13 millimetres in the last 160 years, that's the total measurable sea rise. I suspect that's about the same we would have expected as a result of the end of the last ice-age 12,000 years ago (or was it 12,000 BC - doesn't really matter). The minimum expected by climate change was greater than the measured see rise. It would, I suspect, be reasonable to conclude that climate change advocates have screwed up so far at best or have no idea at worst (well, really at next-best). As for the atolls sinking faster than expected (damn I didn't think I'd need to go this far but I always underestimate the mind of a super-villain). Archaeologists have dug down their middens and the sea shells get larger and larger until they strike thousands and thousands of giant clams shells. I think if they hadn't eaten themselves out of house and home, the sand would have been replenished by the shells breaking up. There is an atoll near Vanautu or the Solomon Islands that barely breaks the surface and it has maintained its level above sea. It's too far away to be harvested and too small to be settled. Although the area just underwater is quite large. I suspect the difference in these atolls in near proximity to be the result of excessive human exploitation. Nonetheless, the document attached to the previous post showed the change to be 13 mm since 1841 near Tasmania. 13 mm is not enough to "sink" islands, destroy the planet, change property values or anything really. If climate change was as advertised, the amount would be substantially higher. Perhaps 500mm since 1841. If there is other proof being offered, I haven't seen or heard it. It may be true it may not. I would like to see something a little more tangible than has been offered so far. Cheers, Mike On 13/01/2013 5:44 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Mike Mitchell (m.mitch@exemail.com.au):
The most ridiculous thing Rick did was to equate Kiribati sea level problems to climate change. Kiribati is a group of atolls, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiribati Atolls by their nature sink(1). Hi, Mike. One big problem: The subsidence rate of coral atolls is about _8 metres per 100,000 years_. (See for example French drilling studies at Mururoa through the carbonate cap and into the underlying volcanic rocks, which found the subsidence rate to be that as the mean, over the preceding 7.2 million years before present.)
That is of course the overall subsidence rate over geologic timescales, ignoring the temporary (by geological standards) effect of rising and falling sea levels as ice ages have come and gone.
Anyway, what's lately threatening parts of Kiribati and the Seychelles is (1) many, many orders of magnitude faster than what subsidence supports, and (2) not subsidence in the first place: _Surprise_, scientists have instruments capable of measuring altitude and are able to distinguish between land falling and ocean rising.
(Some coral formations are thought to be able to grow quickly enough that they are likely to keep pace with rising ocean levels -- a matter noticed as early as Charles Darwin's study of the matter. Perhaps that effect will help some affected islands. Time will tell.)