OT The answer to rising sea levels???

[jon lopgel]

Yep, human nature likes an explanation for what people see.

That?s why Ayer's Rock is some long dead gigantic animal carcase.

And why gods were invented.

[whisky-dave]

Why, are you saying these myths never actually happened.

[newshound]

Oops my memory, well corrected. But still a very large factor beyond worst case scenarios for this century.

[Chris Hogg]

which are grossly and absurdly exaggerated anyway. Sea levels rose rapidly when the current ice age started to thaw, much faster than they are doing at present, but they've settled down to a slow and steady rate now, as the globe warms slowly and steadily towards the next interglacial period.

the internationally recognised tidal gauge at Newlyn, a few miles from me Scroll down for the graphs and data, but no sign of any 'acceleration' - been linear from 1915 to present day.

[RayL12]

According to the records of Dan Britt, (Orbits and Ice Ages), the Ice Age is regular but, is also a rarity. The earth is mostly ice free throughout time.

20,000 years ago the sea levels were 40 meters lower. Dan Britt shows that Ice Ages are themselves erratic in temperature fluctuations.

...Ray.

[whisky-dave]

As the Earth warms up the ice melts and sea levels rise.

[Chris Hogg]

There have been five ice ages in the history of the earth. They are quite rare events. An ice age is defined (arbitrarily?) as having ice caps on both poles, as at present. There is no certain explanation for ice ages, although Milankovitch cycles are generally reckoned to have something to do with it.

The global temperature between ice ages is several degrees higher than it is today. The current ice age is slowly coming to an end and the global temperature is slowly rising. Sometimes it goes a little faster, as between 1910 and 1940 or a similar rise between 1970 and

2000 (the former passed without comment, the latter has caused global panic and much bed-wetting), sometimes it goes a little slower and almost stops rising, as between 2000 and 2020, and sometimes it goes into reverse, as between 1940 and 1970. But the average change is monotonically upwards. It's natural: there's nothing we can do to stop it.

Some 15,000 years ago, sea levels were 100 metres lower than they are today. Neolithic man, when he repopulated the UK as the ice began to melt and retreat, would have been able to walk almost dry-shod from Brittany to Cornwall, or across Doggerland. Rising sea levels are a consequence of the melting ice. Like the global temperature, sometimes they go a little faster, sometimes a little slower. At the moment they may be going just a little bit faster (much as they have on occasion in the past), but that's absolutely no reason for the absurd extrapolations into the near future suggesting huge areas of coastal land are going to be flooded. Some coastal flooding will eventually occur, but there's nothing we can do to halt either the rising global temperatures nor the rising sea levels.

Unfortunately I'm of an age where I doubt if I will see the above being confirmed beyond doubt by events, and the huge amounts of egg on the faces of '95%' of scientists, but that's life.

[Tim Streater]

We are in an interglacial at the minute, and within a few thousand years the ice will be back. We are likely to stay in this ice age until Antarctica shifts away from the South Pole, and until the land which rings the North Pole shifts away too, which would allow warmer water from lower latitudes to shift the ice around the North Pole.

[bert]

And if you change the measuring technique from shore line gauges to satellite the sea level can appear to have risen even though it hasn't. Just saying.

[Chris Hogg]

Ironically, it has been suggested that if the Titanic had hit the iceberg 'head-on', she would not have sunk. The bows would have been crushed and a few of the forward compartments flooded, but she wouldn't have sunk. It was the attempt to miss it, resulting in a grazing collision, gashes down the starboard side and flooding of too many compartments, that resulted in her sinking.

[Chris Hogg]

Quite. Changing the measuring technique half way through the experiment is not a good idea.

[#Paul]

I once had an interesting conversation with a scientist whose entire job was working out to calibrate satellite data; and on that basis I think probably your remark does not carry the importance you think it does. Working out how to compare different types of measurements is an utterly routine process.

#Paul

[The Natural Philosopher]

Until Climb it cyan t*ts get their beaks on it, when it becomes a mysterious mathematical process that incredibly validates their presumptions.

[#Paul]

*yawn*

#Paul

[The Natural Philosopher]

Bless. The evidence is pretty overwhelming. Raw data univerrsally doesn't show much climate change 'adjusted' data all shows 'strong climate change' signal...all in the upwards direction.

No data has ever been adjusted in the reverse direction.

Raw data - No correlation. Adjusted data, strong correlation.

Adjusted data - raw data = totally non random, all one direction

Too much money riding on it to leave science to the honest cyan t*ts eh?

[whisky-dave]

and London and the south east is sinking as scotland rises, and when the ice sheets melt, the land mass under them rises too.

[Chris Hogg]

I would certainly hope so, but unless given no alternative, changing the measuring technique part-way through a series of measurements should be avoided. In the case of sea-levels, there was no particular reason to change from the well-established technique of tidal gauges.

Tidal gauges do have their problems, most obviously caused by rising or sinking land levels, the former due to post-glacial rebound. I believe there is a Swedish tidal gauge in the Baltic that records negative sea-level rises due to this effect. But it is a well-known effect and can be allowed for.

The satellite measurements appear to show an acceleration in rising sea levels, coincidentally starting at about the time of the change in the measuring technique, which raised eyebrows in certain quarters, because extrapolations based on that acceleration predicted alarmingly high sea levels in the medium term.

OTOH, tidal gauges around the world show only a steady increase in sea levels, which are linear over the long term but sometimes a little faster, sometimes a little slower, short term. Between 2010 and present, sea levels even stopped rising at a number of locations around the world, see this analysis of NOAA data.

Even our own tidal gauge at Newlyn, not too far from me, shows no sign of an acceleration in sea levels in recent decades: see and scroll down. I find it odd that despite the claims for greater accuracy for satellite measurements of sea levels because of the problems associated with changing land levels and incomplete coverage, the IPCC persist in using terrestrial measurements of global temperatures, with equivalent problems of urban heat islands and incomplete coverage, but eschew the satellite measurements of tropospheric temperatures, despite them having the same general benefits as satellite measurements of sea levels. Satellite measurements of tropospheric temperatures show a much smaller rise in global temperatures than terrestrial measurements. On the face of it, the IPCC seem to be selecting the results that best support the AGW hypothesis, which is bad science.

[#Paul]

I didn't sneeze, I yawned

~Pau

[The Natural Philosopher]

But good business and even better politics.

Well they would, wouldn't they? The IPCC is not there to be unbiased. Its very charter is to 'examine and advise on the effects of man made climate change'

It is beyond its remit to query whether in fact there IS any man made climate change. It starts by assuming that there is, in a 'how hard did you beat your wife?' sort of way.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Bless!