Human Water Use Accounts For 42% of Recent Sea Level Rise 324
scibri writes "During the latter half of the twentieth century, global sea level rose by about 1.8 millimeters per year. The combined contribution from heating of the oceans, which makes the water expand, along with melting of ice caps and glaciers, is estimated to be 1.1 millimeters per year, which left some 0.7 millimeters per year unaccounted for. It seems that the effects of human water use on land could fill that gap. Researchers report in Nature Geoscience that land-based water storage could account for 0.77 millimeters per year, or 42%, of the observed sea-level rise between 1961 and 2003. The extraction of groundwater for irrigation and home and industrial use, with subsequent run-off to rivers and eventually to the oceans, represents the bulk of the contribution. It would be even worse if we weren't also locking up lots of water from rivers behind dams like the Hoover Dam."
Re:Worse? (Score:5, Informative)
Coral Atolls cannot suffer from sea level rise, they are the result of life living near the surface creating a deposit that itself builds the atoll. The Maldives will never suffer from gradual sea level rise. Charles Darwin himself discovered how Atolls remain above water. If these islands were bedrock, you might be right, but they're not. Atolls are essentially floating islands.
http://www.pacificdisaster.net/pdnadmin/data/original/The_dynamic_response.pdf [pacificdisaster.net]
Re:How? (Score:3, Informative)
I wondered this too... so I went and read the linked original article, which quite clearly states:
"Artificial reservoirs, such as the Hoover Dam on the Colorado River and the Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River in China, have the opposite effect, locking up water that would otherwise flow into the seas."
So your (and my) suspicions were correct; reservoirs don't make this problem worse, as the /. summary implies, but instead partially counteract it. Bad /. summary; no biscuit.
Re:The relevant part (Score:4, Informative)
The older method, still in use, is to use tide gauges. Basically, these are long cylinders placed below the water level, and thus are able to remain mostly unaffected by waves. Hundreds, if not thousands of measurements are taken electronically every day, and these measurements give a good measure of the water level at that location over the course of the year. According to Wikipedia, there are over 1700 tide gauges being used worldwide, so you wind up getting a good average of the worldwide sea level.
The newer method is to use satellite altimeters which use radar to give accurate measures of the altitude of the land or sea below them.
The two methods combined give millions of data points over the course of a year, and scientists have been taking measurements since the mid-1800's.
Despite what one may think, it's not quite like there are scientists on beaches around the world placing a new toothpick in the sand for each and every wave.
sea level rise has been a lie/scam anyway. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html [telegraph.co.uk]
But hey, we all know that "there is 100% consensus among the serious scientists on AGW", right?
Re:Worse? (Score:3, Informative)
They're not laughing in the Maldives
Actually, they are lauging. Sea level in the Maldives actually went down, but they really love the attention and money they can get from claiming that they're drowning.
Re:Worse? (Score:5, Informative)
An acre-foot of water is one acre of area covered by a foot of water. It is a common unit in the United States for measuring large volumes of water. One acre-foot is equal to 1233.48184 cubic meters or 325851.4 US gallons. Hogsheads vary is size but if you take it to be 63 gallons then an acre-foot is about 5,172 hogsheads. Troy ounces is a measure of mass, not volume.
Re:sea level rise has been a lie/scam anyway. (Score:5, Informative)
Mörner is not one of the serious scientists. I thought I recognized his name and looked him up at wikipedia. One of his previous achievements is winning the "Deceiver of the year" award for supporting dowsing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner#Views_on_dowsing [wikipedia.org]
Oh, and his claims about the sea level is not supported by satellite measurements.
Re:Worse? (Score:3, Informative)
Perfectly "clean" rainwater should have a pH close to 7.0 -- being pure water. 5.6 is bordering on "acid rain". (I'll check my rainwater sisterns, but they've had a long time to settle.)
Yes, sea water is highly buffered. However, that buffer is not instant. Look at the small scale in my (freshwater) aquariums... they have carbonate buffers in there (a lot of it, in fact -- aragonite and commerical buffers) and the pH can still dip below 6.6. If I draw a sample for testing, sealed in the tube, the pH will slowly recover to 8.4 as the disolved buffer does it's job. A great deal of the buffer capacity of the oceans are the coral in them.
But yes, I agree, CO2 is not what's going to destroy our oceans. We've been doing far, far worse things to them for a long time now.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
Depends on your location and context...