Human Water Use Accounts For 42% of Recent Sea Level Rise

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."

Comments

Re:Worse?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except no one looks back at the 20th century and remembers the great sea level disaster. The sea rose 7" over the 20th century, with zero acceleration in rate until the satellites came online, and no one noticed for 90 years. (Which obviously proves satellites cause sea level rise. )

If you continue to just use the geologically stable tide gauges (as was used before satellite data became available) the rate of sea level change hasn't changed in 100 years.

Anyone else confused?

[Anubis IV]

...by this comment at the end of the summary?

It would be even worse if we weren't also locking up lots of water from rivers behind dams like the Hoover Dam.

I don't see why this matters much. If you released all of the dammed water, you'd have a one-time increase in ocean levels. So what? Dams control rivers, sure, but those rivers are still flowing and have been this entire time. Surely the throughput from that river over a relatively short period of time is far more significant than any amount of water dammed along that river.

To me, that statement is as silly as, "We'd have even more cars on the road if we weren't locking some of them up at red lights and intersections."

Re:Worse?

[BMOC]

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

Results show that 86% of islands remained stable (43%) or increased in area (43%) over the timeframe of analysis. Largest decadal rates of increase in island area range between 0.1 to 5.6 hectares. Only 14% of study islands exhibited a net reduction in island area.

Despite small net changes in area, islands exhibited larger gross changes. This was expressed as changes in the planform configuration and position of islands on reef platforms. Modes of island change included: ocean shoreline displacement toward the lagoon; lagoon shoreline progradation; and, extension of the ends of elongate islands. Collectively these adjustments represent net lagoonward migration of islands in 65% of cases.

Results contradict existing paradigms of island response and have significant implications for the consideration of island stability under ongoing sea level rise in the central Pacific.

First, islands are geomorphologically persistent features on atoll reef platforms and can increase in island area despite sea level change....

Re:Worse?

[Dewin]

(Which obviously proves satellites cause sea level rise. )

Well, there is one particular satellite that has been well known to cause sea levels to rise quite significantly, so I think you might be on to something here...