This discussion suggests three important conclusions: (i) the effect of changes in terrestrial water storage on sea level may be considerable; (ii)
the net effect on sea level could be of either sign, and (iii) the rate has increased over the last few decades (in the assessment of Gornitz et al. (1997) from near zero at the start of the century to 0.8 mm / yr in 1990).
Not exact matches
SCC is effectively an estimate of the direct
effects of carbon emissions
on the economy, and takes into consideration such factors as
net agricultural productivity loss, human health
effects, property damages from
sea level rise, and changes in ecosystem services.
It is plain that the opposing
effects of CO2 and its consequent warming
on sea -
level must be very nearly equal, so that the
net effect is near zero.
Nothing Australia does will have any appreciable
effect on atmospheric temperatures that might cause
net damage to Australians» welfare (or anyone else's) or
on sea levels which might be bad for Australia; 3.
It is intellectually dishonest to devote several pages to cherry - picking studies that disagree with the IPCC consensus
on net health
effects because you don't like its scientific conclusion, while then devoting several pages to hiding behind [a misstatement of] the U.N. consensus
on sea level rise because you know a lot reasonable people think the U.N. wildly underestimated the upper end of the range and you want to attack Al Gore for worrying about 20 - foot
sea level rise.
On this blog, I have tried to be clear what I believe with my earlier three - part series: Since
sea level, arctic ice, and most other climate change indicators have been changing faster than most IPCC models projected and since the IPCC neglects key amplifying carbon cycle feedbacks, the IPCC reports almost certainly underestimate future climate impacts.