|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 10, 2010 19:52:12 GMT 1
According to S. J. Holgate, a recognised world authority in geophysical research at the UK-based Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory in Liverpool, in his paper published in 2007, the following results represent the most comprehensive measurements of decadal sea-level change rates during the 20th century. On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2007/2006GL028492.shtmlBetween 1904 and 1953 global sea levels rose by 2.03 mm per year, whereas from 1954 to 2003 they rose by only 1.45 mm per year, giving an annual mean rate of 1.74 mm per year over the 100 years to 2003, or seven inches per century. Importantly, there was no increase in the rate of change over the whole century. So, based on these peer reviewed and generally accepted numbers, 20th century sea levels rose at a 25% slower rate in the second half of the century than the first which, on any reasonable interpretation, contradicts the notion that global temperature increases during the last 50 years contributed to any sea level rise! Douglas McCormack September 10, 2010 at 6:54 am WUWT
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 10, 2010 20:02:23 GMT 1
Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges using neural networks www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JC005630.shtmlManfred Wenzel and Jens SchröterAlfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany "The global mean sea level for the period January 1900 to December 2006 is estimated to rise at a rate of 1.56 ± 0.25 mm/yr which is reasonably consistent with earlier estimates, but we do not find significant acceleration."
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 10, 2010 20:09:31 GMT 1
IPCC Third Assessment Report Executive Summary for Policy-makers www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/409.htm“No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected” IPCC AR4 Executive ASummary for Policy-Makers Chap 5www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter5.pdf"The rise in global mean sea level is accompanied by considerable decadal variability. For the period 1993 to 2003, the rate of sea level rise is estimated from observations with satellite altimetry as 3.1 ± 0.7 mm yr–1, signifi cantly higher than the average rate. The tide gauge record indicates that similar large rates have occurred in previous 10-year periods since 1950. It is unknown whether the higher rate in 1993 to 2003 is due to decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend."
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 10, 2010 20:26:45 GMT 1
TonybSept 10, 2010 10.00am WUWT "much of the historic sea level record is a computer generated model as the actual historic global tidal gauge measurements either simply do not exist, or are based on data gathered from three highly fractured historic tide gauges in Liverpool, Amsterdam and Stockholm. ... In this respect it is useful to look at figure 5A2 (above) which shows tide gauge numbers used. These slowly grew from 3 in the 1700’s until in 1900 they stood at 20 in the Northern Hemisphere and 2 in the Southern Hemisphere. There are only 7 gauges that have not moved that are at least 100 years old. Here they are under slide 27 of this presentation by The US National Academy of Sciences www.nasonline.org/site/DocServer/Yokoyama_Yusuke.pdf?docID=53500That’s it. A global sea level has been manufactured based on a tiny number of northern hemisphere tide gauges in which much of the information has been made up. The apparent increase in rate of sea-level rise from 1993. when satellite altimetry measurement, began is due solely to the change from tide gauge measurement to the new "hi-tech method. This latter system covers the entire ocean EXCEPT coastal and polar regions, which cannot be captured by satellite. An acceleration between the two time periods is then claimed. ---------- I tried to explain before to lazarus that you cannot compare apples and oranges in this way but he didn't seem want to know. He clung to 'the science' as always. I call satellite altimetry voodoo "science myself until we have a VERY long period over which to make comparisons.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 10, 2010 20:43:07 GMT 1
To quote Willard in Apocolypse Now, "The bullshit in 'nam piles up so fast, you need wings to stay above it"
It appears "nam" and eco "science" share a trait.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 10, 2010 20:46:00 GMT 1
And the warmists here claim there is nothing to be learned from blogs, Mr Smith! Teehee. I wonder where they think all this came from?
|
|
|
Post by helen on Sept 10, 2010 21:34:26 GMT 1
There is a great deal to be learned from blogs but it has to be tested by others don't you think? Can't be taken on faith. Or can it? Mary and R_Smith why should I take what you say on faith? Not test your numbers against others? This is what you expect us of your own opinions. I told you so it's true? It's bollox R-Smith and Mary. Argument's don't work this way. Give us the facts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 10, 2010 21:59:28 GMT 1
Helen, you have umpteen quotes above from experts involved in the field, including the IPCC's TAR and AR4 saying there has been NO ACCELERATION in sea level rise. Are you never satisfied? It has also been explained why the satellite altimetry as compared with earlier tide gauge measures is not comparing like with like and therefore cannot be used as a basis for declaring a change in the rate of sea-level rise.
Have you not even looked at what has been written above?
I have given you the facts according to the KNMI? - It is the equivalent of the Met Office and CRU combined!
Oooh-er, oops! I should have said it is MUCH better than the Met Office and CRU combined!! The KNMI have proper statisticians and proper computer programers and lots more - even a canteen! They are a professional data collection agency not a squad of ageing hippes with pretensions to be geographers and environmentalists who have tapped into the crock of gold at the end of the IPCC rainbow.
So tell me, helen, let's be specific. What exactly do you have against the KNMI anomaly graph of Pacific and Atlantic Ocean level change? Let's hear it, please in the interests of a "dialogue" as you once called it.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 13, 2010 15:25:40 GMT 1
Mary
But what point are you trying to make now?
You include graphs from the Dutch weather service that show they haven’t recorded much sea level rise over the last 5 or 6 years and then you list other links, including the IPCC that stress “mean sea level is accompanied by considerable decadal variability.”
So the Dutch agree with the IPCC, the science you gave agrees with the IPCC, are you now saying YOU agree with the IPCC?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 14, 2010 10:05:55 GMT 1
I attended a meeting a week or so ago to discuss options for sea defences on a problamatic causway. The head engineer from the local council explained that we had to factor in a 30cm sea level rise due to climate change (by 2050). It is deeply worrying that a serious discussion is brought down to this level by green propaganda. The 30cm rise could very well scupper any plans to fix this problem due to the added expense. If someone dies on this causway, it will be a direct result of green interference. Does that make you proud, lazarus.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 14, 2010 11:16:45 GMT 1
"what point are you trying to make now? "
That sea-level rise is NOT accelerating as you claimed it was, of course!
Can't you read the title of the thread? Simples!
Do the graphs from the KNMI for the Atlantic and Pacific in the OP look as if they demonstrate an ACCELERATION in sea-level rise?
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 15, 2010 17:36:09 GMT 1
That sea-level rise is NOT accelerating as you claimed it was, of course! And where have 'I' claimed this?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 18, 2011 16:42:20 GMT 1
Sea level may drop in 2010 opines John Kehron WUWT "Based on the most current data it appears that 2010 is going to show the largest drop in global sea level ever recorded in the modern era. Since many followers of global warming believe that the rate of sea level rise is increasing, a significant drop in the global sea level highlights serious flaws in the IPCC projections. The oceans are truly the best indicator of climate. The oceans drive the world’s weather patterns. A drop in the ocean levels in a year that is being cited as proof that the global warming has arrived shows that there is still much to learned. If the ocean levels dropped in 2010, then there is something very wrong with the IPCC projections." theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/2009-2010-No-Inv-Baro.pngMore here wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/sea-level-may-drop-in-2010/#more-31866
|
|
|
Post by louise on Feb 12, 2011 15:35:55 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 12, 2011 16:44:51 GMT 1
Louise,
Had you not considered that this tiny number of 0.75mm per year may be due to tectonic plate movement?
|
|