Replies

"If we burn all fossil fuels, we are likely to end up with many metres of sea level rise in the long run, very likely more than 10 metres in my view."
This might sound dramatic, but we know sea level has swung from 120 metres lower than today during ice ages to more than 70 metres higher during hot periods. There is no doubt at all that if the planet warms, the sea will rise. The key questions are, by how much and how soon?

I must say I am not impressed by the brainpower of these New Scientists.

First we know that there have been extrememe fluctuations in sea level many times in the past without man and fossil fuels being part of the equation.
Now, suddenly, the burning of fossil fuels will "likely end up with many metres of sea level rise..."

HELLO??!!??

Might it not be more credible to document scientifically and persuasively what caused the dozens of rises and falls of sea level before fossil fuel use? Before going on hysterically with the absolute certainty that only the ignorant can possess?

You are right to be concerned about the brain power of the global warming fanatics...

First, note, that much of the origin of the hysteria is based on the fiction that sea level has changed as dramatically as they say it has in the past. The archaeological evidence for sea level changes is real, but that doesn't mean you should ASSUME it is the water level that rises and falls, and not the level of the land itself. That degree of change in sea level as a function of changing ocean volumes is a fiction that predates our awareness of plate tectonics. The entire coast of Oregon is presently a couple of hundred feet higher than in the recent geological past... not because the water is lower ? Parts of western Oregon are still rising... surprisingly rapidly ?

Then, note, that if the sea level is going to rise as much as they say, all the water needed to make it rise has to come from somewhere ? Since ice that is floating at sea is already contributing all it can to higher sea levels... that means the only contributor to higher sea level can be ice melt from land. The ocean covers 70% of the planets surface. That leaves 30% land surface. Of that 30%, what portion is permanently covered with ice ??? How deep is the ice ? Or, how deep would the ice HAVE to be over what portion of the surface to have sufficient volume, after shrinking upon melting, to raise sea level as much as claimed ?

Do the math yourself... and you'll find it appears you can't get there from here. The reality is that if ALL the ice melted, sea level would rise perhaps as much as six inches... which is significantly less than the tidal variations over much of the planet... and it is far more likely that no one even would notice it than it is that we would see that event as a catastrophe worse than monthly highs in the tides.