Sea Level Rise by Satellite Altimetry

[IanC]

I actually recommend people read the article. What is happening to sea levels - Global Warming Solved

it is highly informative and everybody can learn something from it. then search out some different sources

here is one from Skeptical Science. How much is sea level rising

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_09.pdf

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/sea_level_not_rising.pdf

lots of stuff to read out there.

 

[IanC]

What would you use to calibrate the altimetry? And what would you use to calibrate the tidal gauges? Let me guess: you'd throw them all out and ignore the issue until the technology had risen to the level of perfection that consideration by a man of your talents demands.

now you are being ridiculous. I am all for using the available data and trying to get the most information out of it as possible. what I am against is the unreasonable certainty that pervades climate science.

small biases in tide gauges, or the selection of tide gauges to be used, turns into large uncertainties in altimetry. then add in the large adjustments which are bigger than the trend....

then add in expectation bias. a result that matches what you were hoping to find gets much less scrutiny. I am pretty certain that the 3mm/yr figure is going to be reduced in the next ten years because it wont match reality. the slack in the system has been used up to get a favoured result but it cannot go on indefinitely.

 

[Crick]

I don't believe there is ANY expectation bias in Colorado's sea level rise rate. They certainly didn't hide anything when it dropped a while back. I believe there is a significant bias in reporting the rate it's made over the last century or so as if that had any meaning or was a refutation of the current rate.

 

[IanC]

I don't believe there is ANY expectation bias in Colorado's sea level rise rate. They certainly didn't hide anything when it dropped a while back. I believe there is a significant bias in reporting the rate it's made over the last century or so as if that had any meaning or was a refutation of the current rate.

actually, they missed updating their reports for several months, and when they came back the GIA adjustment was in place.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I don't believe there is ANY expectation bias in Colorado's sea level rise rate. They certainly didn't hide anything when it dropped a while back. I believe there is a significant bias in reporting the rate it's made over the last century or so as if that had any meaning or was a refutation of the current rate.

actually, they missed updating their reports for several months, and when they came back the GIA adjustment was in place.

its funny how when your parent agency is NASA, those things magically happen.

As to sea level rise, the reason they gave, reasoning that "they should see" moderate sea level rise with "their" warming. The problem is, not only has there not been any real warming there has been no expansion of sea coral or other semi solids to indicate warming. On both counts their perception of "should be" was wrong. Therefore all adjustments were made erroneously.

 

[Old Rocks]

I don't believe there is ANY expectation bias in Colorado's sea level rise rate. They certainly didn't hide anything when it dropped a while back. I believe there is a significant bias in reporting the rate it's made over the last century or so as if that had any meaning or was a refutation of the current rate.

actually, they missed updating their reports for several months, and when they came back the GIA adjustment was in place.

its funny how when your parent agency is NASA, those things magically happen.

As to sea level rise, the reason they gave, reasoning that "they should see" moderate sea level rise with "their" warming. The problem is, not only has there not been any real warming there has been no expansion of sea coral or other semi solids to indicate warming. On both counts their perception of "should be" was wrong. Therefore all adjustments were made erroneously.

"Expansion of sea coral, or other semi solids to indicate warming" ?

Man, that is some real shit you are smoking. Best find another dealer.

 

[Saigon]

Meanwhile the Guardian reports this story from the US National Academy of Sciences and the Australian National University...

Sea level rise over past century unmatched in 6,000 years, says study

Research finds 20cm rise since start of 20th century, caused by global warming and the melting of polar ice, is unprecedented

The rise in sea levels seen over the past century is unmatched by any period in the past 6,000 years, according to a lengthy analysis of historical sea level trends.

The reconstruction of 35,000 years of sea level fluctuations finds that there is no evidence that levels changed by more than 20cm in a relatively steady period that lasted between 6,000 years ago and about 150 years ago.

This makes the past century extremely unusual in the historical record, with about a 20cm rise in global sea levels since the start of the 20th century. Scientists have identified rising temperatures, which have caused polar ice to melt and thermal expansion of the sea, as a primary cause of the sea level increase.

A two-decade-long collection of about 1,000 ancient sediment samples off Britain, north America, Greenland and the Seychelles formed the basis of the research, led by the Australian National University and published in PNAS.

Sea level rise over past century unmatched in 6 000 years says study Environment theguardian.com

 

[jc456]

Meanwhile the Guardian reports this story from the US National Academy of Sciences and the Australian National University...

Sea level rise over past century unmatched in 6,000 years, says study

Research finds 20cm rise since start of 20th century, caused by global warming and the melting of polar ice, is unprecedented

The rise in sea levels seen over the past century is unmatched by any period in the past 6,000 years, according to a lengthy analysis of historical sea level trends.

The reconstruction of 35,000 years of sea level fluctuations finds that there is no evidence that levels changed by more than 20cm in a relatively steady period that lasted between 6,000 years ago and about 150 years ago.

This makes the past century extremely unusual in the historical record, with about a 20cm rise in global sea levels since the start of the 20th century. Scientists have identified rising temperatures, which have caused polar ice to melt and thermal expansion of the sea, as a primary cause of the sea level increase.

A two-decade-long collection of about 1,000 ancient sediment samples off Britain, north America, Greenland and the Seychelles formed the basis of the research, led by the Australian National University and published in PNAS.

Sea level rise over past century unmatched in 6 000 years says study Environment theguardian.com

just curious if you think the land mass was the same 6000 years ago?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Meanwhile the Guardian reports this story from the US National Academy of Sciences and the Australian National University...

Sea level rise over past century unmatched in 6,000 years, says study

Research finds 20cm rise since start of 20th century, caused by global warming and the melting of polar ice, is unprecedented

The rise in sea levels seen over the past century is unmatched by any period in the past 6,000 years, according to a lengthy analysis of historical sea level trends.

The reconstruction of 35,000 years of sea level fluctuations finds that there is no evidence that levels changed by more than 20cm in a relatively steady period that lasted between 6,000 years ago and about 150 years ago.

This makes the past century extremely unusual in the historical record, with about a 20cm rise in global sea levels since the start of the 20th century. Scientists have identified rising temperatures, which have caused polar ice to melt and thermal expansion of the sea, as a primary cause of the sea level increase.

A two-decade-long collection of about 1,000 ancient sediment samples off Britain, north America, Greenland and the Seychelles formed the basis of the research, led by the Australian National University and published in PNAS.

Sea level rise over past century unmatched in 6 000 years says study Environment theguardian.com

Ah yes the Gordian applying it thick and shitty..

Too funny.. The dam morons forgot we left the little ice age about 250-300 years ago. Which means we were due for a Melt and CO2 spike...(which follows warm ups by200-300 years)..

 

[Crick]

You surely don't believe the LIA was actually an ice age, do you? A glaciation? Are you kidding us? You aren't really THAT stupid. Are you?

 

[Crick]

Ice doesn't melt because you think it's TIME to melt. It melts when it gets warmer. And there's been nothing in the Milankovitch cycles over the last two centuries that would tend to make this planet significantly warmer. CO2 levels, on the other hand...

 

[IanC]

How much ice was there in 1800? How much in 1900? Whyy did that ice melt?

 

[IanC]

Thompson got a grant to do ice cores on an Alaskan glacier who's name escapes me presently. It turned out that it has only been in existence since the Roman Warm Period. Other than a brief initial report to satisfy funding requirements nothing has been published. Inconvenient I suppose.

 

[Crick]

What makes you think significant amounts of ice melted between 1800 and 1900?

 

[Kosh]

What makes you think significant amounts of ice melted between 1800 and 1900?

So in other words you can not answer Icans question, let me repost for you:

How much ice was there in 1800? How much in 1900? Whyy did that ice melt?

Now answer the question!

 

[Billy_Bob]

I don't believe there is ANY expectation bias in Colorado's sea level rise rate. They certainly didn't hide anything when it dropped a while back. I believe there is a significant bias in reporting the rate it's made over the last century or so as if that had any meaning or was a refutation of the current rate.

actually, they missed updating their reports for several months, and when they came back the GIA adjustment was in place.

its funny how when your parent agency is NASA, those things magically happen.

As to sea level rise, the reason they gave, reasoning that "they should see" moderate sea level rise with "their" warming. The problem is, not only has there not been any real warming there has been no expansion of sea coral or other semi solids to indicate warming. On both counts their perception of "should be" was wrong. Therefore all adjustments were made erroneously.

"Expansion of sea coral, or other semi solids to indicate warming" ?

Man, that is some real shit you are smoking. Best find another dealer.

So YOU openly admit you have no clue what thermal expansion is or how it is determined. Good to Know..

 

[Crick]

What makes you think significant amounts of ice melted between 1800 and 1900?

So in other words you can not answer Icans question, let me repost for you:

His name is Ian, not Ican and you are really too stupid to participate in discussions around here.

How much ice was there in 1800? How much in 1900? Whyy did that ice melt?

Now answer the question!

Go fuck yourself. And do it somewhere else.

Ian, your question assumes that ice melted between 1800 and 1900. On what data is that assumption based? I'd be real hesitant to accept the accuracy of any global snow and ice cover before the satellite era. Why don't you just go ahead and make your point.

 

[Crick]

The problem is, not only has there not been any real warming there has been no expansion of sea coral or other semi solids to indicate warming. On both counts their perception of "should be" was wrong. Therefore all adjustments were made erroneously.

He's right to ask you what you've been smoking. That's about the stupidest comment we've heard in many a moon.

 

[Crick]

So YOU openly admit you have no clue what thermal expansion is or how it is determined. Good to Know..

Nope... nope, there were stupider ones.

 

[Old Rocks]

Thompson got a grant to do ice cores on an Alaskan glacier who's name escapes me presently. It turned out that it has only been in existence since the Roman Warm Period. Other than a brief initial report to satisfy funding requirements nothing has been published. Inconvenient I suppose.

Ian, I am embarressed for you. One glacier whose name you cannot remember, only a brief initial report, and nothing published. That is not inconveniant, that is barely even anecedotal. And no link to anything about it.

USGS Release Most Alaskan Glaciers Retreating Thinning and Stagnating Says Major USGS Report 10 6 2008 11 44 25 AM

Editors and Reporters: To interview the author during the Geological Society of America meeting, please contact the GSA Newsroom on 1-713-853-8329. Molnia will be presenting a poster (#76-3) at GSA on Wednesday, Oct. 8, from 8 a.m. to noon in Exhibit Hall E.


Most glaciers in every mountain range and island group in Alaska are experiencing significant retreat, thinning or stagnation, especially glaciers at lower elevations, according to a new book published by the U.S. Geological Survey. In places, these changes began as early as the middle of the 18th century.

Although more than 99 percent of Alaska's large glaciers are retreating, a handful, surprisingly, are advancing.

The Glaciers of Alaska, authored by USGS research geologist Bruce Molnia, represents a comprehensive overview of the state of the glaciers of Alaska at the end of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st century. Richard Williams Jr., an emeritus senior research glaciologist with the USGS, said the 550-page volume will serve as a major reference work for glaciologists studying glaciers in Alaska in the years and decades to come.