If global warming is reality wouldn't we see a rise in sea level?

Question

just curious...I'm not a skeptic or convinced...only concerned.

Answer 1

I expect you would see the rate of rise increase above the 1.8mm that it's been for the last 100 years.  That's just not happening though, so maybe the Earth isn't going through significant man made warming.

There are some islands which alarmists like to point out are disapearing.  They have sunk, the water hasn't risen enough to affect them.

Answer 2

Uncertainty describes it best. This study suggest there may be a decrease in sea levels.

Answer 3

check out the maps in the beginning of this page ,they show the projected levels,http://byderule.multiply.com/journal/ite...

and this one shows the places that have risen so far,http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/glo...

this video talks in detail about rising sea levels

http://multiply.com/gi/ecowellness:video...

Answer 4

Sea levels are definitely on the rise (the effects are just not so significant yet). In fact, residents on some of the Pacific Islands have already been asked to move out by local governments, for when the sea level rises to a certain amount, those islands would be completely submerged.

Answer 5

It could be that the increase in evaporation is 'hiding' the extent of the rise. There are other predicted signs of AGW that are happening. Look at the increase in severe and freaky weather this year. Here in the N.W. ,we have had a very unusual spring and summer. The ever increasing parameters of severe weather records is a clear signal that the climate is under going abrupt change!  

Answer 6

We would, and we are.

Answer 7

The Maldives are sinking:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/39...

Kiribati is sinking:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008...

So is Bangladesh:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/...

Answer 8

Only if all the glacial ice were to completely melt, could there be any rise in sea levels.

If the Arctic ice completely melted (which it has done in the past), would have no impact on sea levels, since the ice has already displaced the the same volume of water that it would create once it returns to it's liquid state.

If all of Antarctic ice were to melt, there may actually be a measurable rise, although this is never going to happen unless a major volcanic explosion were to occur.

Although I do not know how much water is actually locked up in the Antarctic ice, I do believe that any rise would be much closer to 6 mm, rather than the 6 meters that the 'doomsday soothsayers' predict.

There is really no way of measuring sea level rises, since there is no fixed reference point from which to measure from.

The reason is that all land masses are in constant motion, and dip and lift over time.

Some people will point to one area as 'proof' of sea level rise, while ignoring other areas which seem to show the sea receding.

A good example, which grovesmuk points out is the south coast of the UK is actually showing signs of a sea level rise while the sea seems to be in recession in the north of the UK.

This indicates that the land mass is currently dipping in the south and lifting in the north.

There is really no reason to be concerned about something which occurs naturally and we have no control over anyway.

If people would actually learn some 'basic science', they would soon realize what a scam this really is all about!

Answer 9

Firstly you need to understand that sea rise is mainly caused by thermal expansion, this occurs when the sea warms. The sea is a huge heat sink and takes typcially around 800 years to respond to an increase in temperature and can have a memory of up to 10,000 years.

So even if the sea is rising it will most likely have been caused by a previous historic warm period and is not driven by current temperatures. Current measuremets have shown a small increases over the last few decades, but the most accurate tide gauges actually show little change or small decreases.

Secondly the images of sea ice melting we are often shown as evidence of climate change is caused by warm sea temperatures from a previous warm period not just current temperatures (it has been warmer than to day many times in the past) or the naturally occuring spring thaw and as sea ice displaces its own weight like ice cubes in a glass this melting does not directly increase sea levels.

Land ice could potentially raise sea levels if it melted as it has not displaced any sea water, if the south pole were to completely melt as is believed to have occurred in the past the sea could rise up to 6 metres. However, the warmest temperature recorded in recent years is -6 degrees so i wouldnt worry about this too much plus any melting could take millenia. All other sources of land ice such as greenland, glaciers etc... are estimated to account for approximately 5mm of sea rise if they melted.

Some sea rise is also accountable to the land sinking, for example the southwest peninsula of england is believed to be sinking at a rate of 1mm/yr.

Current scientific evidence shows that the sun drives the climate and not co2 (shocking that the sun is involved!) and global mean temperature have been falling for the last few years, sea ice has increased and based on solar activity many scientists are predicting a cooling period combined with falling sea temperatures which would certainly lead to a drop in sea levels.

Just remember in the late 70's scientist were predicting an ice age based on temperature records and they got it wrong so there is no reason we are right now either, and the small change in sea level just demonstrates that point.

An excellent "non-alarmist" documentary which explains changes to sea level and current scientific belief is "the global warming swindle" (2007) which is free to view on Yahoo videos.  

Answer 10

If I remember correctly the IPCC put the sea rise figure since 1900 at ~6in which is pretty close to the figures listed here.

Answer 11

Global warming is the increase in the average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century, and its projected continuation.

The average global air temperature near the Earth's surface increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 100 years ending in 2005.[1] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations"[1] via an enhanced greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.[2][3]

These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science,[4] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[5][6][7] While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[9][10]

Climate model projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that average global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the twenty-first century.[1] This range of values results from the use of differing scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions as well as models with differing climate sensitivity. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming and sea level rise are expected to continue for more than a thousand years even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized. The delay in reaching equilibrium is a result of the large heat capacity of the oceans.[1]

Increasing global temperature is expected to cause sea level to rise, an increase in the intensity of extreme weather events, and significant changes to the amount and pattern of precipitation. Other expected effects of global warming include changes in agricultural yields, modifications of trade routes, glacier retreat, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors.

Remaining scientific uncertainties include the amount of warming expected in the future, and how warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but there is ongoing political and public debate worldwide regarding what, if any, action should be taken to reduce or reverse future warming or to adapt to its expected consequences.

Answer 12

Global warming is indeed real and has been documented with ice cores dating back tens of thousands of years.

What is NOT real is the quackery that humans caused (or can even affect) global warming.

The scare tactics being perpetrated upon us are only a money/power grab scheme by bottom-feeder politicians accompanied by their so-easily-led sheeple who take their prattle, even their movies, as hard science

.

To find that my statement above is true, follow the money. See just who it is who will profit from the carbon offset, carbon tax, & etc.

Here is truth about global warming:

Global warming is one-half of the climatic cycle of warming and cooling.

The earth's mean temperature cycles around the freezing point of water.

This is a completely natural phenomenon which has been going on since there has been water on this planet. It is driven by the sun.

Our planet is currently emerging from a 'mini ice age', so is

becoming warmer and may return to the point at which Greenland is again usable as farmland (as it has been in recorded history).

As the polar ice caps decrease, the amount of fresh water mixing with oceanic water will slow and perhaps stop the thermohaline cycle (the oceanic heat 'conveyor' which, among other things, keeps the U.S. east coast warm).

When this cycle slows/stops, the planet will cool again and begin to enter another ice age.

It's been happening for millions of years.

The worrisome and brutal predictions of drastic climate effects are based on computer models, NOT CLIMATE HISTORY.

As you probably know, computer models are not the most reliable of sources, especially when used to 'predict' chaotic systems such as weather.

Global warming/cooling, AKA 'climate change':

Humans did not cause it.

Humans cannot stop it.

Answer 13

The sea levels are not rising any more than normal (about 1.8mm per year).

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/20...

Pacific Islands are not being swamped by rising seas. Kiribati and Funafuti are fine. If you want to visit Funafuti... here’s the detail

http://www.tripadvisor.ie/Tourism-g29448...

If you want to visit Kiribati... http://www.kiribatiholidays.com/

The issue with Carteret Island is not that the sea is rising, but that Carteret is sinking. http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stori...

I live in the South Pacific, and when I was in Kiribati last Feb it was definitely as much above sea level as before.

London has been sinking for over 100 years. This is because it is built on clay and the whole city has become hard paved. This causes the clay to dry out and shrink. The Thames Barriers were built before Global Warming was 'discovered'. The Dutch beat global warming by 300 years.

Bangladesh is also not disappearing into the sea. In fact it’s getting bigger. As the water carried from the Himalayas slows in the delta it deposits silt, and the land mass is increasing.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/banglade...

All is well. don't panic

Answer 14

We won't see a rise in seal levels because we're currently not experiencing it.You should have heard of news about floods in other countries,these countries have low-rise lands which causes them to get floods easily.Because we're living in a fortunate places,that's why we don't experiencing floods.

If global warming gets worse,the ice in artic will melt rapidly fast,no homes for polar bears & penguins and floods for us.We won't want that to happen right?

Answer 15

Er, yes...

Which is why some Pacific islands are being swamped and have become uninhabitable (google Funafti, Kiribati & Carteret islands for some examples). Cateret for example, has now been evacuated due to rising sea levels creating (according to the UN), the world's first "climate change refugees" - http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?Repo...

Other low-lying nations (e.g. Maldives) are getting concerned while more developed nations are getting prepared as they see have already experienced higher storm surges and higher tides (e.g. UK new flood control and having to replace the Thames flood barrier decades earlier than expected or the Netherlands experimenting with 'floating' houses).

Finally, non-island nations, especially LEDC ones such as Bangladesh are seeing greater flooding, ground water becoming saline and other factors related to higher sea levels reducing agricultural yields and increasing the extent, duration and severity of floods.

Don't forget that the changes (temperature, CO2 concentration, sea levels) are quite small to human senses (1 degree, 180ppm, 1cm) but when viewed from a planetary basis, huge (it takes a lot of added water to raise ALL of the planet's oceans by 1cm!)

Edit to bob326:

I have seen skeptics attack wikipedia a lot as a source of info. Personally, I don't think it is that bad but one should be careful of using it as 100% reliable.

I don't want to get into a game of "my source is better than yours" but, to be fair to the others, let's just make the sources clear so they can make up their own minds:

My source is IRIN. the Integrated Regional Information Networks which is part of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Basically, the UN's news office. As the UN has been charged by all countries to watch out for threats to people - including refugees (UNHCR) - when they call a group of people "The world's first climate change refugees", I take that seriously.

Furthermore, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the UN University Institute for Environment and Human Security Section (UNU-EHS) warn that low-lying coastal areas contain 10% of the world’s population (75% of whom arein Asia). Bangladesh could "lose up to one-fifth of its surface area if the sea level rises by one metre".

Wikipedia cites one newspaper (Sydney Morning Herald) article to justify the quote you make and even there the idea that it is dynamite fishing is qualified as "may" & "could" and is the opinion of one man (albeit a UN rep).

I do agree with you that we need to look at both sides and no doubt in the case of Cateret Islands, as in most places, there are a variety of factors at work.

However, the question asked about real world impact of rising sea levels; AGW may not be the only reason that the islanders are losing their homec but it is a significant, if not primary reason.

The other reasons were not germane to the question being asked hence I didn't mention them.

As for DaveH, saying an island is 'sinking' is being disingenous - what exactly is the definition here? 'Sinking' means 'going under water' - it doesn't differentiate between 'because the land is moving down' and 'because the sea is moving up'. However, the link you provide does, it says:

"It probably is because of the effects of the greenhouse [effect]."

Answer 16

Adam C,

Here is what Wikipedia says about the Carteret Islands:

"Paul Tobasi, the atolls' district manager with PNG's Bougainville province, and many other environmental groups[who?] have suggested that the flooding is the result of sea-level rise associated with global warming. He also stated that small tidal waves were becoming more frequent.[4]

The Carteret islands likely consist of a base of coral that sits atop an extinct volcanic mount. In the usual geological course of events first proposed by Charles Darwin, such islands eventually subside due to weathering and erosion, as well as isostatic adjustments of the sea floor. It has also been speculated that dynamite fishing[4] in the Carterets such as occurred in the island during the prolonged Bouganville conflict may be contributing to the increased inundation. Coral reefs buffer against wave and tidal action, and so their degradation may increase an island's level of exposure to those forces. Another suggestion is that tectonic movement may be causing the gradual subsidence of the atoll"

Too bad you and your source only provide one side of the story.

-------

Edit:

Lets go through your post, Adam

"I have seen skeptics attack wikipedia a lot as a source of info. "

Irrelevant, as I never have.

"However, the question asked about real world impact of rising sea levels; AGW may not be the only reason that the islanders are losing their homec but it is a significant, if not primary reason."

Why? Your source provides no evidence of this. The only problem with this is that the Carteret Islands are only a short distance from Bougainville where no such sea level rise has been reported. Moreover, the area is only 500km from some very serious recent volcanic activity at Rabaul and form part of an active volcanic chain through the Solomon Islands. Furthermore, an island in the Solomons about 200km away (measuring about 6km x 12km) actually rose up by about three meters. What does this tell us? That there are many factors at work.

In fact, it was Charles Darwin who first proposed the life cycle of such islands: Carteret sits atop an extinct volcano, and in the normal course of events, such islands eventually subside simply due to the underlying volcanic rock being worn away and not replenished. The Carteret islands are a classic example of such coral islands in their final stage of existence.

Finally, another theory for the inundation of the Carteret Islands is that the movement of tectonic plates could be responsible. The islands lie in one of the most complex tectonic areas of the earth. They sit next to a plate convergence zone at the boundary of the Pacific Plate, Indo-Australian Plate, and South Bismark Plate on a subduction zone next to the New Hebrides Trench (Bougainville Trench), where the earth's crust is disappearing.

And of course, as Carteret "sinks", the islands become more susceptible to storms and the tides.

So, it is likely the rise in sea level is a reason for the Carteret inundation, but to what extent it is difficult to tell.

------------

Edit2:

"The other reasons were not germane to the question being asked hence I didn't mention them."

Regardless, you were being disingenuous when you said this:

"Cateret for example, has now been evacuated due to rising sea levels creating (according to the UN), the world's first "climate change refugees"

Answer 17

Yes we are seeing a rise in sea level but not too much it is not as bad as they say it is