Posted: Apr 28, 2010 9:02 am
Macdoc wrote
It's of minor consequence in the short term, very serious consequence in the longer term.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/ ... sea-level/
Very interesting thank you. This is an area where the land is sinking according to the report that you have referenced. When that happens along a coast the sea encroaches. Coastal erosion affects some parts of England as well, especially along the east coast.
But that eroded land goes somewhere. In Sussex the cliffs are eroding but the coastal Roman and Medieval fortresses of Pevensey and Camber for example are now quite a distance from the coast because of deposition of silt.
I am not convinced that sea-level is rising in some parts of the world and not others. I don't doubt that there are some technical reasons for local differences but that has always been the case. Parts of northern Europe are currently rising because of isostatic adjustment after the last ice-age and this is evidenced locally by long term retreat of the sea. It has nothing to do with world sea-level.
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091216/ ... .1146.html
Also interesting thank you.
It says:
"The implications are disconcerting, says Clark. If the world warms up to levels comparable to those 125,000 years ago..."
So the world was quite naturally a lot warmer then that it is now. I wonder how that happened without human release of CO2?
Also:
"Some scientists think that we may already be committed to a future with higher seas than had been expected. "There could be a global warming tipping point beyond which many metres of sea level rise is inevitable unless global greenhouse-gas emissions are cut dramatically, and soon," warns Overpeck."
So for this climate scientist it's not 1 metre by 2100, it's not even 6 metres by 2100 it's 'many metres' although no time scale is quoted. How can all this be called a consensus? It's amazing how alarmist you can be provided you start the sentence with "There could be..."