• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sea level rise?

Threegoofs said:
True.

You're assuming that's all the data, and that what you have available to you is complete, and you then are making the implicit assumption that sea level rise isn't an issue.

Because it all comes back to the crackpot denier stance. Multiply this issue x20, and you further entrench yourself in the delusion because 'you looked at the data yourself'.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that there is more data out there than the published stuff? That it is being hidden away from us mortals?

How is he making such an assumption????

It is you that is inn denial.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Are you saying that there is more data out there than the published stuff? That it is being hidden away from us mortals?

How is he making such an assumption????

It is you that is inn denial.
Click to expand...

If you don't know, you really have no standing to have an opinion.

I'm 'inn' denial of what, exactly? That he's really a highly experienced oceanographer?
 
Threegoofs said:
If you don't know, you really have no standing to have an opinion.
Click to expand...

Well that's what we keep saying to you. Firing it back is a typical religious thing to do, I have noticed.

I'm 'inn' denial of what, exactly? That he's really a highly experienced oceanographer?
Click to expand...

You are, in this thread, in denial that the data shows no acceleration of sea level rise. Your absolute inablity to look at the data yourself and check because you know it will confirm his point shows just how deeply you cling to your faith.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Well that's what we keep saying to you. Firing it back is a typical religious thing to do, I have noticed.



You are, in this thread, in denial that the data shows no acceleration of sea level rise. Your absolute inablity to look at the data yourself and check because you know it will confirm his point shows just how deeply you cling to your faith.
Click to expand...

High tide has been hitting the same mark at my sailboat slip since 1986.......give or take a few storms. The depth under the boat has read a consistent 12.6 since I installed it 20 years ago.
 
Threegoofs said:
True.

You're assuming that's all the data, and that what you have available to you is complete, and you then are making the implicit assumption that sea level rise isn't an issue.

Because it all comes back to the crackpot denier stance. Multiply this issue x20, and you further entrench yourself in the delusion because 'you looked at the data yourself'.
Click to expand...
No I am pulling the data from NOAA and the PSMSL
Obtaining Tide Gauge Data
The same places the paper said they got their data from.
Also I am not making any assumptions about sea level, just trying to verify their stated numbers.
Again, they are just numbers, are they increasing, decreasing, and at which rate, nothing specialized required.
 
RetiredUSN said:
High tide has been hitting the same mark at my sailboat slip since 1986.......give or take a few storms. The depth under the boat has read a consistent 12.6 since I installed it 20 years ago.
Click to expand...

Does your mark allow you to tell the high tide to an accuracy of tenths of mm?

If not then it's nowhere near good enough to supply data to the offical data sets.

Do you think that the tide data from 1850 was better than your mark? If not (I don't think so, I recon your information is as good as it gets) then why do you think anybody at all thinks they know what the sae level was in 1850?
 
Tim the plumber said:
Does your mark allow you to tell the high tide to an accuracy of tenths of mm?

If not then it's nowhere near good enough to supply data to the offical data sets.

Do you think that the tide data from 1850 was better than your mark? If not (I don't think so, I recon your information is as good as it gets) then why do you think anybody at all thinks they know what the sae level was in 1850?
Click to expand...
I think the tide gauges going back to the early 1800's were accurate to about 1mm, perhaps .1 mm.
I remember seeing a picture of one of the early ones with a large needle gauge.
Contrast that with modern satellites with their 30 mm accuracy,
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/bathymetry/predicted/explore.HTML
Two very precise distance measurements must be made in order to establish the topography of the ocean surface to an accuracy of 0.03 m (1 in) (Figure).
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hays said:
New paper finds sea levels rising at only 1.7 mm/yr or 6.7 inches per century
[link] …
Click to expand...

No, the paper says that the average rise over the last century was 1.7 mm/yr, which is pretty much in agreement with everyone else. The current rate is about 3.4 mm/yr.
 
Surface Detail said:
No, the paper says that the average rise over the last century was 1.7 mm/yr, which is pretty much in agreement with everyone else. The current rate is about 3.4 mm/yr.
Click to expand...
The problem with such a broad statement without citation, is that while some sea levels are raising at more than 3 mm per year and some are below,
the trend among the actual tide stations ether has not changes, or the slope has reduced.
Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides and Currents
I have been looking for some area where the rate of the rise has doubled since 2000, or 1993, and so far
I have not found any. The stated acceleration is artifact from a switch from the station based gauges to the satellite based measurements.
The actual stations, which have a continuous record, show no such acceleration.
 
Jack Hays said:
New paper finds sea levels rising at only 1.7 mm/yr or 6.7 inches per century
[link] …
Click to expand...

Are long tide gauge records in the wrong place to measure global mean sea level rise?†
Click to expand...

Clearly they are. How could real data disagree with the faith!!!!!! The science is settled! The data must be wrong!!
 
Lord of Planar said:
Actual gauges don't require "correcting."
Click to expand...
They might, if the ground is subsiding, but that correction would not be in the alarmist direction.
For the stations outside of the arctic, sitting on bedrock, they should not need any "correcting"
 
longview said:
They might, if the ground is subsiding, but that correction would not be in the alarmist direction.
For the stations outside of the arctic, sitting on bedrock, they should not need any "correcting"
Click to expand...

Even subsidence tends to have little change. Unlikely it would affect the implied acceleration.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Even subsidence tends to have little change. Unlikely it would affect the implied acceleration.
Click to expand...
Correct, the places with large subsidence changes, do seem to be fairly linear.
Sea Level Trends - State Selection
Grand Isle, LA has been sinking about four times faster than the global average,
but at the same rate for over 60 years.
 
longview said:
The problem with such a broad statement without citation, is that while some sea levels are raising at more than 3 mm per year and some are below,
the trend among the actual tide stations ether has not changes, or the slope has reduced.
Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides and Currents
I have been looking for some area where the rate of the rise has doubled since 2000, or 1993, and so far
I have not found any. The stated acceleration is artifact from a switch from the station based gauges to the satellite based measurements.
The actual stations, which have a continuous record, show no such acceleration.
Click to expand...

It seems that you're wrong. The tide gauges do indeed also show acceleration:

Sea-Level Rise from the Late 19th to the Early 21st Century

We estimate the rise in global average sea level from satellite altimeter data for 1993–2009 and from coastal and island sea-level measurements from 1880 to 2009. For 1993–2009 and after correcting for glacial isostatic adjustment, the estimated rate of rise is 3.2 ± 0.4 mm year−1 from the satellite data and 2.8 ± 0.8 mm year−1 from the in situ data. The global average sea-level rise from 1880 to 2009 is about 210 mm. The linear trend from 1900 to 2009 is 1.7 ± 0.2 mm year−1 and since 1961 is 1.9 ± 0.4 mm year−1.
Click to expand...
 
Surface Detail said:
It seems that you're wrong. The tide gauges do indeed also show acceleration:

Sea-Level Rise from the Late 19th to the Early 21st Century
Click to expand...
We have been over that, It is what they say, but the statement is not supported by the data.
Also note that they use a lower "adjusted" number for the tide gauge data of 2.8 ± 0.8 mm year-1.
The PSMSL is the source of your citations data.
We use monthly sea-level data downloaded from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL; Woodworth and Player 2003) web site (Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL)) in August 2010.
Click to expand...
Obtaining Tide Gauge Data
The problem is that, I have not been able to find a single station showing the stated acceleration,
That does not have other contributing factors, like subsidence.
when in theory, if that is the average, half should be above and half below.
One of the strange things about Church and White, is the larger error range on the more recent gauge data.
1900 to 2009 is 1.7 ± 0.2 mm year−1
since 1961 is 1.9 ± 0.4 mm year−1
1993–2009 2.8 ± 0.8 mm year−1 from the in situ data.
Are they really saying they have 4 times the confidence in the 1900 to 1993 data.
If anything I would think the gauges got better not worse,(unless of course, some of the data came from satellites.)
The satellites only have a accuracy of 30 mm!
 
Last edited:
longview said:
We have been over that, It is what they say, but the statement is not supported by the data.
Also note that they use a lower "adjusted" number for the tide gauge data of 2.8 ± 0.8 mm year-1.
The PSMSL is the source of your citations data.

Obtaining Tide Gauge Data
The problem is that, I have not been able to find a single station showing the stated acceleration,
That does not have other contributing factors, like subsidence.
when in theory, if that is the average, half should be above and half below.
One of the strange things about Church and White, is the larger error range on the more recent gauge data.
1900 to 2009 is 1.7 ± 0.2 mm year−1
since 1961 is 1.9 ± 0.4 mm year−1
1993–2009 2.8 ± 0.8 mm year−1 from the in situ data.
Are they really saying they have 4 times the confidence in the 1900 to 1993 data.
If anything I would think the gauges got better not worse,(unless of course, some of the data came from satellites.)
The satellites only have a accuracy of 30 mm!
Click to expand...

Well, maybe they were working off of other webpages.

You should ask them why.

Oh, right.

You're not knowledgeable in their scientific field, and they probably would treat you like just another denier crank.
 
longview said:
We have been over that, It is what they say, but the statement is not supported by the data.
Also note that they use a lower "adjusted" number for the tide gauge data of 2.8 ± 0.8 mm year-1.
The PSMSL is the source of your citations data.

Obtaining Tide Gauge Data
The problem is that, I have not been able to find a single station showing the stated acceleration,
That does not have other contributing factors, like subsidence.
when in theory, if that is the average, half should be above and half below.
One of the strange things about Church and White, is the larger error range on the more recent gauge data.
1900 to 2009 is 1.7 ± 0.2 mm year−1
since 1961 is 1.9 ± 0.4 mm year−1
1993–2009 2.8 ± 0.8 mm year−1 from the in situ data.
Are they really saying they have 4 times the confidence in the 1900 to 1993 data.
If anything I would think the gauges got better not worse,(unless of course, some of the data came from satellites.)
The satellites only have a accuracy of 30 mm!
Click to expand...

Your innumeracy is showing. The accuracies are given in mm per year and refer to trends, not absolute measurements. The longer a series of measurements is, the more precisely the trend can be established for a given accuracy of measurement. The 1900 - 2009 trend is more accurate than the 1993 - 2009 trend simply because it extends over a longer period.
 
Surface Detail said:
Your innumeracy is showing. The accuracies are given in mm per year and refer to trends, not absolute measurements. The longer a series of measurements is, the more precisely the trend can be established for a given accuracy of measurement. The 1900 - 2009 trend is more accurate than the 1993 - 2009 trend simply because it extends over a longer period.
Click to expand...
You could be right, the year to year numbers have a high signal to noise ratio.
One of the papers mentioned that anything less than five years was almost completely useless.
 
Surface Detail said:
Your innumeracy is showing. The accuracies are given in mm per year and refer to trends, not absolute measurements. The longer a series of measurements is, the more precisely the trend can be established for a given accuracy of measurement. The 1900 - 2009 trend is more accurate than the 1993 - 2009 trend simply because it extends over a longer period.
Click to expand...
The NOAA global sites have not been updated past 2011, but do allow the Church and White stated criteria to be applied.
Sea Level Trends - MSL global stations trends table
Based on their statements,
sea-level measurements from 1880 to 2009
Click to expand...
Only stations active from before 1880 (I will be generous and use 1900) and stations active until 2009.
This leaves roughly 34 stations.
I was able to find one that matched their criteria, WISMAR 2 Germany.
Data and Station Information for WISMAR 2
So here is what it looks like.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.data/8.rlrdata
1880, 6935
1900, 6919
1993, 7030
2010, 7112
So 1880/1900 to 1993 is roughly 1 mm/year
1993 to 2010 is 82 mm/ 17 years, or 4.83 mm/year, a clear steep increase.
but wait a second, this is not 2010, it is 2016, and the record now contains up to 2014.
2014's number is ...7050
7050 -7030=20 mm/21 years or .95 mm/year, roughly the same as the long term trend.
What do wildly swinging numbers like this tell us?
Well one thing is that trends can not be based on single year end points.
I will throw some 5 year averages in to see if it cleans up a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom