Ocean Levels Decreasing 2004 - 2010...

[elvis]

Mann has been exonerated, and Jones was never that important. Not only that, nothing has been shown that would discredit any of the data from tens of thousands of researchers all over the world.

Yes, occasionly I post a blog, expecieally with it links with real science articles.

However, so far in this thread, I have been posting articles from real scientists. Something I have yet to see you do.

we have posted from real scientists, but since they don't worship Al whore, you discredit them.

 

[American Horse]

As monitored by tidal stations. Apperantly subduction activity not taken into account.

Sea Level Trends

The Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services has been measuring sea level for over 150 years, with tide stations operating on all U.S. coasts through the National Water Level Observation Network. Changes in Mean Sea Level (MSL), either a sea level rise or sea level fall, have been computed at 128 long-term water level stations using a minimum span of 30 years of observations at each location. These measurements have been averaged by month to remove the effect of high frequency phenomena, such as waves and tides, to compute an accurate linear sea level trend. The trend analysis has also been extended to a network of global tide stations including 114 additional non-NOAA stations.

The way I understand the maps is the green arrows show very low rises in sea level trends, less than a foot per century; the blue arrows show that there is some geologic uplift in those areas with sea levels relative to the land being lower, and the yellow arrows show greater relative rises in sea level than the green due only to subsidence.

The differences between the green arrows and the blue or the green and the yellow seem to indicate little if any rise in sea levels, and where changes in colors as indicators of relative levels occur they are due entirely to geologic uplift or subsidence.

Note in particular the red arrows pointing "up" in New Orleans area are the greatest, in relative rise. There the relative rises in sea level to whatever degree they are different from the multiplicity of green arrows is entirely due to geological subsidence at the gulf.

The only useful information pertinent to the OP would be worldwide/global sea levels as measured from the center of the Earth, and these maps are at the very least ambiguous and not at all indicative in that regard.

 

[Old Rocks]

Mann has been exonerated, and Jones was never that important. Not only that, nothing has been shown that would discredit any of the data from tens of thousands of researchers all over the world.

Yes, occasionly I post a blog, expecieally with it links with real science articles.

However, so far in this thread, I have been posting articles from real scientists. Something I have yet to see you do.

we have posted from real scientists, but since they don't worship Al whore, you discredit them.

No, when you post people like Singer and Lindzen, I show where they have discredited themselves.

 

[Old Rocks]

As monitored by tidal stations. Apperantly subduction activity not taken into account.

Sea Level Trends

The Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services has been measuring sea level for over 150 years, with tide stations operating on all U.S. coasts through the National Water Level Observation Network. Changes in Mean Sea Level (MSL), either a sea level rise or sea level fall, have been computed at 128 long-term water level stations using a minimum span of 30 years of observations at each location. These measurements have been averaged by month to remove the effect of high frequency phenomena, such as waves and tides, to compute an accurate linear sea level trend. The trend analysis has also been extended to a network of global tide stations including 114 additional non-NOAA stations.

The way I understand the maps is the green arrows show very low rises in sea level trends, less than a foot per century; the blue arrows show that there is some geologic uplift in those areas with sea levels relative to the land being lower, and the yellow arrows show greater relative rises in sea level than the green due only to subsidence.

The differences between the green arrows and the blue or the green and the yellow seem to indicate little if any rise in sea levels, and where changes in colors as indicators of relative levels occur they are due entirely to geologic uplift or subsidence.

Note in particular the red arrows pointing "up" in New Orleans area are the greatest, in relative rise. There the relative rises in sea level to whatever degree they are different from the multiplicity of green arrows is entirely due to geological subsidence at the gulf.

The only useful information pertinent to the OP would be worldwide/global sea levels as measured from the center of the Earth, and these maps are at the very least ambiguous and not at all indicative in that regard.

In areas of reletive geologic stability, the tidal stations indicate that the sea level is rising, worldwide.

We have been measuring absolute sea level for a couple of decades now,satellites, and the present rise rate is 3.4 mm per year, and accelerating.

You can find the numbers in the Copenhagen Diagnosis.

 

[American Horse]

As monitored by tidal stations. Apperantly subduction activity not taken into account.

Sea Level Trends

The Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services has been measuring sea level for over 150 years, with tide stations operating on all U.S. coasts through the National Water Level Observation Network. Changes in Mean Sea Level (MSL), either a sea level rise or sea level fall, have been computed at 128 long-term water level stations using a minimum span of 30 years of observations at each location. These measurements have been averaged by month to remove the effect of high frequency phenomena, such as waves and tides, to compute an accurate linear sea level trend. The trend analysis has also been extended to a network of global tide stations including 114 additional non-NOAA stations.

The way I understand the maps is the green arrows show very low rises in sea level trends, less than a foot per century; the blue arrows show that there is some geologic uplift in those areas with sea levels relative to the land being lower, and the yellow arrows show greater relative rises in sea level than the green due only to subsidence.

The differences between the green arrows and the blue or the green and the yellow seem to indicate little if any rise in sea levels, and where changes in colors as indicators of relative levels occur they are due entirely to geologic uplift or subsidence.

Note in particular the red arrows pointing "up" in New Orleans area are the greatest, in relative rise. There the relative rises in sea level to whatever degree they are different from the multiplicity of green arrows is entirely due to geological subsidence at the gulf.

The only useful information pertinent to the OP would be worldwide/global sea levels as measured from the center of the Earth, and these maps are at the very least ambiguous and not at all indicative in that regard.

In areas of reletive geologic stability, the tidal stations indicate that the sea level is rising, worldwide.

We have been measuring absolute sea level for a couple of decades now,satellites, and the present rise rate is 3.4 mm per year, and accelerating.

You can find the numbers in the Copenhagen Diagnosis.

I won't argue that they aren't rising, even in relation to a measurement from the center of the earth, which for this discussion should be the only one which counts. But the map with all its arrows pointing upward is at best deceptive without some analysis of forces and conditions besides climate change.

And lets consider what 3.4 mm is over a hundred years; about 13.5 inches.

 

[rdean]

I have to admit, I love those on the right for their constant search for an "AH HA!" moment.

Only 6% of scientists are Republican and only 9% are conservative, and since that study, it's probably even less. It's no surprise.

Science is about increasing knowledge, conservatism is about keeping things "static and unchanging". One is based on a thirst for knowledge of the unknown and the other is based on "fear" of the unknown.

Scientists are always changing their theories based on the discovery of new knowledge, data and understanding. Some of that data weakens one theory while it strengthens another.

Conservatives have nothing to add. No "scientific discoveries", no "great inventions". The really sad part is they have to rely on and be taken care of by those very people they ridicule. Even though conservatives mock science and scientists, that doesn't mean conservatives should be mocked. No, they should be pitied. Pitied because they will be left behind.

 

[Care4all]

Why does Sea Level change over time?

There are a number of factors that contribute to long and short-term variations in sea level. Short-term variations generally occur on a daily basis and include waves, tides, or specific flood events, such as those associated with a winter snow melt, or hurricane or other coastal storm. Long-term variations in sea level occur over various time scales, from monthly to several years, and may be repeatable cycles, gradual trends, or intermittent anomalies. Seasonal weather patterns, variations in the Earth's declination, changes in coastal and ocean circulation, anthropogenic influences (such as dredging), vertical land motion, and the El Niño Southern Oscillation are just a few of the many factors influencing changes in sea level over time. When estimating sea level trends, a minimum of 30 years of data are used in order to account for long-term sea level variations and reduce errors in computing sea level trends based on monthly mean sea level. Accounting for repeatable, predictable cycles, such as tidal, seasonal, and interannual variations allows computation of a more accurate long-term sea level trend.

here is a chart showing the past 50 years or so, for the area that i live: Bar Harbor, me

Sea Levels Online - State Selection

 

[American Horse]

I have to admit, I love those on the right for their constant search for an "AH HA!" moment.

Only 6% of scientists are Republican and only 9% are conservative, and since that study, it's probably even less. It's no surprise.

Science is about increasing knowledge, conservatism is about keeping things "static and unchanging". One is based on a thirst for knowledge of the unknown and the other is based on "fear" of the unknown.

Scientists are always changing their theories based on the discovery of new knowledge, data and understanding. Some of that data weakens one theory while it strengthens another.

Conservatives have nothing to add. No "scientific discoveries", no "great inventions". The really sad part is they have to rely on and be taken care of by those very people they ridicule. Even though conservatives mock science and scientists, that doesn't mean conservatives should be mocked. No, they should be pitied. Pitied because they will be left behind.

Rdean, you sure like clinging to the superior end of the scale. You do realize that the percentage of the population that are classed as "scientist" is probably a very small group. And how many of those are pressured by their colleagues to disavow their real philosophy to avoid being singled out, just like you exhibit here constantly.

I know two scientists who are brothers; one is liberal and the other conservative. I suspect that under pressure to not stand out both would, if polled be of the liberal ior libertarian stripe.

here is a chart showing the past 50 years or so, for the area that i live: Bar Harbor, me

Sea Levels Online - State Selection

From the CHART: "...equivalent to a change of 0.67 feet in 100 years"

Again for perspective that is EIGHT INCHES in 100 years!

 

[boedicca]

Mann has been exonerated, and Jones was never that important. Not only that, nothing has been shown that would discredit any of the data from tens of thousands of researchers all over the world.

Yes, occasionly I post a blog, expecieally with it links with real science articles.

However, so far in this thread, I have been posting articles from real scientists. Something I have yet to see you do.

I call Shenanigans.

Please provide proof that Mann has been exonerated and that Jones (whose CRU group provided much of the key research upon which the IPCC reports were based) was never that important.

You are just engaging in the Damage Control Spin now that the fraud has been outed.

 

[skookerasbil]

Why should subduction be taken into account? It is an ongoing process, irrespective of temperatures.

The process of subduction is like a slow motion collision. If you look at the map, you will see places in Alaska where the sea level seems to be decreasing right next to where it is increasing. That is the effect of the subduction zone. On the East Coast, where there is no subduction going on, the rate of rise is about the same for the whole coast, except the area at the mouth of the Mississippi, which is subsiding.

Here in Portland, Oregon, we are both rising, and being pushed to the Northeast. Here is a USGS map that illustrates this better than I can explain it.

01HQ-GR-0026 Report

again Rocks...........your environmental OCD may make for some fine reading for those people who naturally embrace being hysterical, but politically, the science is now viewed as a complete goof by the masses. Accordingly...........who the fcukk cares if the ocean has risen or fallen by 2 millimeters!!! Nobody cares................

If they did, Crap And Trade would be passing later this year. It doesnt stand a snowballs chance in hell.............damn, even John Kerry doesnt want to talk about it these days! Why? Because, politically, it is radioactive s0n!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I have to admit, I love those on the right for their constant search for an "AH HA!" moment.

Only 6% of scientists are Republican and only 9% are conservative, and since that study, it's probably even less. It's no surprise.

Science is about increasing knowledge, conservatism is about keeping things "static and unchanging". One is based on a thirst for knowledge of the unknown and the other is based on "fear" of the unknown.

Scientists are always changing their theories based on the discovery of new knowledge, data and understanding. Some of that data weakens one theory while it strengthens another.

Conservatives have nothing to add. No "scientific discoveries", no "great inventions". The really sad part is they have to rely on and be taken care of by those very people they ridicule. Even though conservatives mock science and scientists, that doesn't mean conservatives should be mocked. No, they should be pitied. Pitied because they will be left behind.

You simply can't get a scandal as big as Warmergate without having a mindless uniformity of the "scientific" community, you saw that same type of consensus in the Flat Earthers and for the very same reasons.

Has anyone in this 6% non-Republican "Scientific" community performed a double blind experiment on the effect of a de minimus increase in the atmospheric trace element CO2?

It should be fairly easy to demonstrate these instantaneous, cataclysmic effects as set forth by East Angelia, NASA and other of the non-6%'ers, no?

 

[Care4all]

I have to admit, I love those on the right for their constant search for an "AH HA!" moment.

Only 6% of scientists are Republican and only 9% are conservative, and since that study, it's probably even less. It's no surprise.

Science is about increasing knowledge, conservatism is about keeping things "static and unchanging". One is based on a thirst for knowledge of the unknown and the other is based on "fear" of the unknown.

Scientists are always changing their theories based on the discovery of new knowledge, data and understanding. Some of that data weakens one theory while it strengthens another.

Conservatives have nothing to add. No "scientific discoveries", no "great inventions". The really sad part is they have to rely on and be taken care of by those very people they ridicule. Even though conservatives mock science and scientists, that doesn't mean conservatives should be mocked. No, they should be pitied. Pitied because they will be left behind.

Rdean, you sure like clinging to the superior end of the scale. You do realize that the percentage of the population that are classed as "scientist" is probably a very small group. And how many of those are pressured by their colleagues to disavow their real philosophy to avoid being singled out, just like you exhibit here constantly.

I know two scientists who are brothers; one is liberal and the other conservative. I suspect that under pressure to not stand out both would, if polled be of the liberal ior libertarian stripe.

here is a chart showing the past 50 years or so, for the area that i live: Bar Harbor, me

Sea Levels Online - State Selection

From the CHART: "...equivalent to a change of 0.67 feet in 100 years"

Again for perspective that is EIGHT INCHES in 100 years!

Yep, I was thinking, it was not that bad too....though 8 inches will still be concerning to the port towns I suppose, and something they should keep in mind when putting up new buildings etc in the town.

 

[boedicca]

From the CHART: "...equivalent to a change of 0.67 feet in 100 years"

Again for perspective that is EIGHT INCHES in 100 years!

There's an old joke:

Q) Why are white women so bad at judging distances?

A) Because they keep being told that 5 inches are really 8.


I'm of the mind that those who are making the rising ocean claims are similarly "inflating" their measurements.

 

[concept]

Silly ass, by every measure, the sea level is rising.

Except it's decreasing.


Poor guy. The whole myth is crashing down around you and you're still in denial.

Post something other than a freakozoid blog stating that is the case. How about posting something from the USGS? NASA? NOAA? The Royal Society? The US National Academy of Science?

Nah, you would rather post baseless lies.

Yeah maybe I should post something from Jones or Hansen. lol what a hack you are.


But hey, keep attacking the source seeing as though you really have nothing else to offer.

 

[concept]

Mann has been exonerated, and Jones was never that important. Not only that, nothing has been shown that would discredit any of the data from tens of thousands of researchers all over the world.

Yes, occasionly I post a blog, expecieally with it links with real science articles.

However, so far in this thread, I have been posting articles from real scientists. Something I have yet to see you do.

LOL @ throwing Jones under the bus.

 

[American Horse]

From the CHART: "...equivalent to a change of 0.67 feet in 100 years"

Again for perspective that is EIGHT INCHES in 100 years!

There's an old joke:

Q) Why are white women so bad at judging distances?

A) Because they keep being told that 5 inches are really 8.


I'm of the mind that those who are making the rising ocean claims are similarly "inflating" their measurements.

Make me laugh! I thought about the same thing: that the sea's rise in a century will be about one good man's worth. Not worth worrying about.