Protagoras: You're still not getting it so I'll try again--

Let's assume that AGW is real and that what the article says is true, ie. sea levels will rise 2m over 100 years. With this hypothesis lets compare the resulting losses against losses caused by other catastrophic events. The important point that I'll try to plainly demonstrate is that the losses caused by sea-rise are non-existent in the big scheme of things due to the fact that it happens so slowly that people have more than enough time to react to it in a orderly, safe and controlled way. In otherwords, rising sea levels pose no real threat.

---EVENT--- : ---TIME TO RESPOND AFTER INITIAL WARNING SIGNS--- : ---LOSSES CAUSED---
1) Earthquake : Seconds to a couple of minutes : Extreme losses- many people die, most property lost. People don't have enough time to run to safety let alone save their property.
2) Bushfire : Minutes to hours : Heavy losses- very few people die, some small light important property saved (eg: photos, documents), pets saved but other animals lost. Most heavy/large mobile property lost, most fixed property (eg: buildings) lost
3) A new major dam : Years : Few losses (no economic loss overall)-- nobody dies, all mobile property saved, some important fixed structures saved but most fixed structures lost. However, even the though there are losses of buildings/other fixed structures, overall the economic gains caused by the new the dam outweigh the losses.
4) AGW caused sea-rise 2m/100years : Decades : Almost no losses of any sort (No loss overall)-- nobody dies, all mobile property saved, hardly any buildings/structure lost because they naturally decay before the rising tide gets to them. No loss overall because the economic activity that caused the tide-ride also leads to improvements in wealth, health and life style improvements that vastly outweigh any loss.

*Hopefully*, you now understand that rising-sea levels are not a problem.

Protagoras

It looks like he's at it again – strawman arguments and red herrings.

Following his logic (fallacy), research into rising sea levels should not be funded at all, let alone be associated with global warming or thermal expansion of sea water – how dare they!

Quite frankly, given some so called science writer’s comprehension of scientific papers is inversely proportional to his shoe size (imo), I wouldn’t be surprised if some so called ‘science writer’ thought Professor Zhou Qiulin (the "right, raving nutter") was implying the sea level over there was increasing by 15 metres a year.

If that be the case, perhaps the science writer should just stick to science fiction, he said his book is out next month :)

If glaciers can recede, so can the shoreline – albeit under a different mechanism. Do we stop funding those pesky glaciologists too?

Ummm, thinkabit, thinkabit.

Adapting to the consequences of a changing climate (human induced or not) will take decades.

When do you think we should start?

Colinsett

Actually, I HAVE read the CSIRO reports relating to Sea Level. I could find no discussion at all relating to tectonic movements affecting recorded results.

I have also done some google research on Subsidence Adelaide. You can do the same and will find that subsidence due to extraction of groundwater is recognised.

I might have missed some commentary where CSIRO HAS discussed the effects of land datum rise and fall on sea level results. It would be helpful if you could provide some references that refute the points I have made. Thank you in advance.

qanda: "Adapting to the consequences of a changing climate (human induced or not) will take decades.
When do you think we should start?"

Hmm, Just to fill you in on recent events (like the last, oh, I don't know, 200,000 years that you seemed to have missed)

WE HAVE ALREADY STARTED!!

Homo-sapiens started adapting to the consequences of changing climate from the very first time we evolved (ie, 200,000 years ago)!! Indeed, life on this planet has been adapting to the consequences of changing climate for about 3.7 BILLION years.

I hear your shouting, thinkabit - sorry to have offended.

If, just if ... sea levels do rise by say 80 cm, on average. What do you think that will do to, oh ... I don't know, say all the septic tanks that lie within that rise on the eastern sea-board of Australia.

I hope you can think a bit about what other things will be impacted by the consequences of a changing climate. Sure, there will be some good outcomes (in the short term) ... but in the long term, there will be very serious challenges. All I am saying is that we should start now - I don't see much substantive evidence of that, yet.

If we don't start to plan in a timely way (although I obviously agree that Man can adapt - when is the question, btw) then waiting till later maybe, just may be, too late ... in more ways than one.