|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 28, 2010 1:14:48 GMT
Ok......the sea level is rising. Has it been rising for about 10,000 years or so?......me thinks it has been.
So this is something we are suppose to get worried about all of a sudden?
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 28, 2010 1:32:53 GMT
So why is there no refutation of a current picture (from the way back archive).
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 28, 2010 4:38:23 GMT
So when Rahmstorf is exposed for the "tricks" he used, socold employs the typical AGW alarmist response by calling his detractors liars.
SOP
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 28, 2010 14:21:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 28, 2010 16:06:56 GMT
trbixler,
I had a discussion with the Hockeyshtick blog owner. This metric measures steric sea level change. This particular plot only measures the steric sea level change of the top (approx) 100 metres of the ocean. However, a similar plot of the top 1750 metres didn't show much change either (though there was a hint of a rise in the past year).
This is in line with another proxy measure of steric sea level rise determined from Argo temperature data.
In addition to steric sea level rise, there is sea level rise due to melting land ice. The satellite altimetry would include this measurement.
In short, not much warming of the ocean, but there is rise due to ice melt.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 28, 2010 16:19:08 GMT
trbixler, I had a discussion with the Hockeyshtick blog owner. This metric measures steric sea level change. This particular plot only measures the steric sea level change of the top (approx) 100 metres of the ocean. However, a similar plot of the top 1750 metres didn't show much change either (though there was a hint of a rise in the past year). This is in line with another proxy measure of steric sea level rise determined from Argo temperature data. In addition to steric sea level rise, there is sea level rise due to melting land ice. The satellite altimetry would include this measurement. In short, not much warming of the ocean, but there is rise due to ice melt. Is that the Himalayan ice melt Steve?
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 28, 2010 18:12:35 GMT
Somehow I think the equation y = ax 2 + bx + c is involved not in the sea level but in the arguments as to why it seems not much is happening when it should be exponentially tracking CO2.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 1, 2010 10:40:47 GMT
Somehow I think the equation y = ax 2 + bx + c is involved not in the sea level but in the arguments as to why it seems not much is happening when it should be exponentially tracking CO2. I didn't make any arguments about why not much was happening. My argument was that the plot had been misinterpreted because it was assumed that it disagreed with the satellite altimetry.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 1, 2010 13:49:50 GMT
In short, not much warming of the ocean, but there is rise due to ice melt. warming? the chart looks like cooling to me. Are you looking at this like upside down Tiljander? Bottom line you have cooling of the ocean and melting of glacial ice because its warmer than the ice age that produced the ice. You are evoking an image of some guy with coke bottle bottom eyeglasses reading a book on how to cross a street while crossing a street.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 1, 2010 14:35:48 GMT
That's British understatement for you. Like "The weather isn't getting much better" as yet another storm cloud approaches.
There's not much warming and not much cooling. I'd bet a shilling that that trend line is skewed by the fact that it started with a warm cycle and finished with a cool cycle.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 1, 2010 15:45:36 GMT
That's British understatement for you. Like "The weather isn't getting much better" as yet another storm cloud approaches. There's not much warming and not much cooling. I'd bet a shilling that that trend line is skewed by the fact that it started with a warm cycle and finished with a cool cycle. Who is getting excited? Aren't you an advocate of emergency governmental intervention? Getting warmer then getting cooler has been going on forever.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 1, 2010 18:01:35 GMT
That's British understatement for you. Like "The weather isn't getting much better" as yet another storm cloud approaches. There's not much warming and not much cooling. I'd bet a shilling that that trend line is skewed by the fact that it started with a warm cycle and finished with a cool cycle. Who is getting excited? Aren't you an advocate of emergency governmental intervention? I advocate sensible measures based on risk analysis so that the need for emergency government intervention is reduced.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 1, 2010 18:42:25 GMT
Who is getting excited? Aren't you an advocate of emergency governmental intervention? I advocate sensible measures based on risk analysis so that the need for emergency government intervention is reduced. I advocate coming to grips with the fact that sea level has never been stable.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 1, 2010 23:39:22 GMT
Who is getting excited? Aren't you an advocate of emergency governmental intervention? I advocate sensible measures based on risk analysis so that the need for emergency government intervention is reduced. Steve, who do you propose should carry out the risk analysis? To ensure impartiality, maybe the UN should form a group. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 2, 2010 9:49:57 GMT
I advocate sensible measures based on risk analysis so that the need for emergency government intervention is reduced. Steve, who do you propose should carry out the risk analysis? To ensure impartiality, maybe the UN should form a group. What do you think? What I suggest is that if hundreds of independent scientists working on different aspects of the problem in dozens of institutes across the world can come to any sort of consensus about any aspects of the problem, then we should listen to them.
|
|