Sea level rise

downloadable files

heights.zip	Heights of europe. 16 bit integers, X x Y of heights in Meters on a 1024x768 grid
source.zip	The sources for the project not including the heights table.
iceage.zip	Contains the executable + data to create images like above

Excellent Page
by Frank van der Vorst
I think this is an excellent site, especially the page about sealevel rise. But what I looked for isn't there. I'm looking a map/program that will show me the rise in sealevel on a global scale. Can you help me. I'm a geography student and will need the information for a study report.
Thank you.

comment_2
by

global sea level simulator
by steve
i also ran across this site while searching for a global sea level simulator. my interest stems from reports of the antarctic ice shelf that could collapse at any moment. according to conventional wisdom it will raise the global sea level approx 16 feet QUICKLY. i would like to see a global simulator of the effects on global coastlines of this event. if anyone knows of such a simulation would you please contact me.
stevelafontaine@hotmail.com
please put SEA LEVELS in thje subject so it doesn't get lost in junk mail.
thanks

searching as well
by Rowina
Hi,I need a map as well. It does not have to be animated, but best would be a map that shows a 5m rise. I am working on the impact of the possible collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet. I hope someone can help me,thanks.

what a pity
by D
for me its the same as all others, search for a global map of rising sea levels. seems somethink like this doesnt exist on the net...

My homework.
by NobodobodoN
Hey, I was hoping I could plagiarize my map for my master's thesis, but it's not exactly the topic I'm doing. Could you maybe customize your map to my whims? Quickly? Thanks!

Seriously, though, this is very cool. I would love to see one of other parts of the world, particularly the US and Antarctica. (US because I live here and Antarctica because of a book idea I have...)

Sea-Level Rise maps
by Elisabet
Please also include me for leads to maps projecting sea level rise globally under various conditions or by meters.

Huh?
by
"street"?

Rising sea levels
by Duane
NASA and co have released DEM (digital elevation maps) of 80% of the worlds land mass, covers S56 to N60 and it wouldn't be hard to take this data (about 50G uncompressed) and easily scan for any height less then X and display a before and after, and if you made enough frames it would show flooding similar to weather pattern images they do for tv news reports...

ftp://e0srp01u.ecs.nasa.gov/srtm/version2/Documentation/Continent_def.gif
ftp://e0srp01u.ecs.nasa.gov/srtm/version2/

If you'd like some more pointers I can be contacted via http://www.NodeDB.com

Maps of sea level rise
by Randy
I think this is what you are after: maps that detail the effect of sea level rise. They can be found at: http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/research/other/climate_change_and_sea_level/sea_level_rise/sea_level_rise.htm

Sea Level Rise on Google Maps...
by Alex
Thanks for this page. It inspired me to make this Google Maps hack...

http://flood.firetree.net/

It superimposes raised sea levels onto Google Maps. You can raise the sea level by up to 14m, using a simple control. The elevation data comes from NASA, as suggested by Duane, above.

Large-Scale Rise
by Keyser Soze

Those maps you guys posted links too are too small-scale. By that I mean that I want to simulate a rise of about 5,000 ft. Isn't there anything out there like this? I'd really appreciate it if anyone were to post a link to a limitless simulator. Thanks.

Something wrong with sea level maps
by David
Look all your links are exagerated - even though they say NASA source - look http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/climate_dynamics/climate_impact_webpage.html

Figure 5 shows 1 meter impact its not all over the whole edge of the US like the other maps.

comment_19
by
i need a maps of the sea levels during the ice age

Typo
by N/A
It is the "Strait" of not Street

sea levels
by itzhakts
ran across a java simulator with water levels reaching from -200 to +200 meters a few years back and bookmarked the page. about a year ago my computer crashed and I've been looking for the page since.

Rising Sea Level map
by Robert
For a rising sea level map, try flood.firetree.net. Lots of options to focus on a specific global area, zoom in and out, see the effects of different heights.

Java sea levels
by cr33dog
This is what most of you are looking for:

http://merkel.zoneo.net/Topo/Applet/

Chris

small world
by gmemphis
small world and shrinking,
isn´t cr33?

Ecotoxicology of SLR
by tm
Hi everyone.

I had been looking for SLR maps, to superimpose to Environment Agency pollution maps.

I am looking at the likely impacts of the mobilisation of all the man-made pollutants inthe vulnerable areas, to try and persuade some Institute or other to fund a proper study.

I read BSc Environmental Quality & Resource Management, even as a Batchelor I can tell that SLR of the magnitudesd projcted in the revised scenarios could mean mass extinctions from this global ecotoxicological impact.

Unfortunately I can't taketh MRES/PhD it requires to study this properly, I am curently involved in renewables R&D and that keeps me busy enough.

If any of you are looking for a Thesis or a cause... this one's BIG!

Scenario: SLR > infiltration of subsoils and soil voids > mobilisation of ponint and diffuse pollution sources > GLOBAL ecotoxicological impacts > mass extinctions of marine margin species.

Brrrr!

TTFN!

tm

Searching!!!
by
WOW i can believe it!!! i think i have search, the whole of the net, to find a map of sea level rises! your amazing!! thanks you

Natural vs Artificial
by N/A
You know, the entire thing about global warming caused by humans and that we're destroying the earth is bull. Our effect on the global climate is very, very small. The total man-made pollutants being released into the atmosphere is about 1/10 that of the amount of natural (volcanoes, etc.) pollutants. The entire uproar is based on politics, and the politicians trying to make themselves look good by pretending to have a huge effect on the decline of our earth's health. In fact, the most damage done by global warming will be to politics. The public must keep a critical mind and remember that the earth has survived much worse than man (think giant asteroid).

Natural vs. Artificial
by Glen
Existing, visible pollutants are a worry, but more so are those such as chlorofluorocarbons, with a huge half-life, that are breaking up the ozone layer. When you get right down to it, the argument is moot. It is happening and we will have to deal with.

f off
by Charlie
Whoever posted Natural V Artificial...you make me sick! How dim can you possibly be to honestly believe that we're not making the biggest impact in terms of climate change? Of course volcanoes and natural sources of greenhouse gases play a part, but this is minute in comparison to the human race. Volcanoes and suchlike have existed since the earth began, and looking at the data available will illustrate my point that not at any point has there been global warming on the scale we're seeing since industrialisation...you may be able to bury your head in the sand, but keep it under too long and you'll end up submerged by the rising sea levels.

were all gona die
by steven
im buying a gun and heding to the hills

were all gona die
by steven
god damnit i live in england. so much flat land, so many people. so i will hed of to scotland were there are hills. and bring a gun to kill any refugees wich there will be loads. also im gona have to get and endless food suply. However i will be about 70 whne it happens and i will be left to rot in my own fesseis as a huge disees sweaps over the population and kills us all.

LOL You are so Fuc|<ing stupid
by Brian
OK Natural Vs. Artificial you are such a fucking idiot how could you actually believe we have not had an effect on our climate and our world?????? OK First of all we fucked up to begin with testing nuclear weapons. Think about if you took a firecracker alright and taped it on the side of a bouncy ball that was spinning in a circle like a top what would happen? Whether or not you want to actually look at what's going on and realize it, it is your choice. sure you may say oh what about volcanoes and such? well think about it it's a natural reaction for our planet our planet is expecting it to happen, when we test nuclear weapons our planet isn't expecting that shit to happen. However it is proven through my own fucking mathmatical formulas that we have knocked the earth out of it's natural rotation and have thus caused a serious problem that may not effect us but will effect the generations to come if you'd like i'd surely email you all the data, sure the government isn't going to tell us this, but however there is no way in this world that we can test as many nuclear/atomic weapons "and yes nuclear is different than atomic" as we have and not disrupt our natural rotation. And don't even say that they weren't that powerful because... Russia of all countries tested the largest nuclear/atomic weapon known to man at a massive 300 Megatons equal to 300 million tons of TNT you are ignorant. Not only this but also if you remember a couple years back before the hurricane season that took out new orleans what happened??? Gee let's think our Mr. Smart president dumb ass thought it would be a good idea to test a bunch of highly powerfull new bombs over the gulf of mexico. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that explosions over water throws vapors and moisture into the air, Now if you think about it right after all this we have all these hurricanes here in the US that just wreak havoc and they said it was due to global warming YES AND NO yes partially it was however how come this year wasn't near as bad??? Think about it DUMB ASS If you set off a bunch of powerfull explosions over water all that vapor into the air has to go somewhere, Water vapors get thrown into the atmosphere and thus return back to us through rain and storms because our president is so smart he thought it would be a good idea and then say it was because of the warming, which in turn is only part of it I'm sorry to say but we have way more of an effect on our world than you may think. OH and hey why don't you look at the changes in our natural north magnetic poles movements since they discovered it look at it in twenty year intervals and space the distance out you'll notice it's about equal for every twenty year period until the late 1940's gee what happened then the introduction of atomic/nuclear weapons you'll notice since then that it is moving faster and faster going further and further since. See you have to stop and look at things you dumb ass idiot and consider the facts and the data. I live in michigan alright and everyone here has noticed the changes we didn't even have snow on the ground in '06 in fucking Michigan! I mean be for real and don't be so freaking hard headed use your fucking mind. Put 1 and 1 together and you don't get 4 you get two you stupid fuck. Through Idiots thinking it'd be smart to test explosives over water and continue to test nuclear and atomic weapons even after we know the consequences "and yes the government knows what they're doing" and from IDIOTS LIKE YOU WE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT OUR CHILDREN AND THEIR CHILDREN LIVING BECAUSE YOU PEOPLE ARE TOO FUCKING DUMB TO REALIZE THE EFFECTS. You ever heard of the domino effect? For every action that we make there is a reaction for one person it might be so small you won't even ever realize it, but when it involves billions of people reacting together it builds up we forget to think of consequences before making our decisions So maybe you should seriously sit and think of how this world was and how it is now and do the math.

site
by Pisco
http://flood.firetree.net/

wow
by chris
wow, you are way out there.....

Great site
by Todd Grigsby
The site at http://flood.firetree.net/ is *exactly* what I was looking for. It's too bad it doesn't go up to 200 meters, which is the top estimate for sea level rise if Antarctica entirely melts. But 14 meters is easily what I'll see in my lifetime given the carbon load in the atmosphere and the rate of melt being recorded right now in Greenland and Antarctica.

Great site! Thanks so much!

Google Earth water level simulation overlays
by Mike
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/776747/an/0/page/0#776747

http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=776750&page=0&vc=#Post776750

15 meters what?
by _Three_chord_me
a recent report that i have heard says a rise of sea levels by 23 inches
that is way less then the 15 meters that you are all talking about....
and no i am not disputing the existence of global warming or that we are causing it or saying that it isnt a big deal i am just saying that maybe asking for a sim of 200 meters is a bit much?

Sweet
by The NErd
Yo peeps, this is a bangin web sit. Keep up the good work homies. Peace out

Globe with variable sea level
by Michael Schmeling
My earth screensaver at http://www.aridocean.com lets you change the sea level between -250m and +250m interactively and see the resulting changes in real time. A free 30-day trial is available. Perhaps it is interesting for some of the visitors of your site.

Sea Level Rise Maps and Animations
by Josh Meisel
heres a good website with GIS layers for sea level rise, as well as premade maps and a cool interactive quicktime animations.

http://www.cresis.ku.edu/research/data/sea_level_rise/index.html

Dear Charlie
by Hoogle Gacks
Dear Charlie - you sir, are an idiot.

LOOK at the data my good man, don't listen to your friend and bedfellow, Al Gore.

sea level
by dave
steve might be ontu sumpin. sea level 200ft.up max. when all ice melts. sell water frontland real quick.

Frenchie one
by Romain Brun
http://merkel.zoneo.net/Topo/Applet/index.php?lang=en

just what I was looking for.

Yoikes
by Jo
Yoikes better move. Very good. Would be nice for some close up detail. But i'll use a good old OS map and a felt tip. Once again thanks for the great site.

stupidity rules
by mike
stupidity rules.
I am a pragmatic to the core. Research is my hobby.
None of you idiots even think of researching the opposition to see if there might be any validity. You all go out there primed for a fight, but yer all half cocked. Has any one ever suggested not going into a battle of wits unarmed is a wise idea?
If you think that volcanic and other naturally occurring global warming influences can't hold a candle to the input of we as humans can produce, then you haven't looked closely at the geologic survey evidence. If you think that water vapor isn't a greenhouse gas, then you haven't looked into the meteorlogical tables. If you don't think that these earth cycles parrallel the sunspot activity, then you haven't looked into the astronomical evdence.
The USGS state that sea levels at the peak of the last glacial age indicate sea levels of up to 125 metersBELOW current sealevels. The same USGS papers indicate that sea levels between glacial peaks, (inter-galcial), indicate that sea levels were as much as 20 meter HIGHER than current levels.
Read this... It is straight out of the USGS. (cut and paste...)
Glacial-Interglacial Cycles
Climate-related sea-level changes of the last century are very minor compared with the large changes in sea level that occur as climate oscillates between the cold and warm intervals that are part of the Earth's natural cycle of long-term climate change.
During cold-climate intervals, known as glacial epochs or ice ages, sea level falls because of a shift in the global hydrologic cycle: water is evaporated from the oceans and stored on the continents as large ice sheets and expanded ice caps, ice fields, and mountain glaciers. Global sea level was about 125 meters below today's sea level at the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago (Fairbanks, 1989). As the climate warmed, sea level rose because the melting North American, Eurasian, South American, Greenland, and Antarctic ice sheets returned their stored water to the world's oceans. During the warmest intervals, called interglacial epochs, sea level is at its highest. Today we are living in the most recent interglacial, an interval that started about 10,000 years ago and is called the Holocene Epoch by geologists.
Sea levels during several previous interglacials were about 3 to as much as 20 meters higher than current sea level. The evidence comes from two different but complementary types of studies. One line of evidence is provided by old shoreline features (fig. 2). Wave-cut terraces and beach deposits from regions as separate as the Caribbean and the North Slope of Alaska suggest higher sea levels during past interglacial times. A second line of evidence comes from sediments cored from below the existing Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. The fossils and chemical signals in the sediment cores indicate that both major ice sheets were greatly reduced from their current size or even completely melted one or more times in the recent geologic past. The precise timing and details of past sea-level history are still being debated, but there is clear evidence for past sea levels significantly higher than current sea level.

Do yer friggin home work... will ya.

Apparently stupidity does rule
by Tao
Wow, apparently stupidity does rule. Mike, all you need to do is take one look at the graph of CO2 overlayed with global temperatures and it's obvious. All of your sunspot volcano mumbo jumbo is just right-wing talking points.

Of course no one wants global warming to happen, but you can't hope for a conclusion and then look for evidence to support it. It's not scientific and you'll end up grasping at sunspots.

Even if you don't believe that global warming is happening. Do you really think it could hurt to err on the safe side and reduce our CO2 emissions and become more efficient?

Sexii DAvidss right!!!
by Lola Harriiisonn
Something wrong with sea level maps
by David
Look all your links are exagerated - even though they say NASA source - look http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/climate_dynamics/climate_impact_webpage.html

Figure 5 shows 1 meter impact its not all over the whole edge of the US like the other maps.

David's information is very right!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
does it matter if the nasa gov made it????
w.e all im saying is that i'd make luv w/ this man...
he is such a genius!

Artificial vs. human
by Human
It's unfortunate that folks can't have a civil dialog. In part that's the core of the problem we face. The original poster of "Natural vs. Artificial" may be an idiot; I couldn't speak to this and neither can anyone else. Whether we all like it or not he could be just as correct or wrong as the rest of the folks on this blog.

In either case anyone who has to use the ignorant words that were spoken in responses aren't helping the situation. A point is made with logic and reasoning not with screams and derogatory statements, and even after a point is made it must be balanced with many other priorities.

Is the global temperature rising? I think we can can say with reasonable statistical certainty that this is so. Was it rising before human industrialization? All the evidence we have shows this to be true. Has the rate of global warming increased since the introduction of the industrial period. There is conflicting evidence as much as we wish there wasn't. There is interesting evidence that the global rate of population growth in cows and rice farming also maps exactly to the rise in global temperatures in the same way as the industrial presence of C02. We have to be very careful when we have spurious correlations. Simple correlation in and of itself does not make something causal.

The purveyors of the "Hockey stick" chart for example haven't helped the arguement to support the human causal effect of global warming and I wish they would stop pushing it on the uninformed public. Pushing half truths to make a scientific argument doesn't help us. Half truths have quite the opposite effect as do the people who call people words I wish not to repeat. Rather than making their case with a full set of facts and the weaknesses inherent in their arguements, some well meaning scientists are providing fodder for those who disagree with the global warming issue. Providing half truths call in to question their motives and the factual nature of well founded data.

The "Hockey stick" chart for example uses signature data for the time period up to the industrial period. Signature data being things like growth of tree rings and ice cores. We observe during this pre industrialization period a slow increase in CO2 with some bumps along the way that map fairly well to volcanic events and solar events. What these "well meaning" scientists fail to convey because it weakens their argument is that "signature based data" has a SIGNIFICANT smoothing effect on the data itself. These are indirect observations that statistically smooth the data that is being collected.

Now in contrast the data collected from the start of the industrial period forward have been collected via direct observation and as a result the data has not been "smoothed". The intellectually dishonest part in all of this is that the chart is not a single series of like data being impacted by the same statistical properties. It is two different sets of data with little or nor relation to each other. An average statistician would consider this extreemly poor science and intellectually dishonest.

Now all that being said, there is other evidence that global warming is occuring and that it might be linked to human activity. The key to making the point is proving it not yelling louder, and presenting the weaknesses as well as the strengths in the arguement, because that is what differentiates science from debating.

In fact the case for human induced global warming is easier to make if we stop talking about industrialzation and instead learn a little chemistry. A subject that most folks choose to sleep through.

Livestock produces 9% of all c02, 37% of methane, and 65% nitrous oxide. Methane is 23 times more impactful and nitrous oxide is 296 times more impactful from a greenhouse point of view. Now interestingly enough the global simulation models say that Methane and nitrous oxide are not the primary cause of global warming. One has to ask, if two chemicals one that is 296 times as impactful and the other 23 times; and adding in the 9% of basic C02 that livestock also produces, is not causing global warming how can the transportation industry be? The cumulative effect of livestock is greater than that of transportation if we look purely at the data and statistical models. So we have a bit of a problem with the facts and the models. Either the models are flawed or the interaction we are observing are more complicated then we understand.

In the end we don't clearly understand the chemistry, we don't have models that accurately reflect what is going on and we have scientists that are without doubt failing to be scientists. They are crossing the political lines with an opinion and some facts that do support their opinion and ignoring facts that don't support their opinion. It is for this reason and no other that the debate rages on.

And we come to the final problem. Lets say for the sake of argument that the scientists (of which I am one) clean up our act and start dropping the intellectually dishonest approach to social engineering and prove that Global warming is solely the responsibility of the human race. The reality is that if sea levels rise 10 meters in the next 200 years the economic impact will be acceptable to those that have money and drive investment in the world. Investors do not have a 200 year ROI target. Buildings and all substantial capital depreciates long before that time and therefore there is plenty of time to move capital and replace buildings before the flooding becomes and issue to Capital.

The sea rise is only an issue to people. If it happens to people over a long enough period of time make no mistake; they will move. They will move to higher ground and that will have social and economic impacts. It will not however be the same impact that we have seen with regard to floods, huricanes or sunamies. It will hapen over generations. People are far more resiliant than what we give them credit for.

The present value of 1,000,000 US dollars is 17,292,580,815 at 5% in 200 years. The two values are exactly equal to each other in relative terms. So to say that the impact to the planet in billions of dollars over the next 200 years is to say that it has very small impact in today's terms. In short it would be cheaper to move every person in low lying countries slow but sure over the next 200 years than it would be to "fix the problem" over the next 20 years. This is unfortunate of course but it's also probably true in economic terms. Up front costs are very expensive and solutions that can be deferred over longer periods of time are inherently less expensive.

Now I'm not advocating that we don't fix the problem. Clearly we are poluting our planet and having negative impacts on the only place we can live. All that being said, trying to fix a problem in the next twenty years also is not the correct thing to do when we balance all the needs of people. If we decided to stop producing C02 tomorrow and sequested every last molecule of it, the sea is going to continue to increase as it did before the industrial period albeit more slowly. The ice caps are likely to continue to shrink as they did before industrialization. The only thing we can do is slow the process.

An intersting chart I was presented with recently had the ice caps gone in 22,000 years even if the industrial production of C02 stopped completely. So if we assume for the stake of argument that this is true since it was produced with the same models used to support the global warming theory then we must conclude that the sea level rise is inevitable and once all the ice is gone the sea level will no longer rise; and what we will be left with is a vastly warmer planet that we will have to learn to live on.

My point is that we are trying to approach the problem with very short sightedness. We are loosing the trees in the forest so to speak. We are worried not about the real future of he human race. We are fighting over what we believe will be the impact in the next few generations. Are the next 5000 generations any less important than the ones that directly follow us. Clearly not.

The world will get warming and we need to deal with that. We also need to deal with not poluting ourselves out of existence; not because it is or is not the cause of global warming but for the same reason that we don't crap in our kitchen sinks. We must also deal with the real economic impacts of the decisions we make and not simply act in isolation. Finally, we must force scientists to stop being politicians and leaving out facts that are not complimentary to their arguments.

I leave one final thought on the political front. Global warming has become almost entirely a politican asset for countries around the world. It is being used as a means to influence other countries economically speaking. New entrants into the Kyoto protocol have all been granted exceptions as to the degree to which they can produce C02 and existing countries who are signatories have not and cannot meet the targets set. The treaty is in fact about economic growth and has little to do with green house emissions. If it were not there would not be special terms that allow for smaller countries and developing countries to have exceptions to the rule. Whether this is intentionaly or not is imaterial. The fact is that the treaty constrains developed countries and has terms that allow for developing countries to catch up. The treaty is a form of developmental socialism applied on a global scale. Its good for countries that want to catch up and creates a social tax on developed countries by constaining development. In the end we would have a world that still has a warming climate but with the C02 coming from a more evenly distributed group of countries and population.

So, in the final analysis those of us that are actually trying to fight global warming are being undermined by poor science, self serving countries, and politicians that can grab onto a cause to get elected. In the end the world will still be faced with Global warming. I've changed by tact in dealing with the problem. I've decided that learning to live on a increasingly warmer planet with rising sea levels in the right thing to do.

TRUTH vs LIES
by truthed out
sum of these comments r stupid but we r responsible 4 the climat change. in 50 years we r most likly to be drowned becoz we make somuch polltion