Sea Rise Faster Than Expected

[Steve Case]

I’m guessing this isn’t the first time.[emoji6]

How 'bout you did you ever read a graph wrong? Excel has a nice feature,
highlight a column of data, press [F11] and up pops a graph. Usually for
the tide gauge data the grid lines are spaced at intervals of 100. But this
time they were 200. So I stepped in it.

 

[Threegoofs]

How 'bout you did you ever read a graph wrong? Excel has a nice feature,
highlight a column of data, press [F11] and up pops a graph. Usually for
the tide gauge data the grid lines are spaced at intervals of 100. But this
time they were 200. So I stepped in it.

Thank god we have crack sea level experts around like you to let us know the real story.

 

[Steve Case]

Thank god we have crack sea level experts around like you to let us know the real story.

The real story, at least a large part of it, is the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level

 

[longview]

Not strange at all I made a mistake. NOAA is correct.

No worries,that is how science is supposed to work, fresh eyes see different things and correct errors.
I wish it worked that way with the climate sciences!

 

[Threegoofs]

No worries,that is how science is supposed to work, fresh eyes see different things and correct errors.
I wish it worked that way with the climate sciences!

Again... so thankful we have a crack squad of retired engineers with no training in climate to tell us how all the experts are wrong.

Really useful.

 

[longview]

Again... so thankful we have a crack squad of retired engineers with no training in climate to tell us how all the experts are wrong.

Really useful.

So, why does it take a climate expert to see what the rate of sea level change is from a table of numbers?
Oh, That's right, only members of the climatologist priesthood are allowed to interpret the scared data tables!

 

[Threegoofs]

So, why does it take a climate expert to see what the rate of sea level change is from a table of numbers?
Oh, That's right, only members of the climatologist priesthood are allowed to interpret the scared data tables!

The amateur sees a table of numbers.

The professional directs, develops, creates and interprets that table of numbers with deep expertise on how it was obtained, what evidence is missing, and knowledge of how to interpret it.

That’s why they are recognized in the highest professional circles instead of posting anonymously on DP.

 

[longview]

The amateur sees a table of numbers.

The professional directs, develops, creates and interprets that table of numbers with deep expertise on how it was obtained, what evidence is missing, and knowledge of how to interpret it.

That’s why they are recognized in the highest professional circles instead of posting anonymously on DP.

Um! it is still a table of numbers, with no magical attributes, and special insight required.

 

[Steve Case]

The amateur sees a table of numbers.

A lot of people know how to use a spreadsheet to analyze and graph data.

The professional directs, develops, creates and interprets that table of numbers with deep expertise on how it was obtained, what evidence is missing, and knowledge of how to interpret it.

Deep expertise? You sound like you believe there's some sort of magic going on.

That’s why they are recognized in the highest professional circles instead of posting anonymously on DP.

Lots of people use pseudonyms for good reason. I don't because I want credit for what I write.

 

[Lord of Planar]

No worries,that is how science is supposed to work, fresh eyes see different things and correct errors.
I wish it worked that way with the climate sciences!

They're still stuck in the 90's.

 

[Media_Truth]

So, why does it take a climate expert to see what the rate of sea level change is from a table of numbers?
Oh, That's right, only members of the climatologist priesthood are allowed to interpret the scared data tables!

If I read my own DNA analysis, it's doubtful, I will come to the same conclusions as a geneticist who has spent his lifetime interpreting the DNA data.

 

[longview]

If I read my own DNA analysis, it's doubtful, I will come to the same conclusions as a geneticist who has spent his lifetime interpreting the DNA data.

Because the scale of numbers is very different! A table of 100 numbers that are levels over time, can be understood by anyone with a math or science background.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Because the scale of numbers is very different! A table of 100 numbers that are levels over time, can be understood by anyone with a math or science background.

And there you have it.

There is absolutely no way to communicate it to these people.

 

[Threegoofs]

Because the scale of numbers is very different! A table of 100 numbers that are levels over time, can be understood by anyone with a math or science background.

But is it the correct table of numbers to use? What other factors need to be taken into account when you look at them? How does that table of numbers fit into the other table of numbers that doesnt give you results you like? How can you reconcile the differences? How do you know your table of numbers you’re using is representative of what you are trying to show? Is there inherent error in those numbers? Did the manner of collecting the data during (choose time period) change?

And.... are you pretty much just guessing when you answer these questions because you have no ****ing training or understanding of exactly what this data represents?

There’s a reason they dont use doddering retired electrical engineers to analyze sea level at NOAA... and it isnt because they are overqualified.

 

[Tim the plumber]

But is it the correct table of numbers to use? What other factors need to be taken into account when you look at them? How does that table of numbers fit into the other table of numbers that doesnt give you results you like? How can you reconcile the differences? How do you know your table of numbers you’re using is representative of what you are trying to show? Is there inherent error in those numbers? Did the manner of collecting the data during (choose time period) change?

And.... are you pretty much just guessing when you answer these questions because you have no ****ing training or understanding of exactly what this data represents?

There’s a reason they dont use doddering retired electrical engineers to analyze sea level at NOAA... and it isnt because they are overqualified.

If you had a degree in a science subject, pharmacology, for example, you would be able to easily understand that getting a trend line or an acceleration out of such a table of numbers is easy. The difficulty is knowing what to use to get the correct one. That would require understanding the mechanism.

The use of exponential or quadratic acceleration curves is utterly unjustified here.

 

[Threegoofs]

If you had a degree in a science subject, pharmacology, for example, you would be able to easily understand that getting a trend line or an acceleration out of such a table of numbers is easy. The difficulty is knowing what to use to get the correct one. That would require understanding the mechanism.

The use of exponential or quadratic acceleration curves is utterly unjustified here.

You dont understand my point. I’m not surprised.

 

[flogger]

You dont understand my point. I’m not surprised.

His words often contained more than one syllable so 'I'm not surprised' his response threw you there :wink:

 

[Media_Truth]

Because the scale of numbers is very different! A table of 100 numbers that are levels over time, can be understood by anyone with a math or science background.

Another I'm-the-Expert quote from a novice keyboard scientist. I hate to break it to you, but you'll need to understand the science and all the associated feedbacks.

 

[Media_Truth]

FAQ 5.1 - AR4 WGI Chapter 5: Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level

Yes, there is strong evidence that global sea level gradually rose in the 20th century and is currently rising at an increased rate, after a period of little change between AD 0 and AD 1900. Sea level is projected to rise at an even greater rate in this century. The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion of the oceans (water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice due to increased melting.

Global sea level rose by about 120 m during the several millennia that followed the end of the last ice age (approximately 21,000 years ago), and stabilised between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago. Sea level indicators suggest that global sea level did not change significantly from then until the late 19th century. The instrumental record of modern sea level change shows evidence for onset of sea level rise during the 19th century. Estimates for the 20th century show that global average sea level rose at a rate of about 1.7 mm yr–1.

Satellite observations available since the early 1990s provide more accurate sea level data with nearly global coverage. This decade-long satellite altimetry data set shows that since 1993, sea level has been rising at a rate of around 3 mm yr–1, significantly higher than the average during the previous half century. Coastal tide gauge measurements confirm this observation, and indicate that similar rates have occurred in some earlier decades.

In agreement with climate models, satellite data and hydrographic observations show that sea level is not rising uniformly around the world. In some regions, rates are up to several times the global mean rise, while in other regions sea level is falling. Substantial spatial variation in rates of sea level change is also inferred from hydrographic observations. Spatial variability of the rates of sea level rise is mostly due to non-uniform changes in temperature and salinity and related to changes in the ocean circulation.

Near-global ocean temperature data sets made available in recent years allow a direct calculation of thermal expansion. It is believed that on average, over the period from 1961 to 2003, thermal expansion contributed about one-quarter of the observed sea level rise, while melting of land ice accounted for less than half. Thus, the full magnitude of the observed sea level rise during that period was not satisfactorily explained by those data sets, as reported in the IPCC Third Assessment Report.

During recent years (1993–2003), for which the observing system is much better, thermal expansion and melting of land ice each account for about half of the observed sea level rise, although there is some uncertainty in the estimates.

The reasonable agreement in recent years between the observed rate of sea level rise and the sum of thermal expansion and loss of land ice suggests an upper limit for the magnitude of change in land-based water storage, which is relatively poorly known. Model results suggest no net trend in the storage of water over land due to climate-driven changes but there are large interannual and decadal fluctuations. However, for the recent period 1993 to 2003, the small discrepancy between observed sea level rise and the sum of known contributions might be due to unquantified human- induced processes (e.g., groundwater extraction, impoundment in reservoirs, wetland drainage and deforestation).

Global sea level is projected to rise during the 21st century at a greater rate than during 1961 to 2003. Under the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) A1B scenario by the mid-2090s, for instance, global sea level reaches 0.22 to 0.44 m above 1990 levels, and is rising at about 4 mm yr–1. As in the past, sea level change in the future will not be geographically uniform, with regional sea level change varying within about ±0.15 m of the mean in a typical model projection. Thermal expansion is projected to contribute more than half of the average rise, but land ice will lose mass increasingly rapidly as the century progresses. An important uncertainty relates to whether discharge of ice from the ice sheets will continue to increase as a consequence of accelerated ice flow, as has been observed in recent years. This would add to the amount of sea level rise, but quantitative projections of how much it would add cannot be made with confidence, owing to limited understanding of the relevant processes.

 

[Steve Case]

Yes, there is strong evidence that global sea level gradually rose in the 20th century and is currently rising at an increased rate, after a period of little change between AD 0 and AD 1900.

For the 30 years prior to 1950 rates were about as high as they are today

Sea level is projected to rise at an even greater rate in this century.

Most of the predictions/projections I've seen are ridiculous

The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion of the oceans

Sea level rise due to thermal expansion is local. If the equatorial Pacific warms up,
sea level rise in the equatorial Pacific, it won't rise in New York.

and the loss of land-based ice due to increased melting.

If they mean Antarctica and Greenland, it's too cold there to melt.
Doesn't mean they aren't losing ice. but they're not melting.

Satellite observations available since the early 1990s provide more accurate sea level data with nearly global coverage.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Which version of the many changes that were made is the correct one.

Each plotted point is the rate of sea level rise since 1993

This decade-long satellite altimetry data set shows that since 1993, sea level has been rising at a rate of around 3 mm yr–1, significantly higher than the average during the previous half century. Coastal tide gauge measurements confirm this observation, and indicate that similar rates have occurred in some earlier decades.

So which is it:

1. This decade-long satellite altimetry data set shows that since 1993,
sea level has been rising at a rate of around 3 mm yr–1, significantly
higher than the average during the previous half century.

2. Coastal tide gauge measurements confirm this observation, and
indicate that similar rates have occurred in some earlier decades.

Earlier decades as in before 1950. There's some real cherry picking
going on in those two statements

[/QUOTE]

Near-global ocean temperature data sets made available in recent years allow a direct calculation of thermal expansion. It is believed ...

Believed? Are they running a church?

Global sea level is projected to rise during the 21st century at a greater rate than during 1961 to 2003.

Interesting 1961 to 2003 and the IPCC's AR5 was published in 2014.
One has to wonder why they picked 1961-2003? Looks like cherry
picking to me.

An important uncertainty relates to whether discharge of ice from the ice sheets will continue to increase as a consequence of accelerated ice flow, as has been observed in recent years.

Well will you look at that they actually used the correct term,
ice flow rather than melting. Of course they are alluding to the
BS that evaporation causes sea water to warm, then sink, then
flow like a submarine to Antarctica, flow under the sea ice,
under the ice shelf and melt the ice cap at the grounding line.

 

[Media_Truth]

For the 30 years prior to 1950 rates were about as high as they are today


Most of the predictions/projections I've seen are ridiculous


Sea level rise due to thermal expansion is local. If the equatorial Pacific warms up,
sea level rise in the equatorial Pacific, it won't rise in New York.


If they mean Antarctica and Greenland, it's too cold there to melt.
Doesn't mean they aren't losing ice. but they're not melting.


Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Which version of the many changes that were made is the correct one.

Each plotted point is the rate of sea level rise since 1993




So which is it:

1. This decade-long satellite altimetry data set shows that since 1993,
sea level has been rising at a rate of around 3 mm yr–1, significantly
higher than the average during the previous half century.

2. Coastal tide gauge measurements confirm this observation, and
indicate that similar rates have occurred in some earlier decades.

Earlier decades as in before 1950. There's some real cherry picking
going on in those two statements

There is something called the uneducated vs the educated. The Shaman versus the doctor. You versus the scientists doing the studies of the IPCC.

 

[Steve Case]

There is something called the uneducated vs the educated. The Shaman versus the doctor. You versus the scientists doing the studies of the IPCC.

There's something called BS which the IPCC is not in short supply of.

 

[Media_Truth]

There's something called BS which the IPCC is not in short supply of.

Sounds like some strange kind of jealousy at not being one of the scientific elite???

 

[flogger]

Sounds like some strange kind of jealousy at not being one of the scientific elite???

The seas have been constantly rising for the last 18,000 years often at rates far higher than today ,and just like all the other natural phenomena we have been experiencing lately they have been hijacked on the alter of an anti human liberal political agenda barely 30 years old

 

[Steve Case]

The seas have been constantly rising for the last 18,000 years often at rates far higher than today ,and just like all the other natural phenomena we have been experiencing lately they have been hijacked on the alter of an anti human liberal political agenda barely 30 years old ...

The anti human liberal political agenda is a bit older than 30. "Hey hey, ho ho,
Western Culture has got to go." Can you say Karl Marx? I knew you could.