This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.


Is Sea Level Rise Entering the Mainstream?

David Hone's picture
Chief Climate Change Adviser Shell International Ltd.

David Hone serves as the Chief Climate Change Advisor for Royal Dutch Shell. He combines his work with his responsibilities as a board member of the International Emissions Trading Association...

  • Member since 2018
  • 420 items added with 195,508 views
  • Aug 26, 2013

Mid-August is never a great time for activity on the climate front, particularly not in holiday bound Europe. Perhaps the “highlight” of the week was the leak of a late draft of the upcoming Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC WG1 5th Assessment Report. The formal release is near the end of September, but the leak has caused quite a stir. Most mainstream media have reported on at least one aspect of the draft document, in almost all cases highlighting that the temperature rise seen over the last 100 years is “extremely likely” caused (at least more than half of it) by the release of CO2 into the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels by humans. This is a more certain statement than has been made in the past by IPCC.

A few media outlets that felt that their audience perhaps knew this, ventured further and tended to focus on the sea level rise projections that the IPCC have put forward (at least in this leaked draft). IPCC note that it is “virtually certain” that the rate of global mean sea level rise has accelerated during the last two centuries. For example, ABC (Australia) reported that ”sea levels will rise by between 29 and 82cm by the end of the century, with scientists fairly confident that will be the upper limit.

The draft Summary Report also picks up on an issue I posted on last week, that being  the sensitivity of sea level to global temperature and therefore the very substantial rise that could occur over the coming millennia as a result of the temperature rise now under way. IPCC note that:

There is very high confidence that the maximum global mean sea level was at least 5 m higher than present and high confidence that it did not exceed 10 m above present during the last interglacial period (129,000 to 116,000 years ago), when the global mean surface temperature was, with medium confidence, not more than 2°C warmer than pre-industrial. This sea level is higher than reported in AR4 owing to more widespread and comprehensive paleoclimate reconstructions. During the last interglacial period, the Greenland ice sheet very likely contributed between 1.4 and 4.3 m sea level equivalent, implying with medium confidence a contribution from the Antarctic ice sheet to the global mean sea level.

National Geographic also picked up on sea level in their September issue, with a cover feature and a comprehensive set of charts, graphs and videos (for the iPad version) as only National Geographic can do. 



Unfortunately the cover has already come in for criticism from one blog site in particular, arguing that NatGeo is scaremongering as it will take thousands of years for sea level to rise to that level (about 60 metres) on the Statue of Liberty. In fairness, the magazine does point this out in the article where it has a graphic showing what the coast would look like if all the ice sheets melted (i.e. both Antarctica and Greenland over several thousand years). There is no assertion by NatGeo that this will happen, it’s just a graphic to give readers some idea of the full scope of the sea level issue.

All of this raises the possibility that sea level rise may become the eventual poster-child for climate change. While floods, droughts, storms, heat waves and forest fires all have the “wrath of God” feel to them, they are unpredictable, uncertain and have always been with us. No single event can be attributed to anything other than a chaotic system and a complex statistical analysis over a long period of time is required to make the case that a change is underway. This makes it very difficult to use these events to gain public appreciation of the climate risk and therefore build any consensus around a suitable course of action. As is now also apparent, global surface temperature itself is not that reliable either and the alternative of trying to get mainstream understanding of a global heat imbalance (oceans, air , ice etc.) is probably just too difficult. But sea level just keeps rising!

All that being said, an observer of the NASA web site on climate indicators will note that sea level took a remarkable dip and recovery over the last two years. Apparently this is due to very heavy and widespread rain in Australia over that period. The continent acts like a basin and “traps” the water to some extent, at least for a while until evaporation and drainage eventually do their job. Extraordinary!

Recent sea level

David Hone's picture
Thank David for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member
Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Paul O's picture
Paul O on Aug 26, 2013

David Hone

David here is my own Two Cents, and yes I do accept climate Change, and gradually rising sea levels……..HOWERVER:

No amount of yelling and repetitively elaborating about climate change or rising seas,  will change the world and galvanize action. The bottom line is that the world is broke, and its starving citizens cannot afford the remedies currentlyt being prescribed by  the loudest “Whistleblowers”.

No matter how loud the clarion, the world still needs Cheap, dependable and Steady electricity plus a reasonable replacement for gasoline. The world needs fuel for transportation.

Countries, both “rich” and poor Will Not bankrupt themselves and starve their citizens, or risk open rioting in the streets for the sake of a “future catastrophe”  (even if they accept such catastrophe to be a future fact).

Nothing will be done and very little will change unless there are convincing affordable and acceptable alternatives to  Fossil Fuels. The poor countries can’t afford the German Experience (experiment), and the Rich Countries are not convinced either.

Herein lies the problem. We have no agreement on Universally acceptable alternatives and as long as that remains the case no changes will happen. In my Opinion, we need to have a Hype free, honest, and with comity  (no yelling, cursing, or stretching of truth/ exaggerations ) debate on how to replace FFs and how to distribute the replacement.


My sense is that should the world clearly understand how to cheaply and affordably change their fuel of choice, without incuring unwanted changes (to their lifestyles, hopes and aspirations), they’ll be far more ammenable to abandoning  FF’s .

Rick Engebretson's picture
Rick Engebretson on Aug 27, 2013

As a subscriber to National Geographic Magazine, I commented to my wife how I thought the “Editor’s Note,” by Chris Johns was the best outline of the problem I’ve ever seen. We have a big problem we don’t understand well. They had the courage to publish this and many similar articles despite the harsh tone and uncertainty surrounding the topic.

They co-sponsor a web site with Shell, I actually learned more about “bioenergy” in one web site visit (the writer has published on TEC several times) than the years I’ve endured TEC slanted pitches. A deeply nested site. It gets kind of silly seeing the west on fire, threatening trees older than Christianity, while “experts” with colored lines say we should ignore biological options.

So I don’t look at National Geographic as “mainstream.” They are leading public awareness and discussion. TEC is good, too, but everybody here has an angle to push. Maybe biology is an angle, but National Geographic affirms it existed before cars.

John Murray's picture
John Murray on Sep 7, 2013

Global sea levels have risen nearly 8 inches on average since 1870. That doesn’t sound like much, but sea level rise has already contaminated water supplies and made strong storms like Superstorm Sandy more dangerous.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »