|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 25, 2011 13:28:24 GMT 1
Not it's not. As with temperature it is only local and regional that matters.
Try to get your head around the concept of "RELATIVE" sea level rise, Eamonn. It is local to every coastal locality. This what matters to PEOPLE. The so-called "global" stuff is irrelevant except as grist to the mill of alarmists.
Maybe but not much except in the very long term if the ocean basins are sinking, too. Coastal dwellers adjust to the behaviour of the sea and always have done whether due to subsidence, erosion, sedimentation, isostatic rebound, thermal expansion/contraction or whatever.
FACT! Japan will rebuild its sea walls HIGHER.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 25, 2011 13:29:48 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 25, 2011 13:48:23 GMT 1
Obscure cinematic reference? Well yes, but then isn't that kind of appropriate? Thanks to Josh and Bishop Hill
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 25, 2011 15:05:30 GMT 1
Ponder this, Eamonn, if you think the calculation of sea level and ocean volume is so simple. The earth moves. Up in some places. Down in others. The whole Hawaiian Island chain is sinking (and has been since almost forever). California is rising (rather a lot). Indonesia just had a chunk move up 9 feet a couple of years back. Coastlines are fractal. Mountains are fractal. So the volume of the oceans will be based on fractals. That means it will change with the ruler used to measure it. “Good luck with that”…About That Sea Level 22 June 2011 by E.M.Smith chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/about-that-sea-level/
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 27, 2011 9:16:58 GMT 1
No I'm not. I was talking about what is actually measured, and the accuracies actually quoted on the rate of change measurements.
And now M descends into doublespeak, where an absence of adjustment becomes an adjustment! Madness!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 27, 2011 11:10:43 GMT 1
STA, sorry if you cannot understand the fact that a tide gauge (which is fixed to the land) moves up and down with the land whether it is isostatic rebound or subsidence, providing the perfect automatic "adjustment" whilst ALSO providing the vital information that is required - RELATIVE sea level for that location.
Doncha jus lurve clever people pretending they don't understand simple points!
People who worry about sea level rise are concerned with coastline inundation NOT isostatic rebound or ocean volume. It is only when the predicted inundations of coastlines are NOT manifest that we get the obfuscatory add-on for isostatic rebound and ridiculous estimates of ocean volume. Prats.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 27, 2011 12:47:19 GMT 1
This is totally ludicrous!
I think you'll find that those living in coastal areas without significant rise or fall of the land ARE worried about sea-level rise. And to them, unadjusted figures from a tidal gauge on land that is rising aren't much use when it comes to deciding how high their next seawall should be.
So, any idiot should be able to appreciate that there are TWO effects that need to be disentangled -- whether the land is falling or rising, or whether the sea-level is actually changing. The former is usually out of our control, the latter may not be.
|
|
|
Post by principled on Jun 27, 2011 18:56:18 GMT 1
Come on STA, you are quite aware of what I was implying. You brought into the conversation LIGO, a $360 million experiment. Don't tell me that "lab conditions" don't apply to such readings. Next you'll be telling me that I never really needed to spend a fortune on an air conditioned metrology lab to carry out precise and accurate measurements! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGOI also came across this "Manual on sea level measurement and interpretation". It was written by Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, but as far as I can see, no gauge gave greater accuracy than 2mm and had an accuracy far worse than that. Go to table 2.1 page 19 for a summary. unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001251/125129e.pdfI am not disputing that technology has moved on in the last 10 years, but this technology WAS in use and we are relying upon this and even earlier technology to give us an accurate picture of changes and rate of change in sea level. P
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 27, 2011 19:06:46 GMT 1
Except, as I keep pointing out, the error on the trend of noisy data isn't the same as the error on any individual measurement!
I don't know why everyone is assuming that oceanographers can't do simple error analysis...............................
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 27, 2011 22:35:16 GMT 1
"I don't know why everyone is assuming that oceanographers can't do simple error analysis..............................." Perhaps they need to do 'complex' error analysis... "Error Analysis and Simulations of Complex Phenomena" library.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/getfile?01057075.pdfand is this the sort of thing that underlines this thread?... "On Deep Sea Volcanoes and Ocean Warming: Reprint" volcano.oregonstate.edu/The last bullet point is interesting as it seems incorrect... "Finally, you would expect in this situation that ocean water would warm from the bottom (near the volcanoes) upwards, but it is actually the surface waters that are warming, not the deep ocean. This suggests that heating is coming from exchange with the atmosphere, not from some deep source on the ocean floor." Well they would warm the upper waters, wouldn't they? Here's the best demonstration I could summon... Wiki... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosiphon#Engine_coolingFord 8/10 HP anyone? StuartG Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by principled on Jun 28, 2011 10:44:56 GMT 1
STA
Who said that oceanographers can't do error analysis? Certainly not me. You always seem to drop back on the "You think scientists are thick" argument, which is not what is being argued. I, for instance, have just pointed out some of the weaknesses related to the accuracy of the measurements based on both the known tolerances within the equipment and other factors such as their location (see the Spanish experience in the previous link provided). These will produce "noise" as you put it, which can be dealt with but the result will always be subject to degree of tolerance. My "surprise" is the degree of accuracy ascribed to the trend once the "noise" has been dealt with. Simples.
Stu Thanks for the interesting link. As for the "Sit up and beg" Ford Popular with the old thermo-syphon cooling, that brings back memories...and don't get me started on their vacuum wipers!
P
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 28, 2011 12:22:48 GMT 1
I don't think the vertical circulation within the oceans is that simple -- plus there is salinity to consider as well. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulationSeems from this that water masses stay surprisingly distinct, and take a LONG time to do a circuit! Weird!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 28, 2011 12:22:55 GMT 1
Relative sea level is all that matters, STA. The volume of the ocean is not crucial AT ALL to coastal dwellers.
Anything else I can help you with today?
|
|
|
Post by principled on Jun 28, 2011 13:22:09 GMT 1
One other point. Does wind affect sea heights to any great degree? I asked because at lake Winnipeg (I know its not open sea!)which is around 25000km2, the prevailing wind can cause a difference in water height of up to 1 metre on its southern shore. The lake is relatively shallow, so similar to waters around the continental shelf. Hence the question. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_WinnipegP
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 28, 2011 13:31:16 GMT 1
Yes, hence barometric correction (okay, not exactly wind, but related!).
And more crap from Marchesa:
|
|