bonmot,
I forgot to ask, is there any data which shows the seal level rise in the 50's-60's ? It must have been higher because we haven't had flooding like in those times in recent decades. I would not ay all be surprised to learn that Cairns is actually subsiding. Just think, Cairns is built on sand & mangrove swamp. Considering the weight of the city it wouldn't be that unreasonable to think so, or would it ?

No probs Individual,

@” Can't argue with a billions of dollars worth of budget”.

Precisely. But many do. Moreover, some naysayers want to withdraw funding and terminate some very important programs that will determine whether AGW is significant or just the biggest hoax ever perpetuated on man-kind.

If human activity has played a significant role (I think it has), I would like humanity to do whatever it takes to adapt to the inevitable changes that we will have to live with … AND try to avert or minimise behaviours that would exacerbate the situation, imho.

@ Nevertheless the graph shows a rise of three inches in our region which still is so minute & could possibly have a connection with the many quakes we had in the region lately.

Which graph indy? The first sea level graph shows about 200 mm (8 inches) from 1870 to 2000 from coastal tide gauges all over the world – not our region.

The second graph does show about 3 inches, but only since 1993 when the satellites first started monitoring. This graph also shows global mean sea level, not regional.

If you want to get an idea of regional sea level rise, you have to look at the coloured time series animation on the right. See the white and red bits? You’re looking at up to 5 inches near NE Qld since 1993.

Sure, there are uncertainties (in all measurements) and resolution is not perfect - but it's getting better all the time.

Look, you said “there are some things you need to give some thought (to) up front”. I assume you also mean not making up guff along the way, or not implying some very unlikely scenarios – but this is exactly what you are doing now.

Give some more thought to these starting points:

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

and

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

In other words indy, sea level change due to recent earthquakes is negligible.

Yes indy, people do measure land subsidence – those scientists study the stuff.

cont'd

Indy

Next you talk about the “weight of Cairns”. Mass does effect the dynamics, indy – but the weight of Cairns? If you want to talk about the mass of the Greenland ice sheet, sure – but please, give some thought or do some serious homework before you post. You are only confusing yourself and others.

Re: data from 50’s – 60’s? Have a good look at this web-site and the embedded links. Click the + signs.

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/index.html

This is also a good site, but more global and US:

http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/

Hope that helps

morganzola,
Saibai is commonly referred to as Club Mud which gets flooded at every King tide since the very first recordings, nothing unusual about that at all. The very strong Clan affiliation you refer to is really just a nicer word than prejudice & unwilling to help others in need. Councils are starting to consider strategies, good. Why can't we have strategies for up there ? Most homes in danger on the mainland are homes for which the owners have worked for & paid for unlike on Saibai, compensation therefore would be another better home provided on higher ground.

bonmot,
I went by the graph with the blue,yellow, red which went to 100 mm.
Human activity has the most impact no question. As for Greenland I'm led to belive it is on solid ground unlike our coastal settlements. A bit like Sydney. As far as I know Sydney has no rising sea level problems apart from people building right at sea level.
Sea level rising 3 mm/year lately that's 1 foot higher than now in 100 years. Hm yes, that will be a problem if we sit idle & don't make a move to higher ground. The Carbon Tax will certainly be of no use, better using the money to move & build on higher ground.

You shouldn't be too worried too much about "our coastal settlements" Indy - we (Oz) will be generally ok.

Sure, it will be an inconvenience to some - but we can adapt ... provided we start now. Afterall, adaptation will take time - town planning, infrastructure, inconvenience, etc. You can't move a nation's 'food bowl' or underground transport system overnight.

No Indy, I am talking about those 60 million people that will be seriously impacted by only that miniscule 59 mm (+/- due to uncertainty) sea level rise by 2100 projected only 5 years ago.

Yet you seem not to have comprehended 'global average'. Some areas will rise more, some less - look at the animation again.

In fact, the projections are higher now Indy - 80 cm by 2100 (120 cm if you add king tides and storm surges) - as latest research suggests, the rate will get higher - as it has been. Look at the rates in the graphs again. See the increasing rates indy?

And Indy, we just can't talk about sea level rise finishing at 2100. It will continue to rise after 2100.

You know Indy, people living in their home environment that is less than 18 inches above the now mean global sea level will be in deep "crap", to use 'the' common vernacular. If people think Australia should be worried about boat refugees now, they're living on another planet.

Indy, why else do you think the United Nations Security Council and all international security forces are concerned about global warming - not just sea level rise? Think of energy supply, food resources, water resources, national and international security, etc.

Greenland, solid ground? Have you actually read the links. Take away its ice sheet and what do you think will happen? No, I'm not just talking about sea level rise due to that - which would be catastrophic.

Carbon tax? Come on Indy, everybody should expect that a good proportion of that should be used for implementing alternatives to fossil fuels (heard of peak oil or coal?) and adapting as you say.

@ individual:

So we're agreed that the appropriate authorities should be developing strategies to adapt to sea level rises, regardless of the cause? It seems to me that the literature review that got you all hot under the collar at the beginning of this discussion is an essential part of the process. It certainly goes nowhere near making any recommendations, rather it is a brief summary of some relevant information.

The solution is apparently quite simple, according to you - simply remove the Saibai Islanders from the ancestral land from which they derive a large part of their identity, and to which they've only recently regained Native Title. Despite your astonishing insensitivity to these people's culture, surely even you must be aware of the political minefield that such a proposal would entail?

That story has quite a way to go, I suspect - but at least we can agree that we are likely to see increasing problems with inundation and social dislocation in the Torres Strait Islands in the near future, and that the situation may require some radical solutions.