Global warming causes some sea level rise?

I think some people may be... more concerned about sea level rise than is entirely warranted, but very small-sounding rises in sea level can cause more problems than you'd think, at least partly because there are a lot of areas that are *very* close to sea level. There are some inhabited coastal areas (like parts of New Orleans, and most of Holland) that are actually *below* sea level.

Also, well, sea level is an average. As with the seemingly small rise in the average temperature, the average doesn't tell the whole picture. Higher sea levels can mean higher storm surges, which can in turn mean salt poisoning of coastal land and coastal water tables. And, of course, if global warming accelerates as it is expected to under business-as-usual (that is, if we don't stop using fossil fuels at an ever-increasing rate), the rise in sea level can also be expected to accelerate at least somewhat...

And, of course, sea level rise is far from the *only* problem with AGW. Look here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-pos...

The best data for sea level is maintained by the University of Colorado, Boulder. (Yeah, strange that an inland school is the place for expertise on oceans, but that's how it is.)

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

The rate has indeed been over 3 mm per year.

The sea level rise thus far has been primarily due to thermal expansion with arctic melt contributing. The fear you allude to is based on melt of Greenland and Antarctica which are showing signs of slipping and changing but are not contributing yet significantly to sea level. Once Greenland goes, it can go quickly -- there is already water running through and under the ice which can lead to a fast thaw. So the question you ask is whether we wait for the rapid increase in thaw or look at what is happening and see the risk.

You will get no information from the alarmists drones that post on here. Most of the rise in sea level has theoretically been caused by thermal expanstion from warming. Skepticalscience is neither skeptical nor science. It is a leftist propaganda blog. We don't know the extent that human CO2 emissions has played in the warming. Measuring sea level isn't as straightforward as it seems. In many places the ground is either falling such as Venice and New Orleans or it is rising (most of west coast of USA, etc.

I hope you are correct about solar panels. That would be a real bonus if they could actually fairly compete. I am more optimistic than most alarmists. I think we are increasing technology at a near exponential rate and solar and other technologies may render the carbon emission debate mute after a few decades. Having government pick winners and losers (they always manage to pick losers) isn't going to help things much either.

First, the 9mm figure is only a possibility that it could rise this much yearly by the end of the century,

According to NOAA, although 2mm for most of the last century, but since 1993 the rise is @ 3.5mm per year X 100 years = 35cm = 13.7795 inches. With the advent of warming oceans and melting ice, this yearly figure will rise. How much is anyone's guess. The 9cm projectiong was merely a possibility of that rate by 2100. Predictions I have seen are 1 foot or more total rise by 2100 which would of course cause a great deal of problems in low lying areas. it would be devastating to many islands at or near sea level, with floods, tide problems, ground water salinity, fruit tree death, crops destroyed and with the increase is expected to create severe storm activity. A one foot rise would do this. In the US, coastal regions in Cali, Florida and Georgia will be hardest hit according to NOAA

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

Right, I have not seen any end of the world projections from skepticalscience or any other legitimate source of info regarding climate change. Most scientists will refrain from promoting the idea of cataclysmic changes, but with the ice melting much faster than predicted, they can't ignore even a remote possibility

The site that you linked does give an excellent explanation of sea level rise observations.

AGW did commence in earnest with the beginning of the industrial revolution. This is when our activities began to increase the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. The industrial revolution began around the mid to late 1600's. 1870 is not a begin date but, rather, a good starting point for showing the effects of adding CO2 into the atmosphere along with increased agriculture, deforestation and raining live stock for food. Our activities began slowly and the then they increased as time went on on. The small amount of CO2 that we started releasing was being absorbed fairly quickly through the planet's natural carbon sinks. As time progressed so did our industrialization. Our activities of creating more CO2 and destroying more of the natural carbon sinks began to overload the system. We begin to see a slow rise in the CO2 levels and as we more overcome the system we begin to see a faster rise in CO2 levels. This is exactly why the rise will not be linear but, instead, will become exponential.

The graph shows a beginning year of 1870 and an end year of 2009 and with a continued increasingly upward slope.The graph shows the overall sea level rise from 1870 to 2009. How are you extrapolating any single year's sea level rise in mm from this? The graph shows overall trend, as it was designed to do for its explanation of how the "skeptics" will misrepresent the data.

The sea level rise is attributed to both expansion of warming water and more water being added from melting glaciers. Since the observations show us that each is happening at a continued faster pace then how would you explain that the sea level rise would not also be happening at a faster pace?

Please source your .3 and .9 references to sea level rise. Perhaps your sources can explain how they arrived at this figure? I have little reason to doubt a current .3 rise with a .9 rise by the end of this century. Your mileage may vary depending upon driving conditions (noise).

Added*****

In your response to chemflunky I will say that the CO2 levels are rising at a faster pace with each progressive year. The global temperatures are rising at a faster pace than what the early models indicated that they would. There are tipping points that will be reached and no one knows exactly what these tipping are and when they will be reached. In other words, we are living on borrowed time and time for action is slipping away from us. Do not "panic" over this, but keep it as a reasoned thought for you to refer to later.

Also we are not spending a billion dollars to save one person's life. The money being spent (or lack of!) is to help assure a more survivable climate for ALL life on this planet. Now, do the math on that.

the rate is increasing with feedbacks.

I take issue with your statement: "Hasn't the US's use of fossil fuels already started to decline" Yes, but off-shoring CO2 and manufacturing to China to feed the US consumption is not helping. The planet does not care about national boundaries.

I agree it's probably not the end of the world, but it will certainly change and not all of it in our favour.

If it wasn't for global warming -- Chicago would still be under a mile of ice.

Fortunately, Cro Magnon people learned how to make fire and the smoke from their campsites melted the glaciers.

Skepticalscience.com is a propaganda site for the man-made Global Warming SCAM, even it's name is a lie, because they are not the 'skeptics.'

There is no abnormal sea level rise. There is no accelerated sea level rise.

No Unusual Sea Level Rise detected in the Maldives

http://www.marklynas.org/2012/04/where-sea-level-r...

Antarctic ice shelves not melting at all, new field data show (June 2012)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/25/antarctic_...

Arctic Sea Ice is Not Melting - Dark Purple is 100% sea ice

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9764

Sea Levels are Not Rising Faster than Normal

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/01/new-pape...

-----------------------