There's an article in this week's Time(the Coulter issue!) which rather neatly sums up the GW movement.

Title:Where the Waters Are Rising
subtitle: A close-up look at the low-lying Maldives, where global warming hits the seawall.

Predictably, the article presents all sorts of doom and gloom scenarios for the Maldives(which sit 1-2 yards above sea level); it's inevitable, the article suggests, that the Maldives will be swallowed up by the ocean, due to global warming.

What they fail to mention, of course, is that the sea level is not actually rising there! In theory, hypothetically, it's possible, conceivable that the sea level could rise there.

Where's your peer reviewed evidence to support that it's not that is accepted by more than one scientist? I've certainly read a number of article stating it is, but never seen that it's not. Help me out.

*fixed

And a good job at that. National Geographic, that hippy liberal non-sensical rag had an article in the last couple years about the trouble in the Maldives, Vanuatu, etc.

*fixed

And here's one for just_b (pictures and everything!!)

http://www.pog.su.se/sea/10_special_pro ... aldive.htm

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Comment on New perspectives for the future of the Maldives by
Mfrner, N.A., Tooley, M., Pfssnert, G.
[Global Planet. Change 40 (2004), 177–182]
Paul S. Kencha,*, Scott L. Nichola, Roger F. McLeanb
aSchool of Geography and Environmental Science, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand
bSchool of Physical, Environmental and Mathematical Sciences, University College ADFA,
The University of New South Wales, ACT 2600, Australia
Received 28 December 2004; accepted 28 December 2004
Mo¨rner et al. (2004) raise a number of important
issues concerning sea level change and island
morphological adjustment in the Maldives. These
issues have great relevance for atoll nations as they
shed light on the potential stability of reef islands with
respect to future sea level change. Given the high
international profile of reef island vulnerability it is
important that the data and conclusions of such
studies are robustly examined.
In their article Mo¨rner et al. (2004) contend that
sea level has undergone a recent fall in the Maldives
and imply that reef islands there are not likely to be
inundated if sea-level were to rise as predicted by
the IPCC (Church and Gregory, 2001). Here we
raise a number of concerns with arguments and data
presented by Mo¨rner et al. (2004) that are central to
the interpretations and conclusions presented in their
paper. This discussion addresses: (1) the Last
Interglacial and Holocene development of the
Maldives; (2) the sea-level curve presented; and
(3) evidence introduced to substantiate claims of
recent sea-level fall.
(1) The introduction of Mo¨ rner et al. (2004)
contains a number of unqualified and unreferenced
assertions that necessitate comment. First, they state
the surficial reefs of the Maldives were not dominated
by catch-up reef growth in the mid to late Holocene
but are of pre-Holocene age. Second, they report reef
rocks of Last Interglacial age occurring close to and
below sea level and up to +1.2–1.3 m. No evidence is
given in support of either claim and both are contrary
to published data on reef development in the
Maldives. For instance, Risk and Sluka (2000) note
that Holocene reef growth began about 6000 years
ago and continued in catch-up mode at 3 to 10 mm/
year (for the ensuing 3000 years) resulting in a total
Holocene section of between 15 and 20 m. On Male,
Woodroffe (1993) describes a Holocene reef sequence
up to 17 m thick overlying the Last Interglacial reef.
This evidence is in accordance with Purdy and
Bertram’s (1993) as well as Bianchi et al.’s (1997)
interpretation that the contemporary Holocene reef
0921-8181/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2004.12.001
DOI of original article: 10.1016/S0921-8181(03)00108-5.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: p.kench@auckland.ac.nz (P.S. Kench).
Global and Planetary Change xx (2005) xxx–xxx
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/gloplacha
GLOBAL-00993; No of Pages 3
DTD 5
ARTICLE IN PRESS
morphology has been controlled by the antecedent
karst surface resulting from the last glacial lowstand.
(2) Mo¨rner et al. (2004, Fig. 1) present a new sealevel
curve for the Maldives that encompasses the last
5000 years. This plot is potentially globally significant
as detailed reconstructions of sea level history
from this region are lacking. This curve is based on 12
data points derived from two sources. Seven of the
dates are from Woodroffe (1993) who reports these
samples as bulk sands, boulder conglomerates and
only one in situ coral. This coral is a Heliopora with
elevation with respect to present MSL of 0.0F0.3 m
(2710F85 year BP). In our opinion this is the only
reliable date from the Woodroffe (1993) dataset that
could be used for sea level reconstruction. The
remaining six samples are unreliable indicators of
MSL and should not be included in Fig. 1. Five new
dates are plotted by Mo¨rner et al. (2004, Fig. 1) as
evidence of past sea level positions. However, no
information is provided on what materials were dated
(in situ coral or unconsolidated sediments) or how
their relationship to current sea level was established.
Furthermore, conventions for reporting C-14 ages are
not followed. Standard information is missing, notably
the actual dates, error terms, lab codes and
calibration details (if any). In the one exception, we
are perplexed why human remains (reef woman)
should be subject to a dsea correctionT of some 400
years when the ocean reservoir correction should be
used for marine specimens only (e.g. Reimer and
Reimer, 2000). Of particular concern is the assertion
that there have been higher sea levels at 4000 and 800
years when the latter is based on a boulder conglomerate
and evidence for the former is not reported.
Moreover, Bianchi et al. (1997) state that relative sea
level stands higher than present are not known from
Felidu Atoll which is mid way between the islands
investigated by Mo¨rner et al. (2004). In our view, Fig.
1 should be disregarded as an accurate representation
of the Maldives sea level history.
(3) Mo¨rner et al. (2004) claim that their observational
data sheds new light on the present to subrecent
sea level changes as expressed in Fig. 3. For
instance, in Fig. 3A, it is claimed that a sub recent
level of 1.2 m above MSL on Hulhudhoo Island
indicates a higher sea level of +0.3 m. Our evidence
from repeat surveys of seven profiles on Hulhudhoo
in 2002 and 2003 demonstrate that the sub recent
level falls within the dynamic range of the contemporary
erosion and accretion zone. Therefore we
reject the notion that the sub recent level represents a
sea level +0.3 m higher than present. Our evidence
also suggests that the 1.45-m island surface level also
falls within this level of contemporary morphodynamic
change and does not represent a +0.6 m higher
sea level.
Beach rock positioned at 0.4–0.5 m above MSL is
also used by Mo¨rner et al. (2004) to infer sea level
change. Using beach rock as a palaeo sea-level
indicator has been widely discussed and used in a
number of studies (e.g. Scoffin, 1977; Scoffin and
McLean, 1978; Hopley, 1982). These studies show
that contemporary beach rock can form well above
mean sea level and as identified by Hopley (1982) can
exceed mean high water spring tide level by several
centimeters. For the Maldives, beach rock at +0.4–0.5
m places it in the intertidal range. Our data from 12
traverses surveyed across contemporary beach rock
exposures on Goidhoo atoll in 1995/1996 show an
elevation range of 1.2 m from
0.4 to +0.8 m above
MSL. Consequently, the elevations of beach rock
reported by Mo¨rner et al. (2004) lie within the range
of contemporary beach rock and cannot be used as an
indicator of a higher sea level. In summary, we reject
both the beach rock and morphological evidence for a
significant sea level fall over the past 30 years.
We conclude that the sea level history and data
presented by Mo¨ rner et al. (2004) is less than
compelling and can be readily explained via an
understanding of contemporary coastal processes.
The region’s sea level history remains uncertain.
Consequently, we believe that this work does little
to inform the international community on new
perspectives of the future of the Maldives.
References
Bianchi, C.N., Colantoni, P., Geister, J., Morris, C., 1997. Reef
geomorphology, sediments and ecological zonation at Felidu
atoll, Maldives Islands (Indian Ocean). Proc. 8th International
Coral Reef Symposium, Panama. vol. 1, pp. 431– 436.
Church, J.A., Gregory, J.M., 2001. Changes in sea level. Climate
Change 2001—The Scientific Basis. Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
Hopley, D., 1982. The Geomorphology of the Great Barrier Reef.
Wiley Interscience, New York.
P.S. Kench et al. / Global and Planetary Change xx (2005) xxx–xxx 2
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Mfrner, NA., Tooley, M., Pfssnert, G., 2004. New perspectives for
the future of the Maldives. Global and Planetary Change 40,
177–182.
Purdy, E.G., Bertram, G.T., 1993. Carbonate concepts from the
Maldives, Indian Ocean. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Studies in Geology vol. 34. The American Association
of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma. 56 pp.
Reimer, P., Reimer, R., 2000. Marine reservoir correction database.
Radiocarbon 40, 461–463.
Risk, M.J., Sluka, R., 2000. In: McClanahan, T.R., Sheppard,
C.R.C., Obura, D.O. (Eds.), The Maldives: A Nation of Atolls.
Oxford University Press. Chap. 11.
Scoffin, T.P., 1977. Sea level features on reefs in the northern
province of the Great Barrier Reef. Proc. 3rd Int. Coral reefs
Symp., vol. 2, pp. 319– 324.
Scoffin, T.P., McLean, R.F., 1978. Exposed limestones of the
northern province of the Great Barrier Reef. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London. A 291, 119– 138.
Woodroffe, C.D., 1993. Morphology and evolution of reef islands
in the Maldives. Proc. 7th Int. Coral Reef Symp., Guam, vol. 2,
pp. 1217– 1226.
P.S. Kench et al. / Global and Planetary Change xx (2005) xxx–xxx 3

google: INQUA commission sea level

Here's a list of the fine folks who participated
http://www.pog.su.se/sea/pdf/members.pdf

The region’s sea level history remains uncertain.

sounds reasonable.




The 1841 sea level benchmark (centre) on the `Isle of the Dead', Tasmania. According to Antarctic explorer, Capt. Sir James Clark Ross, it marked mean sea level in 1841. Photo taken at low tide 20 Jan 2004.
Mark is 50 cm across; tidal range is less than a metre

*fixed

btw, its amazing a topic like the environment can be heavily politisized(sp?)

So the first mark, made in 1841 so we'd better trust it's validity, was an average.
The photo was taken at low tide.
Those two things don't seem to correllate to me.
Even if they did, one photo which lets face it, could be of anything, is not sufficient evidence for sea level change. Nor is that enough to suggest that global warming is a myth.

Ross' benchmark is quite famous and has been compared against current sea level readings several times in history.

But actually you do make a good point there.
In 1900, msl was 34 centimeters below the benchmark, in 2000 msl was 31 centimeters below it. Some would suggest that this would indicate a sea level rise of 3 centimeters over the course of the century, which is of course, meaningless. (these numbers really look silly when you consider sea level has risen some 120 meters since the last ice age).
GW advocates will tell you that there are many factors which can explain the paltry 3 cm rise.

My point would be that it's probably not possible to gauge sea levels without accurate readings spanning hundreds of years--for every advocate on one side, you'll find one who makes a convincing case for the other.
And of course, it's been generally held in science (long before the GW scare) that sea levels would be currently rising, as we are leaving a long glacial period.

The earth has been around for billions of years. Certainly the dinosaurs didn't burn fossil fuel, and they were wiped out because of climate change. (The current theory.) I'm sure when the world was new, if there was life, they would be arguing about how to save the volcanoes, and molten lava fields.
If earth is ever changing.
Unless, of course, you believe that it was created six thousand years ago, and looks pretty much the same today as it did then.

I used to think Global Warming was beyond reproach, until I read State Of Fear, by Michael Crichton.
Of course he could be under the influence of someone's money, but isn't every organization at some point?
We need to look at this beyond our lives, at the past. Things won't stop changing just because we like the way they are, so....

... State Of Fear, by Michael Crichton.
Of course he could be under the influence of someone's money, but isn't every organization at some point?

Or maybe it's his job to write exciting, dramatic fiction.

I don't know much on this topic, but weren't we all afraid because of a global-cooling trend in the 1970's?