| Index of Editorials
Sea-Level Rise West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS)
All Editorials for
CO2 Emissions 
Climate Cycles 
Climate Sensitivity 
Thermal History 
Unsolved Problems 
American Power Act 
Clean and Sustainable 
Nuclear Waste Storage 
Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) 
Surrogate Religion 
Energy Primer for Kids 
Global Climate - International
French Academy 
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) 
Greenhouse Gases 
Ice Cores 
Oceans' Role 
Sun's Role 
Second Hand Smoke 
Arctic Sea Ice 
Atmospheric Temperature Data 
Sea Surface Temperature 
Surface Data 
Statistics Misuse 
Modern Empirical Science
v. Medieval Science 
Climate Research Unit (CRU) 
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) 
UK Met Office 
World Meteorological Organization (WMO) 
Climate Realism 
Independent Cross Check of Temperature Data 
IPCC Assessment Report 
NOAA State of the Climate 2009 
NRC-NAS Advancing the Science of Climate Change 
West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) 
Types of Energy
Nuclear Energy 
SEPP Science Editorial #15-2009
(in TWTW May 23, 2009)
The West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) and Sea-Level Rise
May 23, 2009
Guest Editorial by Thomas Sheahen email@example.com
Ref.: J.L. Bamber et al, Science v. 324, pp 901- 903 (15 May 2009).
The topic is of interest because the WAIS has been known to collapse in the past, most recently maybe about 400,000 years ago. The main thing the Science paper does is re-calculate with more accurate input data what had first been published in 1975, when less was known of the surface features.. Parts of the WAIS are on bedrock that is beneath sea level and parts are elevated above sea level.
The "region of interest" eligible for collapse is smaller than earlier supposed. The old estimate of maximum sea level rise was about 6 meters; the new calculation gives a maximum of 3.2 m.
The sea level rise that is actually expected is about 1.8 m -- based on taking ice on certain places in Antarctica and having it melt into the ocean. To pursue that point, you have to go to the online supplemental material and look at tables and figures there. There are a few points of interest to those who pay attention to the political spin of Science:
First, the 1.8 m expected value appears in one sentence, never in the abstract, which talks about the maximum value.
Second, much is made of the notion that the coasts of America will experience a sea-level rise about 25% higher than global average. This is because the earth's axis of rotation will change a little due to redistribution of mass when the ice leaves its present position.
Third, an associated "Perspectives" article (p. 888-889) goes to considerable length to paint the picture as gloomy as possible, emphasizing all that could go wrong. Without mentioning the 1.8-m figure buried within the Bamber et al paper, the Perspectives article asserts that "....just 0.5 to 1.0 m of uniform sea-level rise will cause catastrophic geopolitical and economic devastation in many urbanized coastal settings." It also says things like "The time scale of the fully manifested instability cannot currently be predicted." Clearly, this permits alarmists to go right on insisting that inundation of cities is imminent, while previous estimates visualized WAIS survival for several millennia (assuming that the present Holocene persists that long).
Finally, remember that the Hansen-Al Gore-ism of "20 feet" is a vestige of the 1975 calculation, now laid to rest.
View The Week That Was in which this editorial appeared.
Return to Top of Page