Take 361 square km of sea surface, then place some 6 billion tonnes of shipping onto that & then work out how much the sea level rises due to the displacement. Not to mention man made fill by way of islands & airports etc.
Anyone have the answer how much that makes the sea level rise ?

Of course that should be 361 million

There is a science and there is activism in the name of science. The activist scientists prevail with their noise and lies because the more noise they make, the more of our money they get their paws on.

Climate 'science' is pure superstition that fools the gullible and the frightened just as the 'assurance' that the world was flat; bleeding and leeches were a cure for all ailments and, more recently, the millenium bug which was going to bring everything to a grinding halt. I could add the one where the 'experts' bellowed that Donald Trump would never be elected president of the United States. Shonky political science.

All that rubbish was out put about by the same sorts of people who tell us that an essential gas is the course of climate change, and that the country's economy and electricity consumers have to be impoverished to 'cure' what is an simply nature at work.

That's what comes from people without faith and a belief that mankind can alter nature.

Jennifer Marohasy had some interesting things to say about a science in The Domain yesterday. She likened some science to the police “fitting up” suspects because they are ‘ guilty of something’ even if it's not the crime they are accused of. She cited the scientific lie sugar farming was responsible for the deaths of dugongs twenty years ago, but the most interesting was this:

“ … an increasing number of peer-reviewed scientific studies are impossible to reproduce on subsequent investigation, either by independent researchers or by the original researchers themselves. Yet the reproducibility of experiments is an essential part of the scientific method; otherwise we are dealing with anecdote”.

The article, which deals with the heroism of Professor Peter Kidd and his sacking by James Cook University, is well worth the read.

Sorry, folks: the science on climate change is definitely not 'in’, and it is looking more like fraud every day.

individual,
Many have calculated it before, and the answer is very small.
You should be able to find the answer with google, or just calculate it yourself.
But since you've asked:

6 billion tonnes shipping displacement is close enough to 6 billion cubic metres (it's actually slightly less because salt water is denser than fresh,but the difference isn't worth worrying about here.

Divide that by a surface area of 361 million square km (each of which is a million square m)

6*10^9 / 361*10^12 = 0.0000166m = 0.0166mm
Far too small to worry about

The same goes for reclaimed land, even before you consider that this is often filled with dredged marine sediment anyway.

ttbn,
I'm quite surprised you've shown up again on this thread after I exposed the lies you started it with.

What puzzles me is the source of your preposterous claims. Did you make up those you started the thread from yourself? Sordid you get them from the Murdoch Press? Or is there some other organization you're outsourcing you thinking to?

If it's climate science, not climate denialism, that fools the gullible, then why does runner stick firmly to the denialist side?

Can you really not tell the difference between science and superstition? When superstition doesn't fit the evidence, its adherents simply ignore the evidence. A good example would be your belief that mankind can't alter nature, despite the fact that people have ben doing so for centuries. Many species have gone extinct despite the once widespread view that God wouldn't let that happen...

In contrast, when observations contradict scientists' earlier observations and models, the scientists seek to understand the source of the discrepancies, to improve their own understanding and enable them to construct better models in the future.

And when other scientists get different results, they examine each others' work to try to find the source of the discrepancy. But when the consensus is challenged, it's almost invariably found to be due to an error in the dissenting paper. There's a reason why there's such a widespread consensus, and it's nothing to do with funding or conspiracies. It's that scientists are swayed by evidence, and go where the evidence points them.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 levels by a third since preindustrial times can not be dismissed as "nature at work" - it's a direct result of human intervention. And the country's electricity consumers certainly don't have to be impoverished - that was mainly the result of political decisions to load the costs of expensive new infrastructure onto existing electricity users. And the economy certainly doesn't have to be impoverished - but economics is one area where false assumptions and faulty reasoning are still rife even among the mainstream.