably because that's past sea level rise, not projected future sea level rise.
 
  • #30
Sherwood Botsford said:
Another consideration is the reputation of the forecasters. The IPCC has consistently under reported the situation. Trends have been just beyond their most pessimistic estimates.
Really? I thought we were tracking below their median estimates? Do you have any sources for this?
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
  • #31
I'm interested in that too. IIRC, IPCC-1 seems to be a factor of 2 above what we see, and a factor of maybe 4 above what we see given recent CO2 numbers. (It's true that more modern model do a better job of retrodicting)
 
  • Like
Likes Bystander
  • #32
russ_watters said:
NTL2009 said:
... It was surprising to me that it seems within the realm of possibility that ~ 40% of sea level rise is related to human water use, rather than global warming. Yet, we don't seem to hear of that, or actions to take?

It's probably because that's past sea level rise, not projected future sea level rise.

But wouldn't that be continuing to contribute, probably at an even higher rate (more population, more crops being irrigated)? I can't think of any reason it would hit some sort of equilibrium, or stop altogether.
 
  • Like
Likes fresh_42
  • #33
NTL2009 said:
But wouldn't that be continuing to contribute, probably at an even higher rate (more population, more crops being irrigated)? I can't think of any reason it would hit some sort of equilibrium, or stop altogether.
If I read it correctly the study said it is because of the pumping of groundwater out of the underground aquifers. In the US anyway we've severely depleted them and have started managing them better to avoid running out. Also, population growth is slowing whereas AGW is accelerating. That said, I don't think I saw a prediction about the future.

I'm not very familiar with this issue though.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Evo said:
To the OP - We humans need to understand that as we come out of the last ice age that melting will continue . Human activity may be accelerating what would happen anyway. We need to realize that just because we planned cities on coasts and like things the way they have been the past couple of generations does not mean that they can or should remain that way. Things always change.

Look at history. Look at all of the cities we are finding under water. Look at the settlements we are finding that were destroyed under glaciers. Look at the sea fossils we are finding at the top of mountains. Where I live now was once a sea. New York City was once under a glacier 2,000 feet high.

We need to accept that we planned and built without understanding the impact that natural climate change would eventually make. Now that it may be speeding up, people are saying that it can't happen?

Anyway, enough of the panic about changes, change will happen. We don't discuss the repercussions of the changes, we only discuss the science if you wish to understand the science behind what is happening.
Your assuming we are along an increasing temperature path currently. As an analogy, if you are in spring and had some fires to warm yourself, the natural temperature the next few weeks is warming from the season change, with the fire contributing little to the months later highest temperature. If you have a fire on the hottest day of the year, you are indeed raising the temperature of that highest temperature.

I find your comment a bit like "in the long run we're all dead". It is true, but hardly useful. I still plan on taking a shower today, even though in 100 years, my walking around stinky is unimportant. I will get my flu vaccine, even though getting sick and dying is largely unimportant historically. I might even bother to eat.

People should not panic about things they cannot change. But they also should not assume they are unimportant and can affect nothing. You may be right ... there may be nothing that humans can do to constrain Earth temperatures within a preferred range. But it certainly looks like we could allow more heat to escape earth, and keep temperatures lower. I'm not sure we are as powerless as we once were.
 
  • Like
Likes lomidrevo and BillTre
  • #35
votingmachine said:
People should not panic about things they cannot change. But they also should not assume they are unimportant and can affect nothing. You may be right ... there may be nothing that humans can do to constrain Earth temperatures within a preferred range. But it certainly looks like we could allow more heat to escape earth, and keep temperatures lower. I'm not sure we are as powerless as we once were.
If you read my responses I said
Evo said:
It's upsetting, but panic and despair won't help, it will just make you sick, level headed action is the best course if you want to get involved.

Anyway, we're still going off topic. :smile:

and
Evo said:
This is the type of common sense things we should be doing to address the changes and how we should adapt.
In response to Berkeman's post

I didn't say that there was nothing that could be done, I said that there were sensible ways to approach the issues. Drastic, panic driven responses by humans have a long history of making things worse. Just look at all of the invasive species we introduced in order to control problems that have created much worse issues.
 
Last edited:
<h2>1. What is the cause of the rise in global sea levels?</h2><p>The rise in global sea levels is primarily caused by the melting of glaciers and ice sheets, as well as the thermal expansion of seawater due to increasing global temperatures. Human activities such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation also contribute to the rise in sea levels.</p><h2>2. How much have global sea levels risen in recent years?</h2><p>According to the latest research, global sea levels have risen by approximately 8 inches (20 cm) since 1880. However, the rate of rise has been accelerating in recent decades, with an average increase of 0.13 inches (3.2 mm) per year since 1993.</p><h2>3. What are the potential impacts of rising sea levels?</h2><p>Rising sea levels can have a range of impacts, including coastal flooding, erosion, and saltwater intrusion into freshwater sources. It can also lead to the displacement of coastal communities and damage to infrastructure and ecosystems.</p><h2>4. Are there any regions that are more vulnerable to the effects of rising sea levels?</h2><p>Low-lying coastal areas, small island nations, and delta regions are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of rising sea levels. These regions are already experiencing increased flooding and erosion, and are at risk of being completely submerged if sea levels continue to rise.</p><h2>5. What can be done to mitigate the effects of rising sea levels?</h2><p>To mitigate the effects of rising sea levels, it is crucial to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit global warming. This can be achieved through transitioning to renewable energy sources, reducing carbon emissions, and implementing sustainable land-use practices. Additionally, coastal communities can implement adaptation strategies such as building sea walls and elevating infrastructure to protect against flooding.</p>

1. What is the cause of the rise in global sea levels?

The rise in global sea levels is primarily caused by the melting of glaciers and ice sheets, as well as the thermal expansion of seawater due to increasing global temperatures. Human activities such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation also contribute to the rise in sea levels.

2. How much have global sea levels risen in recent years?

According to the latest research, global sea levels have risen by approximately 8 inches (20 cm) since 1880. However, the rate of rise has been accelerating in recent decades, with an average increase of 0.13 inches (3.2 mm) per year since 1993.

3. What are the potential impacts of rising sea levels?

Rising sea levels can have a range of impacts, including coastal flooding, erosion, and saltwater intrusion into freshwater sources. It can also lead to the displacement of coastal communities and damage to infrastructure and ecosystems.

4. Are there any regions that are more vulnerable to the effects of rising sea levels?

Low-lying coastal areas, small island nations, and delta regions are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of rising sea levels. These regions are already experiencing increased flooding and erosion, and are at risk of being completely submerged if sea levels continue to rise.

5. What can be done to mitigate the effects of rising sea levels?

To mitigate the effects of rising sea levels, it is crucial to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit global warming. This can be achieved through transitioning to renewable energy sources, reducing carbon emissions, and implementing sustainable land-use practices. Additionally, coastal communities can implement adaptation strategies such as building sea walls and elevating infrastructure to protect against flooding.

Similar threads

  • Earth Sciences
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
13
Views
6K
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
6K
Replies
73
Views
13K
Replies
28
Views
27K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
10
Views
8K
Back
Top