Pumping Well Water Out of the Ground May Be a Culprit in Rising Sea Levels

Has any study taken into account the amount of seagoing cargo. I live at a major sea port and I can easily see the dramatic increase in ship sizes and the number of these monster sized ships.

Pumping water from underground also caused the land above the well to subside. This will cause an apparent sea level rise.

I wonder if undersea Volcanoes have been factored into this little equation?

The calculation is exactly the same as the missing volume, seems a little convenient. Especially when you factor in vessel displacement, as one poster mentioned, and underwater volcanoes, if not factored in, changes those figures completely.

@lemapp Although the ships are large from our perspective, the oceans, covering a majority of the earth, make those massive constructs, by comparison, quite minute.

This article is intriguing. It would seem that every significant discovery in science is, at its core simple and the last thing anyone would expect e.g. gravity, heliocentric system, gas giants have no solid surface, quantum mechanics etc. Water is so precious, which is why it is wasted so severely, it is necessary for daily life. Life as a human is a high maintainence endeavor. The lives of urban dwelling inhabitants concentrated to unnatural population levels, has led to vastly unsustainable resource consumption.

At first, I thought,"This is just another example of scientist working very hard to prove the obvious". Then I thought further to ponder the sheer severity of our impact on the planet. Of course, like any other concerned Earthling, I could rant on and on about how things should be better and why the decline of essential systems and institutions is emminant and without the adoption of new (or old), innovative, and progressive ways of living and doing business, we are doomed to live in fear of eventual civilizational collapse. Hell, I might even make some good points, but the fact of the matter is we must never put humanity's forward sprint towards an intelligent and magical future in jeopardy, and we must take great care prevent the proliferation of evil and negativity.

In other words, listen to the PSA that tells you to conserve water, because one day, we may not have much left, and it'll be too late to fix...

Seems most theories are just ignorant bliss as they always leave out important data in the equations. That's why I don't go for global warming as their is insufficient data to believe ANY of the equations.

Where I live in the Central Valley of California, ground subsidence is well documented. Photographs from 100 years ago containing local landmarks that allow us to compare show us that many places are 20 feet lower than they were at that time.

So, yes, groundwater being transferred back into the water cycle could be substantial.

Then again, this planet is So Freaking HUGE; we can barely fathom how insignificant we are in comparison. We are talking about .7 millimeters added to the surface of oceans that are thousands of feet (300,000s of mm)deep in most locations.

JP

"The question is not whether we will be extremist but what kind of extremist will we be." ~ MLK Jr.

What is the amount of water that falls from space every year? Is that number added in anywhere? How about the amount of anything that is sucked into our little slice of pie? If it falls, chances are that is falls in the ocean. The same goes for dust and other particles that are kicked up on land and settle in the ocean. Think erosion people.

GLLV...actually it is not exactly the same, .77 is closer to .8 than .7, elementary school math, just another example of deniers twisting whatever they can to fit their conspiracy theory with no science to back up their claims, just keep believing in the science that is convienent and ignore what is not, who do you think developed all that is necessary to post on here? negative cheers

I'm a little late to the party, but . . .

I find it interesting that the scientists think they can measure a rise in the ocean of 0.7 mm with any degree of certainty. With no portion of the ocean calm enough to measure to that accuracy, the number would be an average of the collected data. Accounting for noise in instrumentation, lack of sensitivity, and many other factors affecting the accuracy and precision of instrumentation that 0.7 mm likely originated through mathematical deduction, which makes it a theoretical figure and not an actual measurement. For perspective, 0.7 mm is about 0.028 inches (28 thousandths of an inch!).

Personally, I would like to see how these conclusions were reached and what kinds of assumptions were made in order to get there.