|
Post by louise on May 29, 2011 14:53:32 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on May 30, 2011 19:33:32 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 30, 2011 19:45:10 GMT 1
Is this AFTER the 0.3 mm PER YEAR has been added for recently "discovered" isostatic rebound? (These folk will do anything to try to show a deadly increase, won't they?) Global Mean Sea Level Change Graph with a “Correction” of 0.3 mm/year added May, 5th 2011, due to a “Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA)” – 1993 to Present So where is the "unprecedented acceleration", Louise, those words you and your alter ego, the Listener, so love?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 30, 2011 19:59:21 GMT 1
Louise, I have never denied the sea level is rising a bit - as it always has in the holocene - because this is an interglacial and ice is melting.
The question of interest is the cause. I say natural variation. You say anthropogenic CO2.
Prof Richard Lindzen says
“For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.”
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 18, 2011 10:34:28 GMT 1
GSW on Bishop Hill comments:
The adjustment is obviously unnecessary for anything other than political reasons. If it is to bring the measurement in-line with the models, why adjust the data? Why not account for this properly in the models? The "model world view" has long been preferred by climate "scientists" as the "Real world" is refusing to play ball.
The University of Colorado is measuring a virtual rise in a virtual world not real values.
|
|
|
Post by clh on Jun 18, 2011 12:04:06 GMT 1
3mm/year - 0.3mm/year would be 2.7mm/year
I don't really see the big difference between 3mm per year and 2.7mm per year, especially given that rate is unlikely to be constant going forward.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 18, 2011 13:46:59 GMT 1
So not worth bothering with, clh? My view entirely. So why has this "adjustment" been introduced just when the rate of rise is falling? Hmm, any port in a storm if you're an alarmist, I s'pose! Don't these folk understand the meaning of "relative"?
It isn't as if isostatic rebound hasn't been happening throughout the holocene, is it?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 18, 2011 13:52:30 GMT 1
Here's a brain-teaser for those worriers about sea level - especially nickrr.
How do you account for the 19 ft difference in sea levels of the two oceans either side of the Isthmus of Panama? Should we be trying by geo-engineering to level it out?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 18, 2011 19:04:43 GMT 1
Anyone speak Danish? Here is what I take to be a measure of monthly average sea level in Denmark (manedlig middelvandstand i Danmark) from the Danish Meteorological Institute. During a warming climate since 1890 when the record start, it is totally and utterly flat.
Rgds Troels Halken
Jun 18, 2011 at 10:30 AM Bishop Hill.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 18, 2011 20:04:47 GMT 1
Search the title in google, the web site will come up and then take 'translate'. "Wind and water level in Denmark" "The annual average wind speed at the national level is 5.8 m / s and the most frequent wind direction is west, where about 25% of all winds come from. Vinden varierer selvfølgelig meget fra kystregioner til inde i landet. The wind of course varies widely from coastal regions to inland."
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 18, 2011 21:47:55 GMT 1
No wind here, I don't think, Stu.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 18, 2011 22:15:04 GMT 1
How conveniently obtuse of you, clh. It adds 10% to the current "claimed" rate of rise. If the rate of rise is LESS than 2.7 mm pa, and some claim it is, the adjustment for isostatic rebound is proportionally EVEN GREATER than 10%. BUT WHAT'S 10% BETWEEN FRIENDS!
P.S. Didn't they teach you this sort of arithmetic at your academy?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 18, 2011 22:30:54 GMT 1
I don't suppose it is often the case in climatology that the scale on the graph is actually LARGER than the change being measured.
But I just noticed that (on my screen, anyway) the graphic representation in my reply#48 is showing a rise in sea-level that is actually greater than what the purported mean sea level is doing.
The 10mm intervals on the y axis are actually MORE than 10mm apart. Even on the graph the alarmists are exagerrating!
I guess that sets things in perspective a bit for those who envisage Manhattan flooding any time soon, for example.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jun 18, 2011 22:43:34 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 18, 2011 23:23:47 GMT 1
MM, I fail to see how sea levels can be calculated to 0.3 mm/year. Assume a perfectly flat calm sea at a fixed temperature with no Sun, no evaporation - in short no 'nuffin' to say that a difference of 0.3 mm, incidentally suggesting a measuring accuracy of at least 0.01mm, within the equatorial distance of [hang on whilst I check Wiki] "The circumference of the earth at the equator is 24,901.55 miles (40,075.16 kilometers)." [not Wiki but About-Com] Do an experiment Yourselves First find a steel rule [1st point here notice the word is 'rule' not ruler, the latter being a king/queen or similar] look for the metric divisions, look at a millimeter, see how huge it is! Divide that by 10 and multiply that by 3. Then imagine a water butt filled with water and then measure the height from the bottom of the butt to the surface, and get it to .3 mm. By now You are saying to Yourselves 'what is this idiot on about, He's talking bolox' - You're right! That is 4.0075016 X 10^13 mm and then measuring the sea height difference to an accuracy of 0.01mm[at least] StuartG
|
|