Study Warns of Threat to Coasts From Rising Sea Levels

So, how much has the sea level risen in the last 100 years? Where is the data?

However, the article does use the word "If", which does not state that the levels have been rising in the past or are rising as I write.

There are real numbers for the erosion of coastal lands, but this is a natural process that takes place with or without the change in sea level.

The more I hear about Global Warming the more secure in my feeling that Global Warming is realy driven by Political Heat.

Good work. Thanks.

Seems to be a typical report designed to attract attention not a lot of good information, claiming a foot per 100 years without any historical data to show if this is normal or abnormal is rather silly. One link on the Times page leads to climatescience.gov which funny enough only offers opinion in support of global warming/ climate change. The question has to be asked; do they really expect the climate to never change? How can the possibly bask their thesis on such limited data?

I really need to find out how I can get a well paid job stating the obvious!

Supporting independent scientific data on sea level rise do indeed exist (and I'm not referring to studies done by "The GlobalwarmingOMG!!! Institute" or other such seemingly biased organizations).

The average rate of rise has been roughly 2mm / yr over the last century or so. It has increased in the last 15 years or so to about 3mm / yr, which is perhaps concerning. Whatever the cause - and I'm neither arguing global warming nor Godzilla taking a swim - it is apparent that the rise and increase are both quite real.

As for me, I'm looking forward to not having to drive quite so far to vacation at the beach. Plus that'll save gas, which should make the green folks happy.

Think of all the oil you'll save now that the Northwest Passage is open.

The rise is probably caused by global warping. With tectonic plates moving around relative to each other something is due to change.

Has anyone calculated the effect of the melting of the ice cap on the rotational speed and the shape of the globe?

Sea levels may be rising but, as in the case of New Orleans, LA and Venice Italy, and probably many more locations... Shri Lanka, or whatever they call it today, the rising sea levels may not be as significant as the subsidence of the land from pumping of ground water from beneath the cities/countries. Before we embark upon an impossible job of dikes, carbon offsets, and other revenue raising (and economy destroying) schemes to feed the hungry socialist politicians, let us decide which. New Orleans has been a problem since the 1700's. Instead of moving the city, or raising it like they did Galveston, TX and Chicago, IL, they squandered all the monies on statues and other nonsense. Hence the Katrina catastrophe.

LA has bigger problems than sea level raising, it is only a matter of time until the 'big shake' levels the city, or more likely moves the coastline in-land. New Orleans is just a waste of time, when you build on a river delta swamp yiu have to expect the place to sink and sinking it is. Bit of a catch 22, leave it there and throw Federal money at it building levies and brake water structures, or try and move it, and have to throw Federal money at if for assistance. Can you imagine the noise the historical societies would make when it was announced that the city was moving and the old one flattened?

Well when and if the water rises in an floods New Orleans everyone will all move out and leave the mess there to rot down because they will have no choice. Someone made the mistake of building such a city on a swamp land in the first place and I think we will just have to live with it till the water does rise(if it does) When you talk about all the cities that are built on the fault line in California I have to think who the heck came up this great idea? I am not telling others what to do but I don't think I would live under the constant fear of not knowing if but when will the big one will hit. I can't figure out why any of the people would want to live around that fault line. To me it would be worth starting over and not having this worrying fear over my life just to get off it. I am sure others may not see the threat as I do. I would hope that most people probably live there because that is near to where they work and have always lived. They have no way nor the finances to just pick up roots and movie somewhere else. Maybe Obama and company will start a government program and throw some of our tax money to relocating all those people who happen to live in a less than perfect area and make yet another change(scary thought)

Move away from the gulf coast to avoid hurricanes. Move away from fault lines to avoid earthquakes - and don't forget the massive New Madrid fault that sits in the center of the country. Move east of the Mississippi to avoid the fallout from the inevitable eruption of the supervolcano at Yellowstone. Move out of the south and midwest to avoid tornadoes. Move away from the east and west coasts to avoid another tsunami (they've happened in the past). Avoid the sw because of forest fires.

What does that leave?

It is all according to how much fear you would like to live with I suppose. I think living on the fault line has proven to be a little more dangerous because it really gives no warning IMO.