Will rising sea levels declassify Munros?

[algorhythm]

I was just wondering after reading http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

"A recent study says we can expect the oceans to rise between 2.5 and 6.5 feet (0.8 and 2 meters) by 2100,"

would this cause the declassification of the smaller Munros such as Ben Vane, or would the official "sea level" still stay the same?

[SpaceCaptainTheodore]

No, the measure used for sea level is fixed as there would otherwise be ongoing changes all the time (ongoing post glacial rebound, seasonal variation, etc). The heights you see on an OS map are relative to the Ordnance Datum, defined by average sea levels established ages ago. So, for instance, in some technical literature, some author's will prefer to describe heights 'AOD' (Above ordnance Datum) as this is a more precise and accurate terminology. There's an article on Wikipedia.
under 'Ordnance datum'.

[algorhythm]

Nice one, cheers

[IamAJMiller]

Shut down that thread quick enough Haha!! Science BOOM!!

[Caberfeidh]

Don't give them ideas !

[Driftwood]

Shut down that thread quick enough Haha!! Science BOOM!!

Now there's just the question whether those of us who walk every hill from sea-level need to begin with a wade (or dive) when the tide and other factors mean that AOD is well-below the actual water-line. Conscience surely demands it.

[SpaceCaptainTheodore]

Nice one, cheers

No problem!

Shut down that thread quick enough Haha!! Science BOOM!!

Now there's just the question whether those of us who walk every hill from sea-level need to begin with a wade (or dive) when the tide and other factors mean that AOD is well-below the actual water-line. Conscience surely demands it.

Just start off with your knees a wee bit bent and then maybe jump a bit at the top, should just about even it out. Maybe.

[Lothian Edge]

I confess I'm unconvinced. Yes, sea level is fixed. That makes sense given that there are frequent, small fluctuations. But it has no bearing on whether, if seas rise, say, 100 ft, sea level will stay fixed at the same point it is now. I doubt it would. But more importantly, the fact sea level is set at a certain point now says nothing about whether it will stay there. Fixed doesn't mean permanent.

Moreover, even if sea level, in the official sense, didn't change its position, it may well be that the Munro Society, etc., will decide that 3000 ft above the actual level of the seas, averaging out seasonal variation, etc., is more faithful to Munro's vision and to the Munroing tradition. Imagine, for instance, that the seas *fell* 500 feet, but official sea level didn't change. Would anyone not celebrate all the new Munros, and wish Sir Hugh could climb them for himself?

[teaandpies]

Mauna Kea is the 'tallest' mountain on this planet.

Chimborazo is the mountain with it's summit furthest from the Earths centre.

Everest is the mountain with it's summit at the highest altitude.

Classification is a funny thing, just enjoy our tiny bumps on the ground while you can.

[SpaceCaptainTheodore]

I confess I'm unconvinced. Yes, sea level is fixed. That makes sense given that there are frequent, small fluctuations. But it has no bearing on whether, if seas rise, say, 100 ft, sea level will stay fixed at the same point it is now. I doubt it would. But more importantly, the fact sea level is set at a certain point now says nothing about whether it will stay there. Fixed doesn't mean permanent.

Moreover, even if sea level, in the official sense, didn't change its position, it may well be that the Munro Society, etc., will decide that 3000 ft above the actual level of the seas, averaging out seasonal variation, etc., is more faithful to Munro's vision and to the Munroing tradition. Imagine, for instance, that the seas *fell* 500 feet, but official sea level didn't change. Would anyone not celebrate all the new Munros, and wish Sir Hugh could climb them for himself?

Yes, but no-one's looking at a hundred foot rise. A meter in a hundred years means it's likely to be a long time before there's any practical advantage to rebaselining. Of course, at such a time, reclassification becomes a possibility. Also, regarding the likes of the Munro society, I don't (a) see why they'd go to the effort and expense of collecting data to establish their own set of heights or (b) see that they'd consider there to be any advantage - the hills'll still be there and will still feature the same level of approach and ascent (but then, I find some of the purist attitudes around Munroe's inexplicable anyway, so what do I know!).

[Lothian Edge]

100 feet was an example. The point remains that fixed doesn't mean permanent, which is what your argument, I think, relied on. I do think that there's a lot of uncertainty and some studies suggest 20+ feet within the lifetimes of our children or grandchildren. Whether the sea level baseline will be recalibrated or when is an open question.

'The Munro Society, etc.' was meant to be shorthand for 'those with a sustained and serious interest in these matters sufficient to decide on new tables'. I should have said 'SMC, etc.'.

That all said, I think we're in agreement. Yes, it definitely seems right that, for the reasons you give, the Munros list won't change anytime soon, certainly nothing for us to worry about. And yes, maybe they will one day, long after we are all dead and gone.

[BobMcBob]

Mauna Kea is the 'tallest' mountain on this planet.

Chimborazo is the mountain with it's summit furthest from the Earths centre.

Everest is the mountain with it's summit at the highest altitude.

Classification is a funny thing, just enjoy our tiny bumps on the ground while you can.

It is indeed a funny thing, and in general a completely arbitrary one. 'Feet' are an arbitrary unit. 3000 is an arbitrary number of arbitrary units. 'Sea level' is a variable start point. The distinction between 'Munros' and 'Tops' is completely arbitrary and indeed was not recognised by the man himself when he set out to climb all of them.

Personally speaking, if you're going to name an arbitrary group of things after a person, then that group of things ought to be set in stone as the things that person put in his list when he originally made it.

But then, I'm something of a purist.