Sounds a lot like uneven global warming.
“Sophisticated computer modelling has shown how sea-level rise over the coming century could affect some regions far more than others. The model shows that parts of the Pacific will see the highest rates of rise while some polar regions will actually experience falls in relative sea levels due to the ways sea, land and ice interact globally.”
Any projection of rising seas is dependent on your view of global warming. If the warming with CO2 doubling is 3 degrees or 4.5 degrees (according to the AR4) or more (from other sources), then sea rise might be substantial, but if it’s more like 3/10’s of a degree, then not so much.
Meanwhile the sea levels have been rising 8″ per century for 130 years with no recent acceleration. “Where is the UT Hot Spot over the tropics?” “Where are the missing Iranians?”
Some have shown that sea level and sunspot number correlate well. (about .45) Maybe a bit weak. Anyway, with the upcoming solar sleep we might be seeing a sea level fall. That would torque these folks badly.
“Emergent seas”?
@larrycrumble
Look at this and see why it is actually more likely than not should it ever happen, which it isn’t in any human scale future
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/04/110406-new-map-earth-gravity-geoid-goce-esa-nasa-science/
Only if you are not an AGW lemming.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t an “uneven sea rise” somehow a violation of Newtonian physics?
This makes perfectly good sense. Sea level is important relative to local terrain, after all. Changes in glacial mass are likely to gradually change local terrain and so may other factors. Low-lying areas may be rising or sinking due to the combinations of many factors.