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 !