Rising Seas Endanger Wetland Wildlife
For scientists in a remote corner of coastal North Carolina, ignoring global warming is not an option
- By Abigail Tucker
- Photographs by Lynda Richardson
- Smithsonian magazine, July-August 2010, Subscribe
When a buttermilk moon rises over Alligator River, listen for red wolves. It’s the only spot in the world where they still howl in the wild. Finer boned than gray wolves, with foxier coloring and a floating gait, they once roamed North America from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. By the mid-1970s, because of overhunting and habitat loss, just a few survived. Biologists captured 17 and bred them in captivity, and in 1987 released four pairs in North Carolina’s Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge.
Today more than 100 red wolves inhabit the refuge and the surrounding peninsula—the world’s first successful wolf reintroduction, eight years ahead of the better-known gray wolf project in Yellowstone National Park. The densely vegetated Carolina refuge is perfect for red wolves: full of prey such as white-tailed deer and raccoons and practically devoid of people.
Perfect, except it may all be underwater soon.
Coastal North Carolina is more vulnerable than almost anywhere else in the United States to sea-level rise associated with climate change, and the 154,000-acre Alligator River refuge could be one of the first areas to go under. A stone’s throw from Roanoke Island, where the first English colony in North America was established in the 1580s, it’s a vibrant green mosaic of forest, piney swamp and salt marsh. I’ve seen a ten-foot alligator dreaming on a raft of weeds, hundreds of swallowtail butterflies rising up in giddy yellow spirals and scores of sunbathing turtles. The refuge has one of the highest concentrations of black bears on the East Coast. It is home to bobcats and otter and a haven for birds, from great blue herons to warblers to tundra swans. Most of it lies only about a foot above sea level.
Scientists at Alligator River are now engaged in a pioneering effort to help the ecosystem survive. Their idea is to help shift the entire habitat—shrubby bogs, red wolves, bears and all—gradually inland, while using simple wetland-restoration techniques to guard against higher tides and catastrophic storms. At a time when many coastal U.S. communities are paralyzed by debate and hard choices, such decisive action is unusual, if not unique.
“We’re on the front line here,” says Brian Boutin, a Nature Conservancy biologist leading the Alligator River adaptation project. “We’re going to fight [sea-level rise] regardless. But it matters whether we fight smart or fight dumb.”
Sea level has been increasing since the peak of the last ice age 20,000 years ago, when the glaciers began melting. The rise happens in fits and starts; in the Middle Ages, for instance, a 300-year warming period sped it up slightly; starting in the 1600s, the “Little Ice Age” slowed it down for centuries. But scientists believe that the rate of rise was essentially the same for several thousand years: about one millimeter per year.
Since the Industrial Revolution, however, the burning of fossil fuels has increased the amount of carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere, which trap the earth’s reflected heat—the now familiar scenario called the greenhouse effect, the cause of global warming. The rate of sea-level rise around the world has tripled over the past century to an average of about three millimeters a year, just over a tenth of an inch, because of both melting glaciers and the expansion of water as it warms.
In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted seven inches to two feet of global sea-level rise by 2100. Some scientists, however, think it will be more like six feet. Such wildly varying predictions are the result of huge unknowns. How much of the gargantuan ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica will melt? How will human populations affect greenhouse gas emissions? Will ocean currents change? Will the water rise steadily or in spurts?
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.










Comments (11)
Re Gerald Hogan's comment of the fourth of July: The doubts are being generated for good reason. Sea-Levels look like they will be falling after the mid 2030s (if you google "Toucan Equations" and read FAQ 11 and below, you'll get an idea as to whats really happening!).
There are too many "ulterior motives" (mostly tax and revenue acquisition driven) that cloud (PI) the science discussion. Better to just look at the data - raw, unadjusted, un-modeled, and un-manipulated, to see whats actually going on.
Posted by Tom Wysmuller on February 22,2011 | 01:09 PM
In reviewing my July 6, 2010 post, I used "mm" when "cm" was appropriate. Seas are rising at 3 cm (30mm) per decade, and the rate of rise is decreasing, mainly to ice and snow accretion in Antarctica, Greenland, and (seasonally) North America and Asia/Eurasia. The "Toucan Equations©" (just Google it) have just been updated and confirm the decline in rate of rise.
At this "rate" (couldn't resist), sea-levels will begin FALLING in the mid 2030s. More than 600 satellite acquired data points (all of them) over 17 years are involved in the calculation. Coastal sinking of aquifer depleted land should be the main focus here, not sea-level rise which by mid century will be falling.
Posted by Tom Wysmuller on January 13,2011 | 05:27 PM
The comments to date are mostly disappointing. The article says where the water for sea level rise will come from--the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. The article also recognizes that we really don't know how high waters will rise. The fact is, though, that sea levels are rising and we are generally ignoring the problem to the very great detriment of our children and grandchildren.
Posted by Bill Davis on December 13,2010 | 11:43 AM
Thank you to the scientists who are trying to protect the refuge. I would warn you that the projected rise in sea level is conservative - be ready for something higher than 1-6' in the next 90 years. The naysayers above are not looking at the big picture (which is far bigger than the relatively minor effects of carbon dioxide). We're looking at the possibility of a snowballing effect that would lead to an increased rate of sea level rise.
Posted by Glenn McGrew on November 2,2010 | 06:32 AM
Tom
NASA and Wikipedia and most place I visit say 3mm/year.
Steve
Posted by Steve Case on July 12,2010 | 07:06 PM
That "bald cyprus" being planted is a very rare tree, but with wondrous powers to stem ocean rise and land subsidence. It is much better than the standard everyday bald cypress.
Obviously the 6-foot sea level rise will not come as an order-of-magnitude increase in the annual rate of sea level rise. It will come as one or two sudden jumps right at the end of the century.
I think these folks are doing a pretty good job at restoration of the area. Too bad someone thought putting out a propaganda piece on global warming would jazz it up.
Posted by Bob Greene on July 7,2010 | 09:34 AM
I grew up idolizing the Smithsonian. What a shame to see it reduced to peddling this global warming rubbish.
Posted by Bob D on July 7,2010 | 04:01 AM
Since 2006, sea level has risen at the rate of 3mm per DECADE, not per year, as recorded by NASA's Jason satellite data. A look at "Toucan Equations" (Google it), section 2 and 11 through 16 gives you a broader look at the process.
The popular "2 to 4 feet" by the end of this century will be looked at utter foolishness within a decade. It is best to leave that bandwagon sooner rather then later.
Posted by Tom Wysmuller on July 6,2010 | 06:42 PM
The article said:
"In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted seven inches to two feet of global sea-level rise by 2100. Some scientists, however, think it will be more like six feet."
In order for sea level to rise to 6 feet about (1.83 meters) in 100 years, the rate would have to increase from the current 3 mm/yr to over 18 mm/yr starting right now in order to attain that level. Obviously that's not going to happen. If over 100 years sea level were to steadily increase in rate by a little over 0.3mm/yr that is 3mm/yr in 2000 and 3.3026mm/yr in 2001 and 3.6052mm/yr in 2002 and so on, by 2100 sea level will have gone up about 1.83 meters and in that last year, 2099, it will have to have been rising at a rate of over 33 mm/year or better than 10 times the rate it is today.
The IPCC tells us most of the rise will come from thermal expansion with additional rise from land ice and scaled-up ice sheet discharge. Where is the energy going to come from 100 years from now to heat all the ocean water and melt all that ice to achieve a 33mm/yr rise? That's over 10 times today's rate. Where's that energy going to come from?
Posted by Steve Case on July 6,2010 | 03:17 PM
It's "bald cypress," not "bald Cyprus."
The writer got it wrong in the text and the caption writer may not have known better. One is left with a certain disappointment in the editorial cycle if nothing else.
Posted by David Draper on July 6,2010 | 10:29 AM
The seas will rise 32 inches? Where does all that water come from? Sea ice melting won't raise the sea level, the amount of frozen water on land doesn't seem sufficient. It's claims like this that generate doubts about global warming.
Posted by Gerald Hogan on July 4,2010 | 12:41 PM