Rising sea levels.
Discussion
MOTORVATOR said:
I think I'm getting the hang of this. So what you are saying in a roundabout way is that there aren't too many people, just that they haven't drunk enough Gin?
Indeed... The real question should be what will happen if everyone on the earth all flush their toilets at the same time. I can see a toilet flushing tax ahead.
TheExcession said:
ndeed... The real question should be what will happen if everyone on the earth all flush their toilets at the same time.
I can see a toilet flushing tax ahead.
I'm not normally taken in by these conspiracy theories but I truly believe this is the real reason behind the recent storm surges and the weather forecasters are just covering it up for the government. In fact I have seen the secret memo to all the government depts telling them to flush their toilets at the same time. Rule by fear is alive and well.I can see a toilet flushing tax ahead.
TheExcession said:
This is no dig at you Lotus but seriously how does one measure a 1-2 mm rise in sea level?
By taking lots of measurements over a long period of time and calculating the average change (eg the permanent service for mean sea level has been in place since 1933). Tide gauges have been around for quite a long time (in several instances since the 1700s) and, more recently satellite altimeters and oceanic tide/wave monitors have also been in place.Edited by Lotus 50 on Saturday 7th December 18:25
Seems the latest satellites can measure to a resolution of approx 50mm. Then it's complicated further by the fact that they don't measure from the satellite they actually measure to a geoid which is a rough guess at the shape of the oceans. This geoid can be hundreds of metres adrift as the shape of the sea surface is all over the place due to gravitational and rotational effects.
So satellites rely on taking many thousands of readings and averaging out. Their confidence level is in the region of +/- 3mm so pretty good really.
Taking all that to one side though the general sea level has been rising for thousands of years and actually is rising less than at any time over the last ten or so thousand years. Not that you would believe that if read the BBC sites.
I think it's even been shown that the instrumentation is indicating that no rise at all has happened in the last two years which won't be mainstream news of course as that's not very scary.
Nature eh? Sure we can get it under control with just a little more tax.
So satellites rely on taking many thousands of readings and averaging out. Their confidence level is in the region of +/- 3mm so pretty good really.
Taking all that to one side though the general sea level has been rising for thousands of years and actually is rising less than at any time over the last ten or so thousand years. Not that you would believe that if read the BBC sites.
I think it's even been shown that the instrumentation is indicating that no rise at all has happened in the last two years which won't be mainstream news of course as that's not very scary.
Nature eh? Sure we can get it under control with just a little more tax.
MOTORVATOR said:
Seems the latest satellites can measure to a resolution of approx 50mm. Then it's complicated further by the fact that they don't measure from the satellite they actually measure to a geoid which is a rough guess at the shape of the oceans. This geoid can be hundreds of metres adrift as the shape of the sea surface is all over the place due to gravitational and rotational effects.
So satellites rely on taking many thousands of readings and averaging out. Their confidence level is in the region of +/- 3mm so pretty good really.
Taking all that to one side though the general sea level has been rising for thousands of years and actually is rising less than at any time over the last ten or so thousand years. Not that you would believe that if read the BBC sites.
I think it's even been shown that the instrumentation is indicating that no rise at all has happened in the last two years which won't be mainstream news of course as that's not very scary.
Nature eh? Sure we can get it under control with just a little more tax.
By "actually is rising less than at any time over the last ten or so thousand years" are you referring to "no rise at all has happened in the last two years"?So satellites rely on taking many thousands of readings and averaging out. Their confidence level is in the region of +/- 3mm so pretty good really.
Taking all that to one side though the general sea level has been rising for thousands of years and actually is rising less than at any time over the last ten or so thousand years. Not that you would believe that if read the BBC sites.
I think it's even been shown that the instrumentation is indicating that no rise at all has happened in the last two years which won't be mainstream news of course as that's not very scary.
Nature eh? Sure we can get it under control with just a little more tax.
from wiki:
Short-term variability and long-term trends
On the timescale of years and decades, sea level records contain a considerable amount of variability.[29] For example, approximately a 10 mm rise and fall of global mean sea level accompanied the 1997–1998 El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) event, and a temporary 5 mm fall accompanied the 2010–2011 event.[30] Interannual or longer variability is a major reason why no long-term acceleration of sea level has been identified using 20th century data alone. However, a range of evidence clearly shows that the rate of sea level rise increased between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries.[31] Sea level acceleration up to the present has been about 0.01 mm/yr² and appears to have started at the end of the 18th century. Sea level rose by 6 cm during the 19th century and 19 cm in the 20th century.[32] Evidence for this includes geological observations, the longest instrumental records and the observed rate of 20th century sea level rise. For example, geological observations indicate that during the last 2,000 years, sea level change was small, with an average rate of only 0.0–0.2 mm per year. This compares to an average rate of 1.7 ± 0.5 mm per year for the 20th century.[33]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_ris...
Edited by plunker on Sunday 8th December 15:11
plunker said:
By "actually is rising less than at any time over the last ten or so thousand years" are you referring to "no rise at all has happened in the last two years"?
from wiki:
Short-term variability and long-term trends
On the timescale of years and decades, sea level records contain a considerable amount of variability.[29] For example, approximately a 10 mm rise and fall of global mean sea level accompanied the 1997–1998 El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) event, and a temporary 5 mm fall accompanied the 2010–2011 event.[30] Interannual or longer variability is a major reason why no long-term acceleration of sea level has been identified using 20th century data alone. However, a range of evidence clearly shows that the rate of sea level rise increased between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries.[31] Sea level acceleration up to the present has been about 0.01 mm/yr² and appears to have started at the end of the 18th century. Sea level rose by 6 cm during the 19th century and 19 cm in the 20th century.[32] Evidence for this includes geological observations, the longest instrumental records and the observed rate of 20th century sea level rise. For example, geological observations indicate that during the last 2,000 years, sea level change was small, with an average rate of only 0.0–0.2 mm per year. This compares to an average rate of 1.7 ± 0.5 mm per year for the 20th century.[33]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_ris...
No, I was referring to the actual agencies concerned with creating the data that have stated in the last couple of years there is no measurement that shows an increase in sea level at all. Of course irrelevant as the variability over time needs hundreds of years not two to sort out.from wiki:
Short-term variability and long-term trends
On the timescale of years and decades, sea level records contain a considerable amount of variability.[29] For example, approximately a 10 mm rise and fall of global mean sea level accompanied the 1997–1998 El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) event, and a temporary 5 mm fall accompanied the 2010–2011 event.[30] Interannual or longer variability is a major reason why no long-term acceleration of sea level has been identified using 20th century data alone. However, a range of evidence clearly shows that the rate of sea level rise increased between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries.[31] Sea level acceleration up to the present has been about 0.01 mm/yr² and appears to have started at the end of the 18th century. Sea level rose by 6 cm during the 19th century and 19 cm in the 20th century.[32] Evidence for this includes geological observations, the longest instrumental records and the observed rate of 20th century sea level rise. For example, geological observations indicate that during the last 2,000 years, sea level change was small, with an average rate of only 0.0–0.2 mm per year. This compares to an average rate of 1.7 ± 0.5 mm per year for the 20th century.[33]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_ris...
Edited by plunker on Sunday 8th December 15:11
But if you want to scaremonger the best route is to use small 30 year snippets to demonstrate a case but ignore the fact that if we transposed the 1925 - 55 data over the last thirty years data we could argue that the rate of sea level rise has abated somewhat.
Modern humans have experienced sea level changes of 120m or more so you would have thought by now we'd have copped on a bit and realised that you can't hold the sea back.
No - the terrain on the earth is constantly undergoing processes that both "even it out" (erosion and weathering) and cause it to rise (mountain building due to plate tectonics, volcanic activity etc).
Under the ocean, the ocean floors are constantly moving - a process known as "sea floor spreading".
Therefore. spotting and measuring something as woolly as a 2 mm rises in overall sea level for the entire planet is very, very hard to do and I would expect that such measurements are open to scrutiny at best - especially when the "rise" is being attributed to to "Man Made Global Warming".
For example, how do we know that ocean rises in the Pacific (if this is really what is happening) isn't due to ocean floor rising and shifting due to plate tectonics. We still poorly understand a lot of what is happening in the ocean depths.
We live on a highly active, dynamic planet - probably the most active of any of the four rocky planets of the inner solar system.
Under the ocean, the ocean floors are constantly moving - a process known as "sea floor spreading".
Therefore. spotting and measuring something as woolly as a 2 mm rises in overall sea level for the entire planet is very, very hard to do and I would expect that such measurements are open to scrutiny at best - especially when the "rise" is being attributed to to "Man Made Global Warming".
For example, how do we know that ocean rises in the Pacific (if this is really what is happening) isn't due to ocean floor rising and shifting due to plate tectonics. We still poorly understand a lot of what is happening in the ocean depths.
We live on a highly active, dynamic planet - probably the most active of any of the four rocky planets of the inner solar system.
Edited by Eric Mc on Monday 9th December 08:20
Jinx said:
AnonSpoilSport said:
Anyone doubting that sea level is rising should ask the President of The Maldives. Tragic.
I suspect the president of the Maldives needs to read up on Darwin - not the origin of the species but on how Atolls are formed.WUWT link
AnonSpoilSport said:
You mock, but it took the imminent danger of rising sea levels and man made global climate change (mmgcc) to persuade the guilty West to finally provide reparations.
Sorry how was I mocking? The Maldives are under no threat from rising sea levels - read the link. And read up on Darwin.
Jinx said:
AnonSpoilSport said:
Sorry, couldn't resit the baiting. Parrot on its way...
Admittedly, I didn't mention that they spent the money on a brand spanking new airport to fly in extra tourists!
Using Jumbos not feathery Woosh Jets?
Ahhh the lack of smilies confused me.Admittedly, I didn't mention that they spent the money on a brand spanking new airport to fly in extra tourists!
Using Jumbos not feathery Woosh Jets?
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff