Can Sea Level Rise be Different in Different Parts of the Pacific ?
I see that the UN is getting involved in sea level rise problems in
South Pacific Islands.
Global Warming is getting the blame and other nations are getting the
blame for that.
So the UN thinks other nations must pay compensation.

Now all this is despite Auckland Universities Costal Institute saying
NO, Pacific Islands are getting bigger.
Also no one has pointed out that if the ocean is rising in say the
Solomon Islands then there must be a very strong current running
towards Australia as that would be downhill all the way.
Another solution is that Islands are sinking since the Aukland Uni survey.
About the only conclusion possible is that this is another UN Con !

Rise in sea level is attributable to displacement both, naturally & man-made. Some Islands do grow however, on average they subside with additional displacement. There are 20 or perhaps even more billion tonnes of shipping that cause sea level to rise by a few mm. It may or may not have been investigated or known but the extraction of oil & gas could possibly absorb some water volume.
Global Warming i.e. melting glaciers causes insignificant rise in sea level as none of the hundreds of years old tide marks around the World are inundated. At least I've never read of any. Hysterics & the exploitation of hysterics by integrity-devoid Academia cause imagined rise in sea level.

Seas have been rising since the end of the last ice age. There are many a Roman ruin sitting under 2 meters of water, gobbled up by the rising seas. Of course the zealots say its all caused by CO2 but there weren't all that many SUV's in Roman times - probably caused by burning Christians.

Most Pacific Islands are coral outcrops and they rise with the rising seas. So places like Tuvalu are in fact gaining in size as the seas rise. But they don't want that to be true and therefore the evidence for that is rarely mentioned.

Still who can blame them - its all part of the cargo cult mentality that these people have been taught for the past 10 generations. Ask for handouts and complain that what's given isn't enough. The fact is that, even if CO2 is causing them to sink, Australia can do precisely nothing about it. If we stopped burning everything tomorrow the difference in sea levels by 2100 would be so small as to immeasurable.

If they want to complain about sea level rise and want to blame it on CO2, go talk to the Chinese.

Land subsidence is always overlooked too !

mhaze,

The rate of sea level rise in the past century has been significantly faster than the average since the last ice age.

Claiming that Roman ruins are underwater because of the gradual sea level rise since the last ice age is daft. It ignores the acceleration in sea level rise caused by the warming over the last 100 years. The Roman ruins now underwater is more a result of land subsidence and tectonic activity.

http://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/?intent=121

Some islands gain land in some areas due to sediment deposition and others are losing land due to erosion, storm surges, and the rise in sea levels outpacing coral growth. Tuvalu is indeed facing serious threats from rising seas, and the evidence of land loss and increased flooding is well-documented.

http://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1

Of course immediate action by one country alone won't stop sea level rise, but coordinated global efforts can slow the rate of increase and mitigate the worst effects. The claim that stopping CO2 emissions would have an "immeasurable" effect by 2100 is incorrect.

http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2923

Measurements show that global sea levels have risen by approximately 21–24 centimetres since 1880. A third of that rise has occurred in just the last 25 years.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/22/10/2008jcli2554.1.xml

Blaming China is defeatist and ignores the fact that climate change requires global solutions. China’s heavy investing in renewable energy and electric vehicles shows that they are positioning themselves to dominate the green economy, anyway. So, we risk economic stagnation and missed opportunities if we lag behind.

http://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.427

There are no hysterics. The rise is a measurable and observable phenomenon corroborated by satellite data, tide gauges, and hundreds of field studies.

Or is that just what "they" WANT you to believe?

People are the Planet's worst enemy, especially those stupid selfish who always want others to do what they themselves should be doing !

The supposed acceleration in sea level rises in the last century is postulated rather than proven. The data is so bad that anyone claiming to know within a few millimetres what that rise is, is simply lying or delusional.

Equally the claim that all Roman ruins are that are underwater are due to subsidence is fanciful. What are the chances that the Romans built so much in land that was about to slip under the waves.

A few graphs that may be of interest to those who think the world was all hunky-dory until 1900....

http://tiny.cc/hr4kzz
http://tiny.cc/mr4kzz
http://tiny.cc/pr4kzz

But whether the seas are rising and the speed of it is really beside the point. The issue is that these Pacific Islands aren't fixed in size but add area when the seas rise because they are primarily coral outcrops. Seas rise, more debris is added to their shores and they remain effectively unaffected. Buts that's not to say that land use changes won't affect them or that the changes caused by land use change gets blamed (incorrectly) on sea level rises.

http://www.sciencealert.com/pacific-island-nation-expected-to-sink-is-getting-bigger

And that doesn't just apply to Tuvalu...
http://tiny.cc/3t4kzz

"Blaming China".
I wasn't blaming China. I was simply pointing out that if people want to blame sea level rise on CO2 then they should look at China since it is by far the main source of atmospheric CO2 these days. Personally I don't think CO2 is to blame and have no problem with China belching out as much CO2 as they need to lift living standards and wish we would do likewise.

mhaze,

The graphs and articles you linked to don’t don’t refute the broader modern sea level rise or its causes.

The post-glacial and Holocene sea level rise show that while sea levels rose dramatically after the last ice age, they stabilised for thousands of years during the Holocene. The recent spike in sea level rise at the end of the second graph is anomalous and correlates with the industrial era, discrediting the argument that current rises are just part of a natural cycle.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level

The third graph shows stable sea levels until around 1900, after which there's a sharp rise. This rise aligns with industrialisation and CO2 emissions, supporting the idea that recent sea level rise is largely driven by human factors, not natural variability.

http://www.ipcc.ch/srocc

The articles you linked acknowledge that the islands discussed are exceptions for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Even in Tuvalu, the article notes the significant risks that saltwater intrusion and erosion pose. These examples don’t negate the threats posed by rising sea levels globally, either.

http://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2019.00779/full.

Don't get too precious with my wording. Whether you were blaming China or missing the bigger picture by pointing to their CO2 emissions, my point remains.

Anyway, thanks for the examples of how climate change deniers cherry-pick data and are incapable of interpreting it even when they don't.

"The third graph shows stable sea levels until around 1900, after which there's a sharp rise."

Well it doesn't but its getting to the point where its clear that mere evidence is anathema to you.
Firstly it shows sea levels rising and falling throughout the period - not stable.
Secondly it shows sea levels in the current period returning to levels that applied at the end of the Roman Warm Period.
Third it shows sea levels rising from the mid 19th century at a time when man's CO2 output was way too small to have any effect on climate as even the (flawed) models show. So why did they rise from 1850. Could it have been natural fluctuations. Oh no say the climate flying-monkeys, its gotta be caused by man.

"The articles you linked acknowledge that the islands discussed are exceptions for the reasons I mentioned earlier".

That's a complete fabrication. Indeed they talk about checking 1000 islands.

"Even in Tuvalu, the article notes the significant risks that saltwater intrusion and erosion pose"
Saltwater intrusion has long been known to have been caused by the overuse of fresh water supplies. Its all to do with the structure of these coral islands and how fresh water is trapped. I'd go into further explanation but well....its JD.

"Don't get too precious with my wording"

Translation....OK you got me. Let's not mention it again.

" climate change deniers cherry-pick data"

1. Not a denier. I'd explain it but well... its JD.
2. Cherry-pick seems to be your go to reason to reject anything you don't want to be true. Oh, he's showing me facts I don't want to be true....it must be cherry-picked.

Don't worry. I'm quite used to seeing that type of thinking over the last coupla decades from people who've bought the scar without ever having understood the facts.

mhaze,

It appears I’m giving you far too much credit that you cannot be trusted to discuss climate change honestly so let my try a different approach:

//Firstly [the graph] shows sea levels rising and falling throughout the period - not stable.//

Yes, the graph does show minor fluctuations in sea levels over the last 2,000 years, which is expected due to natural variability, but the overall trend during this period was relatively stable when compared to the sharp and sustained rise observed since the late 19th century. The main difference is the rate and magnitude of the recent rise, which is significantly higher than the fluctuations seen before. This recent change aligns closely with the onset of large-scale industrial activity and the resulting increase in CO2.

//Secondly it shows sea levels in the current period returning to levels that applied at the end of the Roman Warm Period.//

You’re missing the broader context. The Roman Warm Period was a time of natural climatic variability, but the sea level changes during that time were gradual and occurred over centuries. The current sea level rise is happening at a much faster rate, which is unprecedented in the context of the past two millennia. The rapidity of the current rise is what makes it concerning and links it to human activity. The comparison to the Roman Warm Period overlooks the fact that the drivers behind today's changes are fundamentally different.

//Third it shows sea levels rising from the mid 19th century at a time when man's CO2 output was way too small to have any effect on climate as even the (flawed) models show. So why did they rise from 1850. Could it have been natural fluctuations.//

No, the acceleration of sea level rise starting in the 20th century, particularly after 1950, corresponds with a sharp increase in CO2 emissions from industrial activities. This acceleration is well-documented and exceeds what would be expected from natural fluctuations alone.

(Cont'd)

(Cont'd)

The rise that began in 1850 may have had natural components, but the continued and accelerated rise into the 20th and 21st centuries is strongly correlated with human-induced warming. This isn’t just speculation; it’s backed by extensive climate models and historical data.

//Indeed they talk about checking 1000 islands.//

So what? The studies themselves make it clear that the situation varies significantly across different islands, with some growing, some shrinking, and others facing new challenges like saltwater intrusion and erosion.

The point is that these cases of island growth don't negate the broader risks posed by rising sea levels. The research doesn’t suggest that all islands are safe from rising seas - rather, it highlights the variability and the fact that many islands are still at risk. The studies you referenced are important for understanding this and were not written to be interpreted by dishonest deniers as evidence that sea level rise is not a serious global concern.

//Saltwater intrusion has long been known to have been caused by the overuse of fresh water supplies.//

Rising sea levels exacerbate saltwater intrusion by increasing the pressure on these freshwater lenses, pushing saltwater further inland and contaminating wells and other freshwater sources. This is a well-documented effect of sea level rise and is happening alongside the issues caused by over-extraction of freshwater. Overuse is a significant factor, but the rising sea levels are making the situation worse.

You’re back to your tiresome old trick again of attempting to undermine your opponent’s credibility by making them look like some blundering clutz.

No, you didn’t “get” me. I was well aware that you denied the role of CO2 and would not therefore literally “blame” China - your politics ensures that this will always be the case, which is why you are a denier, not a sceptic. But will this matter? Not a chance. You’ll ride it for all it’s worth as an ad hominem to divert from the weakness of your arguments because the facts don’t support them.

Bye bye, mhaze. Get back to me when you're ready to discuss the data honestly.

John Daysh,
Wow, there'd have to be billions of Dollars worth in those studies. I'm trying to find out how much the sea level has risen since 1800 but can't find anything in those papers. So, I googled the question & found this;
Since 1800, global sea level has risen between 0.20 and 0.30 meters (8-12 inches) on average. During the preceding 3,000 years, scientists estimate that sea level was almost constant, rising at a rate of only 0.1 to 0.2 millimetres per year.
Before 1900 shipping tonnage was irrelevant but since WW2 it has increased immensely & that displacement would have to account for cm rather than mm.
Add to this land reclamation & land subsidence & it'll be into the decimetres. It's really self explaining ! The Planet's instability too constantly plays career-making parts in this !

to clarify, my comments start at -Before 1900 ..

Indyvidual,

Yes, global sea levels have risen about 0.20 to 0.30 metres since 1800, with a significant acceleration in the last century. This rise aligns closely with the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, rather than just natural variability.

The impact that shipping has on sea levels is miniscule. It contributes only fractions of millimetres - not centimetres. The main drivers of sea level rise are thermal expansion of seawater and the melting of land ice.

Land reclamation and subsidence are factors that only affect certain areas on a local level. They don’t explain the global rise. Subsidence worsens the effects of sea rise in specific regions, but the consistent rise worldwide is almost entirely due to climate change.

Natural instability and fluctuations play a role, but the global, consistent trend in sea level rise points clearly to human activity as the main cause.

Local factors like subsidence and land reclamation matter, but they don’t contradict or account for the broader global trends driven by climate change. But if you think you know better than the thousands of scientists who understand all of this, then write a paper citing your research and earn yourself a Nobel prize.

Struth, its like trying to hold rancid custard in one hand - it keeps leaking through because there is no substance.

JD starts of claiming the sea levels were "stable sea levels until around 1900". When I push back he immediately caves with "the graph does show minor fluctuations in sea levels over the last 2,000 years". Minor is in the eye of the beholder. (I wonder if the Dutch building the dykes around 1000AD thought it was minor?)

Then he looks at the graph and decides that the rise started around 1950. The actual authors of the paper containing the graph wrote..."Historic GSL rise began in the 19th century, and it is very likely (P>=; 0.93) that GSL has risen over every 40-y interval since 1860 CE. " oops.

Then he claims that the " islands discussed are exceptions" and when I point out that they'd looked at 1000 islands, he say "So what?" and hurries to move off on a tangent. The fact is sea level change isn't affecting these islands. Or more exactly its one of many players. Islands grow and recede or do neither for all sorts of reasons. But the alarmists only want to look at those that recede or can be misconstrued as receding and then to blame it entirely on warming. When all the evidence, a mere fraction of which I've shown, doesn't support that at all.

What I find most interesting is that JD will happily throw ad hominems around like confetti, but as soon as someone looks sideways at him, gets all sooky.

Speaking of ad hominems..."you are a denier, not a sceptic."

To those who've bought the scare without having too much understanding of the data, everyone who isn't similarly alarmist is a denier. The fact is there are very few deniers as in people who deny climate change. But that'll be ignored.

Like most people who JD would call a denier, I don't disagree that the temperatures have been rising since the end of the Dalton Minimum. Equally I don't deny that man has played some role in the rise through gases like CO2 and methane. But I don't agree that all the rise was caused by man.

More importantly I don't agree that the rise has been dangerous for humankind or the planet, instead thinking it has been beneficial. I also don't agree with the alarmist claims that future rises will dangerous, instead thinking they'll be minor and probably beneficial.

Most importantly I don't think there's the slightest need right now to do anything about the recent rises. The monumental sums expended to fight a non-problem are among the greatest errors ever made by human society (really western society because the rest of the world hasn't fallen for this malarkey). Instead I favour a no-regrets policy of climate mitigation.

mhaze,

It appears I was STILL giving you too much credit. I do like how you can’t address your comments to me, though. It’s a sure sign of cognitive dissonance and high anxiety in an online debate when someone instead speaks to an imagined audience.

You’re still cherry-picking data and interpreting it to fit your narrative, too, I see. It’s a hallmark of denialism.

Speaking of which, I’m not using the term “denier” as an insult. Snowflake. So, it’s not an ad hominem. I’m also addressing your claims at the same time, so there’s yet another level on which it’s not an ad hominem.

With that out of the way, let’s take a look at what you’ve honed in on while missing the bigger picture.

1. Sea level fluctuations vs. stability:

The minor fluctuations over the past 2,000 years were within a stable range. What matters is the overall trend, and the data is unequivocal: the rapid, sustained rise in sea levels post-1900 is unprecedented. This is not just a continuation of natural variability - this is a clear departure, driven by human activity. Comparing today’s rapid increase to historical fluctuations is like comparing a calm pond to a rising tide; the difference in scale and impact is enormous.

2. Timing of sea level rise:

Yes, the rise began in the 19th century, but the sharp acceleration post-1950 aligns with industrial activity and CO2 emissions. This acceleration is what’s alarming and clearly linked to human actions, not just natural variability.

Oops.

3. Island studies and sea level impact:

The fact that the study examined 1000 islands and found variability doesn’t change the reality that sea level rise is a significant threat. Yes, some islands are growing, but others are not, and many are facing serious challenges like erosion, saltwater intrusion, and reduced habitability. Cherry-picking examples of growth doesn’t negate the broader risks posed by rising seas. The exceptions you point to are just that - exceptions. The overall trend remains clear: sea level rise is a growing threat, exacerbated by climate change.

I await your next delicious cherries.

I await your next delicious cherries.
John Daysh,
The studies results data you provide sound as good as any millions of Taxpayers Dollars can produce.
My question is, how correct is this data ? You say shipping displacement (770,000,000 square kilometres ÷ 20 + billion tonnes artificial displacement) amounting to several mm is insignificant yet you use numbers like 0.1-0.2 mm of sea level rise over long periods & make them look significant.
Science is only as accurate as the continued flow of funding so far as I can see. If rising sea levels are such an imminent threat why don't scientists offer solutions rather than perpetual assured funding alarm ? Changing the climate ?

Microsoft and Google have given up on their net zero promises as their emissions increased by 29% and 50% respectively over the last 4 years. 96% of all companies who made wild statements about emissions are packing it in.

You see JD, if you're going to make the ASSERTION that I'm cherry-picking you need to show that there is overwhelming contrary data. But you don't. Instead you simply ASSERT that my information is cherry-picked and treat that as an established fact as you do with all your ASSERTIONS.

"The minor fluctuations over the past 2,000 years were within a stable range. "

And, according to the data I posted, current levels remain within that range.

"Yes, the rise began in the 19th century, "

Oh good. Glad you caught up after telling us it started in the mid 20th century.
BTW, the mid 20th century was a time of DECLINING temperatures. I wonder why, in your fantasy world, sea level rises suddenly started just as temperatures were falling.

Oh I suppose picking the mid 20th century was just cherry-picking, eh, JD?

Indyvidual,

Your claim regarding science and funding demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of both the peer-review process and funding.

Peer-review is a rigorous process and data must stand up to scrutiny regardless of where the money comes from. The vast majority of climate scientists agree on the causes and risks of climate change because the evidence is overwhelming, not because they are chasing funding. Furthermore, if it just came down to funding, there’d be plenty of papers arguing in the other direction given the trillions of dollars the fossil fuel industries have to play with.

So, again, if you think you know better than the thousands of scientists who understand all of this, then write a paper citing your research and earn yourself a Nobel prize.

The numbers like 0.1-0.2 mm per year over long periods are significant because they represent baseline natural variability. The reason shipping displacement is considered insignificant is because, compared to the vast volume of the world's oceans, even the total displacement by all shipping is a drop in the bucket. Sea level rise due to thermal expansion and melting ice is measured in centimetres and metres over time, far outstripping any contribution from ships.

Solutions are being worked on: from renewable energy development to carbon capture and reforestation. Scientists aren’t just running around like headless chooks sounding alarms, they’re also working on ways to mitigate and adapt to the changes.

mhaze,

I have shown that there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary by explaining the broader picture; some of which is discussed in the many links I’ve provided to scholarly papers. The overwhelming contrary data comes from a wide array of studies and global observations, not just isolated pieces of information like your cherry-picked facts.

There have been no assertions.

//And, according to the data I posted, current levels remain within that [stable] range.//

No, they don’t.

The current levels are not just within that range - they’re on an upward trajectory that’s accelerating beyond what we’ve seen in the past. The key issue isn’t whether current levels fall within historical extremes; it’s the unprecedented rate at which they’re rising, which strongly correlates with human activities.

//Glad you caught up after telling us it started in the mid 20th century.//

I didn’t say it started in the mid-20th century. Go back and read what I actually said.

//BTW, the mid 20th century was a time of DECLINING temperatures.//

The fact that temperatures temporarily declined mid-century (due to factors like aerosols) doesn’t contradict the overall warming trend or the continued rise in sea levels. The mid-20th century cooling is well-documented, but it was short-lived and doesn’t undermine the longer-term trend of rising global temperatures and sea levels.

That being said…

//Oh I suppose picking the mid 20th century was just cherry-picking, eh, JD?//

Correct! You’re getting better at this.

Delicious!

"//Oh I suppose picking the mid 20th century was just cherry-picking, eh, JD?//

Correct! You’re getting better at this."

I have to stop doing sarcasm.... it often goes over their head.

mhaze,

No, I got the sarcasm. I was responding to your sarcasm to with even more sarcasm to highlight the irony of the fact that you were indeed cherry-picking. Which meant the embarrassment that I was supposed to feel only left with yet more egg on your face.

Time for a little humility, perhaps?

"The fact that temperatures temporarily declined mid-century (due to factors like aerosols) doesn’t contradict the overall warming trend or the continued rise in sea levels. The mid-20th century cooling is well-documented, "

As usual you missed the point.
Your original assertion (they're always assertions) was that the sea levels rises accelerated after 1950 ("No, the acceleration of sea level rise starting in the 20th century, particularly after 1950") ( I add your actual words because you have a habit of denying what you wrote only a few days ago) but that was a time of cooling which continued until the mid 1970s. Quick go and read about - then you can pretend you knew it all along.

So if sea level rise accelerated at the very time temperatures were declining, that might suggest to the more logical among us that the two aren't directly linked

mhaze,

No, I understood the point. I like the “as usual,” though - as if not understanding were a habit of mine.

Nice touch!

The continued to rise in sea levels during the brief period of cooling doesn’t mean there's no connection between temperature and sea level rises; it simply means that there are many factors at play.

Even with a temporary surface cooling, the deeper parts of the oceans continued to warm because of the cumulative effect of warming during the decades prior. The oceans have a massive capacity to warm and store heat (think back to year 7 science). So, this continued warming, combined with the continued melting of ice, contributed to the ongoing rise in sea levels during that period.

You still following? Let me know if you need me to slow down.

The aerosols' cooling effect was temporary and mainly affected surface temperatures, not the underlying warming trend driven by greenhouse gases. Once the aerosol emissions decreased, the full impact of CO2-driven warming became more apparent, and the rate of rise in sea levels accelerated further.

So, to those of us who actually understand the data and feel no need to sort through it and cherry-pick, it’s as plain as the noses on our faces why the mid-century cooling isn't a problem for the link between temperature and sea level rise. All it shows is that the climate system is complex, with multiple interacting factors. But the broader trend (i.e. rising temperatures and rising seas) remains clear.

There is no contradiction. All this shows is how intricate (albeit robust) the connections between temperature and sea level rise really are.

What was that you were saying about assertions? Science isn't your forte, is it?

Scientists aren’t just running around like headless chooks sounding alarms ...
John Daysh,
Scientists do atomic blasts on land, sea & air. Scientists fly rockets into Space burning holes in the ozone layer, scientists introduce vermin to combat vermin but fail every time, scientists cause deaths & suffering to humans & animals, scientists invent equipment that leaves toxic waste, scientists build weapons for people to kill & maim each other, scientists do a lot more bad things than good. Most scientists get scientist salaries but never come up with any goods. Yes, a handful of scientists are switched on enough to forsee that not everything that can be done should be done. Much good has come from science but a lot more bad has also come from scientists engaged in science !

Do YOU obey the UN rules ?

Have sea levels changed much in the 18 days since this thread was started? Boring.