Are you worried about the potential impact of rising sea levels?

I totally agree Mr Palin. The truth is it will be alright in the long run, but what that will look like for our grandchildren is the rub.

There is a story about an experiment that was undertaken between culling elephants to prevent damage to forest, and allowing them to take their natural course. It was conducted over years.

At first the 'culled' forest seemed far better than the left alone one. The elephants did less damage. In the unculled forest it became devastating to the environment.

As a result, elephants ran out of food and many died as drought ensued as a result of loss of trees. The herd became almost extinct. Bodies rotted back into the Earth, and fertilised the soil.

Over time and lack of elephants the forest recovered and grew more lush than the 'managed' forest ever achieved. The result was lauded as a resounding success in proving that elephants should be left alone to follow natures course.

On some level I agree with those findings, but translate that into humankind rather than elephants and the picture looks unacceptable.

Its true that die-off of humans would result in a refreshed Earth with all problems solved, but I for one don't want to be part of making that choice for the generations to come.

For sure, if we don't manage our own activities for ourselves, nature will do it for us. She brooks no argument when it comes to her own survival. I opt for taking responsibility before we are forced to.

We know our activities are damaging our habitat and our possibilities of survival. We should not need to have science point out to us what is right under our noses and obvious.

For me, the consequences of taking no action are unacceptable, even if they are just a possibility rather than the strong probability that we are being shown.

I could not rest easy in my grave when it comes knowing that I had not at least tried.

There are both positive and negative forcings to Earth's energy balance which controls climate. Some of these, such as solar radiation, are natural. Others are anthropogenic in origin. The net positive forcing at present is mostly due to the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 as a result of the burning of fossil fuels by humans (download PDF of paper from here).

The most important long-term negative feedback to climate is provided by accelerated consumption of atmospheric CO2 by weathering of rocks in response to elevated temperatures (download PDF of paper from here). Over geologic time, this negative feedback has combined with the positive forcing provided by atmospheric CO2 to restrict global temperature to a relatively narrow range (download PDF of paper from here). Unfortunately, natural rates of rock weathering are far too slow to counteract the ongoing rapid rise in atmospheric CO2.

Here is a website that provides numerous links directly to the peer-reviewed scientific literature on global climate change with minimal commentary. It should provide you with further fascinating reading.

Humankind will undoubtedly respond to the ongoing climate change, as we have done many times over the past several million years. However, adaptation will not be cheap.

It will entail destruction of habitat as a direct result of environmental change and conflicts and loss of life will inevitably follow because we are no longer as mobile a species as we were in the past.

It is regrettable that, in spite of our knowledge of such consequences, we refuse to modify our present behaviour in the least. In this regard, we are little better than a drunken mob burning couches in the streets.

There have been a couple of posts which suggest that readers have taken the poll question too literally. Perhaps it would have been better to have asked "Are you concerned about....?"

I find it very strange that some folk have their heads buried in the sand and refuse to look seriously at how mankind has the ability to adapt to changes in the climate.

Go to this link for a fascinating paper in the Royal Society Proceedings regarding solar influences on climate. The concluding remarks make for interesting reading, for participants on both "sides" of the climate change debate.

Go to this link for an equally fascinating look at cosmic ray and CFC influences on climate.

Both papers relate to Henrik Svensmark's work on cosmic rays and cloud cover.
Roughly stating my understanding of these ideas: no direct influence on climate due to reduced solar irradiance, but a drop in solar wind leads to increased influx of cosmic rays; Svensmark says this increases cloud cover,

Lu says cosmic rays break down ozone and lead to warming. If this doesn't seem consistent with the idea that healing the ozone layer leads to warming, consider it as a negative feedback mechanism in a system seeking equilibrium. I strongly believe that the climate system cannot be dominated by positive feedbacks; for it to be long-term stable, negative feedback must exist and there can be no runaway global warming mechanism.

Go to this link to download a peer-reviewed article from Science magazine that compares observations of atmospheric CO2, temperature and sea level with climate projections of the IPCC from 1990 onward.

I too am surprised that it is 49% that aren't worried about climate change - I thought it would be more people (it is 57% as I post this).

Maybe people aren't worried because they know there isn't much, if anything, they can do about it.
NZ has less than 0.02% of all so called man made greenhouse emissions. China last year was cranking out a powerstation every three weeks or so that coughed out the North Islands yearly emissions.

I went on to "the net" and other sources and "woke up" to the fact that despite what we are told in mainstream media, and by our government, that the science isn't settled.
Until it is settled, then we can't make decisions on what to do either way, getting hotter or colder.

Copenhagen wasn't much to do with climate change, by the way. It was more to do with some countries wanting a load of dosh from others.
The reason none of the countries could decide what to do is that their respective economies would be hammered while already in a recession.

On top of that we have the climategate e-mails that show correspondence at the top level of scientists.
To use you analogy of fiddling while Rome burns,  we are not even sure Rome is burning -  the smoke in the distance could be the mist of a cool winter morning.

Of course glaciers are not "permanent" - by which I think you mean permanently the same size.

They grow and melt/retreat all the time. It doesn't change that 10% of ice is on land.

Hey, we could always dam every major waterway that exits to the oceans if you like. That would slow down the rise in water level as we slow down the flow. Somehow I can't see that as a goer...

Oh, I woke up some time ago to the hoax and scam that is man-made global warming and thanks for your concern.

It is wrong to suggest that voters are doubting climate change. I see it as a relative slow process and have confidence that mankind will find an answer to the problem, so therefore I voted not worried as the most appropriate answer for me.

But at the same time I am utterly sick of the endless yak about climate change and name calling which is solving nothing.

We should be talking about limiting population growth, better population reduction, and relocation of people homeless from flooding and drought.

Glaciers are not permanent and the sea level is not constant. If you think otherwise, then try this experiment: take a glass full of water, hold it directly in front of your face, and with a short rapid jerk lift it toward your face. This may wake you up to reality.

I find it staggering that the poll here shows 49% still doubt climate change.This can only mean that half of the people, here at least, have never taken the time to educate themselves as to what is really going on. That's scary.

Talk about "fiddling while Rome burns". (That means doing nothing while disaster happens as Nero did when Rome was on its last legs- for those that have never heard of it).

It makes me feel that the biggest problem we, and maybe human kind, faces is our own ignorance.

Please, get on the net, read a few books, look at the climate stats over the last decade. Open your eyes and wake up.

There is more to life than the next Speights, and Rugby match.

Do something that will make a difference and you can only benefit -and it wont even give you a hangover, Dunedin.

Unfortunately, crisis still is the mother of invention, but this crisis is terminal. Sit on your hands at your peril. And unfortunately mine too.

Local politics and national politicians who can use their constituents unawareness to prevaricate, thrive on the uninformed. That's why Obama had his hands tied at Copenhagen. That's why John Key could threaten not to even turn up.

Educate and update current information and vote people in who have a clue. Let's start at home with the next council election.

I've googled for quite a while on this and the general figure is about 10.4% of water on earth is ice and most of that is in Antartica.

About 10.4 percent of the world's land surface, or approximately 6,020,000 square miles (15,600,000 square kilometers), is glaciated.

Glaciated means permanently covered with ice. That ice takes the form of glaciers, ice sheets, or ice caps.

One more thing to consider is how high temperature needs to rise above freezing in order for it to melt.
Neither ice cap has a monthly temperature above freezing, by the way.
In short, there is no need to worry about ice causing sea level rise.

... it gets hotter or colder, or if the sea rises or falls. But I think it is rather serious for the inhabitants.

Calvin-

Yes, and water vapour that evaporates from the oceans at low latitudes will precipite as snow at high latitudes. When global temperatures are low, the snow accumulates, glacial ice sheets form, and, as a consequence, sea level drops. When global temperature are high, the ice melts and sea level rises. This natural cycle has repeated itself many times over the last several million years. Each time, the oceans and glacial ice have responded to changing global temperatures.

We now have data available that clearly show that both temperature and sea level have risen on a global scale over the past century. Your point was?

As a masters student you must
1. Be able reason for yourself and never believe another scientist's hypothesis until you understand the proof behind it.
2. If you do some research on what you must have learned at primary school, you would realise that the world has been warmer than at present during historical times. The medieval warm period (which was conveniently ommitted from Al Gore's "hockey stick" graph) is one of those times. Do some more research on that subject and ponder how the earth has been warm before when there was no human industry and therefore no additional CO2 to heat the earth. It appears the current warming, which may well be over, is well within the natural temperature fluctuation of our planet. Check this link out.  Why are we running around after the friendly gas CO2 which will not help the planet when the planet genuinely does need saving?

Mike Palin-
Now try this experiment: Take a glass of water, apply heat to it until the water has all evaporated. Measure that amount of heat, both sensible and latent required. Then take the resultant vapour, remove the heat and cool and condense it back to water. Measure the amount of heat, both latent and sensible required. That then is what happens when the oceans warm.
Water evaporates, rises as vapour clouds into the atmosphere where as it rises it cools and condenses back into water/rain. The heat involved leaves firstly the surface and then ultimately the atmosphere into space. A simple heat engine, which, beautifully, balances the heat exhausted from the earth into the atmosphere. The warmer the ocean the greater the rate of evaporation, thus the greater the rate of heat dispersal. So, the most prolific greenhouse gas, water vapour, is also the greatest vehicle to transfer heat from the earth to atmosphere.

Global warming and sea-level rise is complicated, but in simple terms: (1) as water is heated it becomes more dense (ie contracts in volume) until it reaches 4C, but after that it expands as it warms, and (2) not all ice is floating - melts from non-polar glaciers, and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets can result in sea-level rise. The Australian Academy of Science has published a helpful overview 

house-
Now try this experiment: take a glass of water, mark the level, take another empty glass and put an ice cube in it, wait for the ice cube to melt, pour the contents into the first glass and note the rise in water level. Yep, that's what happens when ice on land (Greenland, Antarctic) melts and the runoff enters the ocean.

As a scientist, albeit a masters student, I find it hard to take your argument seriously. I implore you to go beyond the google search, Mr. Gong, and follow the literature. At least when building an argument include your sources of information, so we know from where you've built your knowledge. When analysing complex scientific issues such as climate change, one must rely on the balance of evidence, or consensus.
Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC* on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) concluded that climate change is, without a doubt, occurring and the Earth is warming. More importantly, the IPCC concluded that there is over 90% probability that this temperature increase is due to human activities (Bernstein, Pachauri et al. 2007).
Now, the Stern Review, the most comprehensive review on the economics of climate change ever carried out, was commissioned for the UK Government in 2006. The Review, based on IPCC AR3 (2001) science, concluded that the body of evidence and the growing quantitative assessment of risks was “sufficient to give clear and strong guidance to economists and policy-makers in shaping a response.” In April 2008 in an interview with The Guardian, author Nicholas Stern admitted the Stern Review (2006) had underestimated the risks, damage and probability of temperature increases, and that climate change was happening faster than they had predicted (Adam 2008).
To compound this urgency to act, the recently released Synthesis Report (2009) found that greenhouse gas emissions and many aspects of the climate are changing near the upper boundary of the IPCC AR4 (2007) range of projections (Richardson, Steffen et al. 2009). That is, the Stern Report and AR4 predictions have come to be, though what we're seeing is the top level effects. Your reaction to the question about sea level rise is common, and one I believe is to be expected. That is the tragedy of climate change, and its cause is evident when we analyse news media and specifically the necessity for objectivity.
A 'balanced story' cannot apply to climate change science, though it has been for decades and such public representation of the issue reflects this. Over 3000 scientists agree, with greater than 90% certainty, that this is happening and is happening because of us. One man's view balanced equally with this in a guise of objectivity can only lead one way. I welcome and look forward to your response, Nick Holmes
*The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change.

Well, logically there isn't an infinite amount of oil under the ground.

The thing about 'peak oil' is not that the oil has run out, but that at some point a long way before that demand will outstrip production and that will push prices higher and higher quite fast, in much the same way that it did in the 70s when that was done for political reasons.

Anyone that doesn't do some research into the Climategate scandle should remain with their head in the sand.
Obviously, we the general public, need to have access to some fair and balanced information, not the IPCC report summary.
Try this simple experiment:
Take a glass of water and put an ice cube in it.
Mark the water level on the glass.
Wait for the ice to melt then check the water level.
So sea level rise must be caused by something else. But what? Maybe we are sinking? Whatever the reason, there are a bunch of islands that want our money to stop their problem which they say we are causing. I hope if they are wrong they give the money back.
Al Gore said that the sea level would rise 20ft... yeah right.
He should give back the Oscar he got for a "factual documentary".

We definitely had a shortage.
From my memory and looking this up a bit, it was more political than say actually running out of oil in the ground that caused a shortage.
In fact, "Peak Oil" keeps being raised... then fades as it doesn't seem to happen when it is forcast.
Even the last couple of years the price of oil has gone up due to speculation and a lack of refining capacity rather than "we are running out of oil".
Logically, there will be a lack of oil one day but by then, when ever that will be, we'll hopefully have alternative fuel or alternative types of cars, though oil is used for a lot more things than fuel.

Worrying doesn't necessarily mean lying awake at night or popping happy pills. In this context it means acknowledging that there is a problem which, if we don't do anything about it now, will be irreversible - despite the claims of the flat-earthers.

There was an oil shortage in the 70s - we had car-less days, lines for petrol all that stuff - we didn't imagine it.

What's so good about worrying? If the sea rises significantly, it rises. Fretting and lying awake at night thinking about it won't stop it but would make my life worse. If it didn't rise more than a few cm and then stopped or went back the worrying would be even more of a waste of emotional energy. So Willie, why do you believe that current non-worriers should get with the angst, pronto ? Just to share in the advance misery-fest?

Anyone who isn't worried about rising sea levels shouldn't leave their head in the sand for too long.

Not the least worried because the whole global warming thing is a scam.
Al Gore deliberately omitted the Medieval Warm Period off his graph and this same graph was later used by the IPCC. It was at least as warm but probably warmer during the medieval warming than now, but no significant rises (or drops) in sea level occurred then or during the subsequent cooling. There have been two further warm periods within historical times, the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warm Period. The point is though, if there were previous global warmings when there could not have been any possible effect from human produced CO2, it is entirely illogical to assume or even try to prove that the current warming is due to humans.
This scam is slowly being revealed by evidence of data tampering, the absurd claim that CO2 is a poisonous gas and the finds at the Schneidejoch pass in Switzerland where artifacts only of the periods mentioned above are being found as the glacier retreats. Some of the older members of our society can remember fears of a retreat into an ice age in the 70s, an oil shortage soon after that. They faded in due course.
It is also apparent that rising sea levels experienced to date cannot be distinguished from the effects of normal seismic and tectonic activity this being another distortion of fact offered to us by global warming alarmists. To cap it all officially it is reported that Antarctica except for the peninsula has not warmed at all. However this fact or the explanation for the lack of warming has been blamed on the Ozone hole. How gullible are the public. Not infinitely I suspect.