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
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
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 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?
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 22:15:04 GMT 1
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.
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?
Welcome to the new webpages from the University of Colorado sea level group! We apologize for the delay in updating our sea level releases, but the transition to these new web pages took longer than we thought. In addition, we have made many improvements to our data (new orbits, new tide model, new corrections) which ultimately had little effect on global mean sea level, but brought us up to date with the latest advances in the field.
One important change in these releases is that we are now adding a correction of 0.3 mm/year due to Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA), so you may notice that the rate of sea level rise is now 0.3 mm/year higher than earlier releases. This is a correction to account for the fact that the global ocean basins are getting slightly larger over time as mantle material moves from under the oceans into previously glaciated regions on land. Simply subtract 0.3 mm/year if you prefer to not include the GIA correction.
You may also note that rate of sea level rise over recent years has been less than the long-term average. This is believed to be due to the recent La Nina's we have been experiencing, though research on this is continuing.