It is not hard to see that I am allergic to any self-evidence and, thus, to sea-level rise without considering erosion.

Why and why only to some of them?

Self-evidences

Human evolution and civilization rest on the ability to internalize precepts* as given, mostly as hardwired. If we cannot take a vast majority of sensations as “understood” in advance, we would have to reason about each percept’s details. That would mean a delay in reactions and actions. We do not think about a lion in front of us. We run away.

If perceptual self-evidences are neurologically confirmed, the situation with concepts seems different. And it indeed is, at least for the majority of cases. When we think, we rationalize, meaning that our memetic activity comes into play. That means that we do not take the meaning of concepts for granted, as hardwired.

Yet there are many instances when we conceptualize but do not think about when we take the meaning of memes for granted. We do not evaluate all identity elements of Coca-Cola or Ikea when choosing one or another brand to buy. We take for granted some elements while evaluating (making sense of) only a few of them. We take for granted (as self-evidence) Ikea as a brand while evaluating only the particular chair we intend to buy, for instance.

On the other side of the spectrum of self-evidence are instances like deciding about a loan or trusting an authority. Do I consider Donald Trump’s or Richard Dawkins’s claim valid since they are both authorities in their fields? The reputation, the memetic field created by one or another brand, affects our trust, but even for scientific brands, we do not take their claims for granted. 

The decision of whether to take a loan or not is not based on self-evidence. We must rationally evaluate our needs and constraints to take a loan and not take it as self-evident or because everyone believes in it.

Sea-rise due to which self-evidence?

Regarding climate change and global warming, we seem to have no option. We have to take action. Why? Because it is scientifically proven. Is it?

According to global warming self-evidence, the rise of seas should be caused by global warming.

According to the above claim, we should all be submerged by now. 

Yet there is also another reason to doubt the politically correct claim. 

I have been searching for any resource explaining how many depositions of material due to erosion cause sea level rise. I could not find a single one. I did not even mention that the deposition of land by rivers and wind causes sea level rise. One can find many resources explaining erosion, but not one connects material deposition with sea-level rise.

That should make anyone raise eyebrows.

First question

If there is a water reservoir (like all seawater on Earth), each particle of land that drops into that reservoir must cause a slight sea-level increase. The same argument is widely used regarding ice melting in Antarctica. Each atom of water melts into the sea, increasing the sea level. Since the quantity of water in all water systems on Earth and the atmosphere is constant, the rise should happen if there is less water on land and in the air (together). (Melting ice that floats on water in the Arctic region does not increase sea level due to Archimed law). However, no one mentions the option that solid land disposal into the sea would or should affect sea level increase.

Second question

Erosion on Earth is a fact. Due to gravity, erosion tends to move land “down.” Rocks fall to rivers, and rivers push material further down to the final destination: the sea. Step by step, oceans intake more and more material due to erosion. The thought experiment tells us that after a prolonged enough period of erosion, the whole Earth would be just one ocean without any spot of dry land unless volcanic eruptions and significant tectonic events cause a temporary increase in the above-waterline surface. Yet, as we know, the Earth is cooling and calming down. Fewer volcanic events occur while tectonic changes increase, but no clear understanding exists. Some even speculate that the water stored in oceans grows, as this New Scientist article explains.

Third question

I did find plenty of articles claiming how sea rise causes erosion on ocean shores, which makes sense. However, no one has touched on the global influence of erosion that happens not only on ocean shores! Erosion on ocean shores counts nothing in comparison to the rest of erosion.

Conclusion

Constant deposition of material into oceans causes sea levels to rise. Tectonic activity most probably also causes water to be stored on Earth. Until I see a solid argument that those two causes can not cause sea-level rise, I will reject the evidence that climate change is the only cause.

---

 

* The strict division between precepts and concepts concerning memetics and reasoning was developed recently in my PhD dissertation, which has not yet been published. This post was first published in 2016, so I had to upgrade it to the present state of the art regarding memetics. Yet, there is no need to feel left behind since you do not know it. Follow this blog, and you will get it step by step with (almost) no effort.