roy.luck wrote...
This is hilarious. 18,000 years ago, sea level was 125 meters lower than it is today. So that means that sea level has risen by an average 70 cm per century for the last 180 centuries (18,000 years equals 180 centuries). Humans have used fossil fuels for the last 2 centuries, extensively for the last half century. Half a century out of 180 centuries. Keep that in mind, the average over the last 180 centuries is 70 cm per century. Now we have a range of estimates, ranging from 18 to 200 cm over this century. And we are supposed to believe this the result of human CO2 emissions! The average over the last 180 centuries falls within this statistical range!!!! Basically these estimates say the trend will continue. The same trend that was established way before people started using fossil fuels. Obviously in some places that are subsiding (like Venice and a lot of other places built on compacting sediment in delta environments), RELATIVE sea level will rise by a larger amount - because you have to add sea level rise to local subsidence. Sea level goes up a meter, your town sinks half a meter, relative sea level has risen 1.5 meters.

ETyrell91 wrote...
All well and good to use the average rate of sea level rise from about the end of the ice age until now, but there's a little problem with that - sea level has stayed at pretty much the same level for the last eight thousand years; the "70 cm rise per century for the last 180 centuries" you describe would be better represented as only a few centimeters per century for the last 80 centuries, and about 200 centimeters per century for the 100 centuries before that. Of course, thanks to human activity, sea level is likely to bolt from this course and increase by 140 centimeters or higher in the upcoming century, breaking a trend of stability rather than continuing a trend of increase. To get an idea of what I'm talking about, you may want to see these graphs: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=293 Not so "hilarious" now, eh?

roy.luck wrote...
A bit less hilarious, perhaps, but still amusing. Thanks for sending the link to that chart, I hadn't seen that trend before. Nonetheless, climate has always changed at rapid timescales, always will... Interesting on the wiki file, how many of those places (Santa Catarina to Sunda/Vietnam Shelf) are experiencing subsidence? Relative sea level rise is a function of subsidence and increased sea level. Venice is sinking into the Adriatic due to sediment compaction. Should that be interpreted as sea level rise or local subsidence? Many large population centers are in coastal deltas that are naturally subsiding due to sediment compaction.

mildgreens wrote...
Roy.Luck > your interpretation runs foul of reason. Local seal levels such as are occurring in Alaska where lift due to reduced weight of glaciation cover must bring heart to you and yours. Perhaps if you were to extrapolate that data and apply to the rest of the world you could prove that in 2 millennium sea level will be in some place else but you cant fool all of the people even some of the time by picking data that fits your world model. What we know is that we are doing everything wrong and there will be consequences. Doing it right doesn't cost much, whereas continuing to do it wrong will. For more reasons than just sea levels. No matter where one places the evidence base, precautionary principals apply. My 'bet' is on a conservational approach where the odds are in my favor and that of my children. I suggest there are far more who will agree than who wish to maintain the duress of potential failure.