Eebster the Great wrote: Fire Brns wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:You also never sourced that number.
Nystrom Atlas of world history pg. 6, it accompanied a decent history textbook a good 800 pages thick if I remember correctly. The graph is simplified because It was explaining how deep the Bering Strait is but it does go of in different direction preceding and exeeding the ice age showing higher sea levels than current levels without ever bringing up climate change.
I meant the source though, not the textbook. Knowing which text you found it in really doesn't help me.
The footnotes were in the textbook wich I no longer posess not this atlas. I suppose I could email the company and ask them for their source but I doubt I will get it here for a while.
Eebster the Great wrote:That's because receding coastlines are not due to rising sea levels anywhere. If I recall correctly, the sea has only risen about 8 cm since the early 60s.
So sea levels will rise without effecting landmass in the least? what the heck are we worrying about then? 8 centimeters should flood a couple hundred acres at the least. You cite three major noticable engulfers of water. You ignore the hundreds of other negligible causes that accumulate: groundwater stores, lakes, irrigation, even increased dams have all kept more water inland than clasically. The great lakes were at one point just holes in the ground dug out during the last Ice age, remember that.
Of course sea level rise affects the coastline, but coasts change every year anyway as land rises and falls and soil erodes, and these effects completely swamp the relatively small change in sea level.
There are three reasons I "ignore" the effects of fresh water other than melting ice on sea levels. First, they are negligible even in the aggregate. I suppose if the great lakes or the caspian sea were to double in size, that would have a major impact on sea levels, but a few inches here and there does not have a significant effect, because only a relatively small fraction of the Earth's fresh water is found in lakes. Second, the effects are not consistent and tend to offset each other. Third, if there is
any significant effect on sea levels due to these factors, it will be to accelerate their rise, as the amount of usable fresh water has actually been decreasing (the levels of the great lakes and the caspian sea are falling due to increased evaporation, groundwater is very slowly disappearing as it is used by industry, etc.).
If you are talking about historical sea levels here, then of course the impact of these is going to be much greater. Certainly during the last ice age there was far more water bound in ice, so I'm sure the sea was much shallower, but I don't see why any of that matters for this discussion.[/quote]
This will read to skeptics as: "The sea levels are rising but we can't prove it and as hard as you try you can't disprove it using our rules."
There is lots of low lying land, basically level with the sea, (I live less than a mile from the sea) that an eight cm increase should cause some inland flooding of even a cm or 2 that would seep into the ground and kill the plantlife.
On the water point: if we put all the lake water into the oceans it would rise roughly 0.1 meters or 10 cm so don't call it negligible even when added to other factors. We don't have the most acurate measurements of other water sources.