“Melting icecaps and glaciers will cause the sea levels to rise”, certainly I wouldn’t argue with that greenhart.
I also think that we can discount the idea that possibly undersea volcanic activity may be causing sea temperatures to rise or that they are speeding up ice loss as well. After all, volcanic activity has been around since before there was trees that then turned into fossil fuels.
Claimed rates of ice loss, sea level rates of rise and data collection points like everyone’s favourite Fort Denison offer up plenty of discussion points and that’s were the fun starts.
If we look at these 3 angles we find that loss rates claimed over time have varied a bit, nothing exceptional or shattering about that due to the dynamic nature of these systems. Some years we lose more than expected and other years we gain a bit more than expected (ice cap wise).
Predictions of sea level rises have been a major point since even the oldest of us here heard about GW, do you agree? Some of the early modelling suggested massive increases that should of occurred by today, newer modelling has eased up a bit over time but it is still in the top 3 for claims of catastrophe related to MMCC, GW or whatever name one prefers, wouldn’t you agree?
Fort Denison isn’t a great place to highlight rises in sea levels I’ve been told by a few people who say they have researched it more than me. Apparently sea level rises aren’t spread evenly around the globe and equatorial land masses are where we will see the true effects of these rises first.
There’s a favourite group of island in the pacific that believers have been pointing to since the start as the canary, you should just check out to see what land areas they have lost.
