OK sea levels WILL rise - fact?

Question

wether or not you are a 'human induced global warming' sceptic or not do you accept the world is getting hotter, i think you do as you say its part of a natural cycle.

Why then do people not see the problems especially with regards to low lying cities hundreds of millions of people will be displaced, cities like miami, new york, amsterdam, bejing and tokyo and lots of others in asia will all be under serious threat from the sea. Also why bother rebuilding New orleans it will obviousl come under attack again if not from the sea then another hurricane.

Isn't that why houston was moved or located inland to prevent such problems?

Answer 1

Sea levels have risen at the rate of approximately 1 inch every 15 years for the past century. At present, there is no evidence to suggest that this rate is going to increase. I've heard people suggest that the rate may more than double over the next century. 'Ian B', above, even suggests a rise of 7m if the Greenland icecap melts. Well, I'll believe it when I see it.

So, the answer to your question is a resounding YES, it is, indeed, a fact.

However, I'm not so sure I agree with the conclusions you draw, based on this fact. As soon as anyone starts scaremongering, I immediately start rolling my eyes. "...hundreds of millions of people will be displaced..." Mmmmmm? So, they couldn't simply build up these cities' costal defences then? The Netherlands have very successfully reclaimed large areas from the sea. I don't see why we can't use the same techniques to protect existing cities.

And New Orleans was nothing to do with sea level rises. The defences were only ever designed to withstand a category 3 hurricane. Sooner or later a category 4 or 5 hurricane was bound to hit - it was a disaster waiting to happen.



Hello again ftm_poolshark! Do I see the word "catastrophic" in your post again? LOL And you also say

"the real problem is the speed of change and that it's accelerating"

Oh! So that'll be catastrophic's "bedfellow qualifier" - "rapid" rearing its ugly head! LOL

For those who have no idea what I'm talking about, I'm referring to this... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/6115644.stm

Generally speaking, anyone who uses such scaremongering terms should be ignored, as they are simply attempting to scare the gullible public into jumping onto the global warming alarmist bandwagon by using the emotional language of fear.

Here is a very interesting speech by Michael Crichton that I highly recommend... http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html

Here's a quote...

******************

"...I discovered... that attempts to provoke fear tended to employ a certain kind of stereotypic, intense language. For example, here is a climate quote:

WE MUST DEAL WITH CLIMATE CHANGE NOW!
"We simply cannot afford to gamble... by ignoring it. We cannot risk inaction. Those scientists who say we are merely entering a period of climatic instability are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate could soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored."

Familiar language, isn’t it? But it’s not about global warming, it’s about global cooling. Fear of a new ice age. Anybody here worried about a new ice age? Anybody upset we didn’t act now, back then, to stockpile food and do all the other things we were warned we had to do?"

************************

Now, I'm not quoting that to suggest the old sceptic's poly of "Scientists predicted an ice age in the 70s and they were wrong, so we should ignore them now." What I *am* saying is, look at the language. It's exactly the same, isn't it. They were trying to scare us into action back then and some people *are* using the same language to try to scare us into action now.

Today, they use other tactics too. For example, you've probably heard that they are trying to get the animal lovers on-side by telling us that all the polar bears are dying due to global warming. Really? Have a read... http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Taylor/last_stand_of_our_wild_polar_bears.html

A quote...

"It is entirely appropriate to be concerned about climate change, but it is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria."

"Media-assisted hysteria" - Hmmm? Or to put it another way - don't believe the hype!

One of the facts that keeps me a sceptic about the alleged "horrors" of "catastrophic" global warming is the Medieval Warm Period. If it was up to 3°C warmer then than it is now, and there was no "catastrophe", then is there any need to be worrying now?

And this leads me to another reason why I'm a sceptic. Your final link takes us to a version of the IPCC's infamous "hockey stick" graph. Now, have another look at it, taking into account what I've just said, in the previous paragraph, about the Medieval Warm Period. This happened, between about 1100 & 1300, and was up to 3°C warmer than today. So... think there's anything missing from your graph? That's right, it's not there, is it? Why? Because the IPCC put the data about the Medieval Warm Period into a folder labelled "Censored Data" and deleted it from the graph. So, in a nutshell, the graph is a lie! I feel that anyone who lies to support their point of view, should be ignored.

Finally, have a few links to read at your leisure...

Christopher Monckton's take on global warming....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nwarm05.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/12/nclim12.xml&page=1

And Al Gore wrote a letter to challenge these articles. Here is Monckton's response
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf

Lots of reading there. Enjoy. :)

Answer 2

Correction, global warming will occur, that is accepted by most scientists. But the question about a significant rise in sea levels is still up for debate.

Sea levels rise because of melting icecaps in the polar regions and elsewhere. BUT the sea levels will fall if increased evaporation results in more snow accumulating on the ice caps (faster than it melts). The increased evaporation caused by global warming will certainly cause more snowfall in many places. The unknown is which will turn out to be the bigger factor in the future.

The majority of scientists believe the sea levels will rise, but some models predict a fall. With such uncertainty it is difficult to justify such a thing as moving a city.

Answer 3

Sea levels will rise by 0 meters if the Ice at the North pole melts.
They'll rise by 7 meters if the ice on Greenland melts.
Most major cities are at the estury of main river. So this will have quite a big impact.
Not least on Belgium.

Sea levels will rise by a huge amount in the ice on Antarctica melts.

If that happens, all coast cities will be under water.
The vast majority of the towns and villages surrounding those cities will be affected also. Depening on the extent of the sea level rise.

The problem is humanity.

The world over, people are looking out for number one. And even on an international basis, countries are looking out for number one.

The world knows that the effects of global warming and our speeding up of it, cannot be slowed unless the USA and China jumps on board the green ship.

But both are too worried about money to do anything about it.
And thats the way it goes.

Answer 4

Houston is only about 50 feet above sea level. There is no indication that the coastal areas will be flooded. right now,sea level is rising at 3 mm per year according to the latest satellite measurements as compared to a rise of 120 meters since the ice age.. IF anything gets flooded it will take a long time. By the way, the temperature has gone up 1 degree in the last 125 years. Too much media hype has everybody acting like we'll all be doing the backstroke in 10 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

Answer 5

Take a look at this site from the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. It'll answer all your questions.

http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/6345050%20Hot%20&%20Cold%20Media.pdf

Edit:
I see ftm is following me around again. He just loves to chase me around telling everyone what I'm doing. I don't know why, but he does the same thing every day. His temperature data is from the northern hemisphere. This is GLOBAL warming not northern hemisphere warming and I'm not pooh poohing anything, I'm just showing where you can go to get the some facts in this matter and allowing readers to make up their own minds if it's true or not. Just go to the sites I mentioned and it will answer all the global warming questions you have. Yes, even ftm will learn something. He thinks he knows everything already, but I'll bet even he could learn a thing or two.

Here's an excerpt from ftm's wipikpedia site talking about Senator Inhofe: "In a July 28, 2003 Senate speech, he offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation's top climate scientists." So the very site he uses to discredit my source discredits him.

Answer 6

SERIOUS NOW.......I like to speak through a microphone and into a loudspeaker and tell every one that the world is getting hotter by the means of global warming. The ice caps and icebergs are melting at a rapid rate and is falling into the sea and has caused the level of the sea to rise. All you people that are living in low lying positions should move to a higher and safer position. You will be flooded out and lose your property They shout back at you "I DONT BELIEVE YOU" Some people are like that....they dont believe that anything like that can happen. Others refuse to budge because they have lived there all their lives. But there is the truth.....the sea has got higher. In the US western states how often do they get tornados People that lived near a inactive volcano would never believe that the volcano would erupt again......but it did.. .

Answer 7

The problem is that the human race is primarily a reactionary group as a whole. We only deal with problems as they come up. Why would you build a city on a swamp in a hurricane prone area in the first place? Why would you live there? Why do people build houses on the Mississippi river delta and then complain when they are flooded by the river? It is because we believe we are in control of this planet when we really are only lucky guests.

Answer 8

I think most people see the problem, but not many, if any, know what to do about it. What would you suggest?. All go out and buy small cars? stop buying refrigerators? Stop using electric lights and heating? stop using gas boilers and appliances? Or what?. Perhaps we should all just freeze to death, that would solve the problem. But of course global warming is all the consumers fault. So leave it all to us consumers, to decide what we are going to do about it. I believe the answer lies in free energy devises, but they are few and far between. They are using some wind turbines to generate electricity, but its only a very small amount as yet.

Answer 9

Actually, Houston was already inland when Galveston was destroyed by the famous hurricane. Before the hurricane, Galv was bigger and richer than Hous. By the time Galv recovered, along with the oil discovered in the area by companies which chose to be based in Hous, they were second string.
Sure there are lots of problems with living by the seashore. But it looks nice and now people in Florida are surprised that insurance to protect their investment is costly.

Answer 10

its the normal thing that humans do they ignore disaster untill it comes up and bites them on the rear. they know that its happening but no one wants to say 'right you 50 million people will have to move here and then rebuild homes and businesses'. it would cause a global breakdown that would financially bankrupt the world. its more or less impossible to do. if you look at it as moving the impossible you may get an idea. where would you move to. i look at britain and the size of london. now where else could you put it? exactly there is no more space for large cities.