BBC -- The collapse of a major polar ice sheet will not raise global sea levels as much as previous projections suggest, a team of scientists has calculated.
Writing in Science, the researchers said that the demise of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) would result in a sea level rise of 3.3m (10 ft).
Previous estimates had forecast a rise in the region of five to six metres.
However, they added, the rise would still pose a serious threat to major coastal cities, such as New York.
"Sea level rise is considered to be the one of the most serious consequence of climate change," lead author Jonathan Bamber told the Science podcast.
"A sea level rise of just 1.5m would displace 17 million people in Bangladesh alone," he added.
"So it is of the utmost importance to understand the potential threats to coastlines and people living in coastal areas."

Threat reassessed
Professor Bamber, from the University of Bristol's Glaciology Centre, said that the WAIS posed "potentially one of the most serious threats".
The ebb and flow of sea level rise
The world has three ice sheets, Greenland, East Antarctica and West Antarctica, but it is the latter that is considered most vulnerable to climatic shifts.
"It has been hypothesised for more than 30 years now that the WAIS is inherently unstable," he explained.
"This instability means that the ice sheet could potentially rapidly collapse or rapidly put a lot of ice into the oceans."
When the idea first emerged in the late 1970s, it was estimated that global sea level would rise by five metres if the WAIS collapsed.
Current projections suggest that a complete collapse of WAIS would result in an increase of up to six metres.
But Professor Bamber said that no-one had revisited the calculation, despite new data sets becoming available, and scientists developing a better understanding of the dynamics in the vast ice sheets.
The original estimates were based on "very basic ice thickness data", he explained.
"Ice thickness data gives you information about the depth of the bedrock underneath the ice sheet.
"Over the past 30 years, we have acquired much more ice thickness data over the whole of Antarctica, particularly over West Antarctica.
"We also have much better surface topography. Those two data sets are critical in determining two things."
The first was knowing the volume of ice that could contribute to sea level rise, and the second was a better understanding of the proportion of WAIS that was potentially susceptible to this instability.
Instead of assuming that the entire WAIS would collapse, causing sea level to rise by up to six metres, Professor Bamber and colleagues used models based on glaciological theory to simulate how the 2.2 million-cubic-km ice sheet would respond.
"Our reassessment of West Antarctica's contribution to sea level rise if the ice sheet was to collapse is about 3.3 metres," he said.
"That is about half of the value that has been quoted up until now." The team's study also calculated what regions were likely to experience the biggest increases in sea level. "Sea level rise is not uniform across the world's oceans, partly as a result of disruptions to the Earth's gravity field," explained Professor Bamber. "It turns out that the maximum increase in sea level rise is centred at a latitude of about 40 degrees along the Atlantic and Pacific seaboards of North America." This would include cities such as San Francisco and New York. These areas could expect increases of one-and-a-quarter times the global average, the team estimated. In other words, if the global average was one metre, then places like New York could expect to see a rise of 1.25m. Responding to Professor Bamber's paper in Science, British Antarctic Survey science leader Dr David Vaughan described the findings as "quite sound". "But for me, the most crucial question is not solely about the total amount of ice in West Antarctica, because that might take several centuries to be lost to the ocean," he told BBC News. "The crucial question is how much ice could be lost in 100-200 years; that's the sea level rise we have to understand and plan for. "Even with this new assessment the loss of a fraction of WAIS over those timescales would have serious consequences and costs that we've only really just begun to understand."


Comments: 17
I find it a poor argument for global warming denial weather New York City goes underwater by 10' or 15' it will still be underwater and the glacier is breaking up.
The denial crowd is of course selective. any bit of good news means that climate change is imaginary. Large amounts of bad news are ignored or rationalized.
You were doing so well 'til you threw in the conspiracy nut stuff, too. What a shame.
Sorry folks... It's NOT!
Its the same thing when the arm chair troops wave their flags in support of blood for oil war profiteering but deny everything the sack of shit Bush did. Look at the post with the torture pic on it and tell me its fake but it will be real enough when it comes home.
You (IMHO rightly) nailed Christopher for "tax even breathing itself" as "conspiracy nut stuff," but persist in brandishing "blood for oil" which is also sloganeering.
The Iraq invasion was advocated on flimsy pretexts, but the underlying reason was a sincere but misguided belief that the country could be transformed into a shining beacon of democracy. Like another tile in a Reverse Domino Theory.
Thomas why do you persist in denying the truth as presented by your own political leaders? Iraq was nothing but a blood for oil war now continuing to expand into Pakistan for the same reason, control of the worlds energy supply.
Everything about the Iraq war was a lie and was planned before Bush was placed in office. How much evidence do you have to see revealed before you stop looking at political criminals with blinder on.
What do you think give us the right to decide how any country will be governed? These people have their own life, their own culture, and own ideals that are none of our affair.
Remember the golden words set down in your own constitution? The right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What makes you think we have a right to decide what makes people happy or what their ideals are concerning their personal liberty?
Whoa there, cowboy.
You seem to have mistaken me for someone defending the Iraq war -- or ANY "war of choice," for that matter.
US Middle East policy has recurring themes. Many are indeed due to US dependence on imported oil, much of it from that region.
But 'blood for oil" is just a slogan -- a compelling one, but a slogan nonetheless. It is NOT an explanation of the Iraq war (and by "explanation" I mean "information that illustrates WHY something happened").
There are PLENTY of places the big bad USA could have gotten MORE OIL for LESS BLOOD. How much oil have we brought home from Iraq since March 2003?
Reducing the NEED for imported oil in staggering quantities would seem to be in our best interests. Addicts can get crazy and hurt people -- to keep on getting what they need.
Thomas, it's not about how much we have brought home, it's how much control of large oil resources we have denied to China.
If you check the PNAC, that was their objective before so many of them occupied the top positions in the Bush administration.
True, Robert. But don't you agree that PNAC was playing a global chess game with stakes rather more complex than a bumper-sticker slogan ("blood for oil") suggests?
Thomas have you ever read the Bilderberg charter or the PINAC charter? They are almost carbon copies and their goal is very plainly stated, to rule the world with one economy brought about by military conquest.
Their goals are complex, all empire building is. Attacking Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is nothing but control of the worlds energy supply, blood for oil.
Its the same thing when the arm chair troops wave their flags in support of blood for oil war profiteering but deny everything the sack of shit Bush did. Look at the post with the torture pic on it and tell me its fake but it will be real enough when it comes home.
Back to the original post. It doesn't matter at all how much New York is under water, you're totally right and even if the data does indeed keep changing and it certainly will, a bit from time to time (which are called updates), it's still happening and will anyone be ready? Nope, how on earth does one get ready for that kind of disaster? Good post.
Marilyn