Sea Level new analysis and graphing tools

a reply to: Phage
Al Gore’s movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ says sea levels could rise up to 20 feet. Is this true?

a reply to: D8Tee
That 20 foot number refers to a complete melting of Greenland's ice. And, as pointed out, contains no time frame. It is a "what if" scenario. Clearly stated as such.


Feel free to contradict that.

a reply to: Phage

The mean sea level (MSL) trend at Honolulu, HI, USA is +1.43 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of ±0.21 mm/year, based on monthly mean sea level data from 1905/1 to 2016/9. That is equivalent to a change of 0.47 feet in 100 years.

Yea, i can see how the truth has much less impact.

a reply to: D8Tee

Yea, i can see how the truth has much less impact.

Can you see that a reliance on historical data does not apply to increased warming? Can you see that with continued warming Greenland's ice will, indeed melt?

a reply to: Phage

Can you see that a reliance on historical data does not apply to increased warming?

Yes, the science is far from settled.

a reply to: D8Tee

Yes, the science is far from settled.

The physics are quite settled. Increased CO2 means more forcing. More forcing means higher temperatures.

Who know what higher temperatures means.
So, do nothing and wait to see what happens.

Good plan.

a reply to: Phage

The physics are quite settled. Increased CO2 means more forcing. More forcing means higher temperatures.

Is that a linear increase, or logarithmic with regards to C02 and temperature?

So, do nothing and wait to see what happens.

Carbon taxes and cap and trade plans are not the solution. Putting a nation at an economic disadvantage with expensive green power will be more harmful than good. A transition to clean power will happen when it becomes economically viable. We have to settle for what can be achieved not what we would like to achieve.

a reply to: D8Tee

Is that a linear increase, or logarithmic with regards to C02 and temperature?

Is this a test? Are you talking about that famous formula? Do you think it implies a saturation point?

Carbon taxes and cap and trade plans are not the solution.

The utility of carbon taxes depends mostly upon how the revenue is used but it is a basic tenant of economics that increased price leads to reduced demand. Cap and trade seems to have been quite effective in reducing SO2 emissions without increasing consumer prices.

A transition to clean power will happen when it becomes economically viable.

Yes. Anything wrong with encouraging that?

a reply to: Phage

Yes. Anything wrong with encouraging that?

High energy prices will put a country at an economic disadvantage. Industrial use of power is costly, if you wish to put industry at risk and make recycling more costly, I guess it's a solution. Who's going to set up shop in Canada, all else being the same, if they can go across the border and have lower energy costs?

Somebody threw a party and didn't invite me... so sad.

Great article, OP, and a good conclusion on your part. I too remember watching "An Inconvenient Truth," although it seemed more like a comedy than a documentary at the time. I had already gone through the "OMG we're all gonna die!" phase and was starting to question the ideas presented. Al Gore just showed me I was on the right track to question things.

I think the most hilarious part was where he predicted sea level rise. Jeff Dunham is more rooted in reality.

Anyway, I caught this little snippet from the link:

April 6, 2016 — Sea-level is not rising everywhere. The measured rate of coastal sea-level change varies from -17.59 mm/yr at Skagway, Alaska to +9.39 mm/yr at Kushiro, Japan. The average, as measured by the world's best long-term coastal tide gauges, is just under +1.5 mm/yr. That rate has not increased (“accelerated”) in over 85 years.

Source: www.sealevel.info...

They really need to mention all that variability in the gravitational constant in the next version of physics books... it just screws up the whole darn thing being so constant and all.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

They really need to mention all that variability in the gravitational constant in the next version of physics books... it just screws up the whole darn thing being so constant and all.

Maybe you should look up "mascon" before railing about the gravitational constant.

a reply to: Phage

A mascon is an area of higher density mass non-concentric with a planetary center of mass. It causes gravitation anomalies depending on how large or dense it is.

They are not a function of time.

But that's a good idea. You could rewrite the physics books to inform people how the earth has cancer and the mascons, like tumors, are growing and shrinking. That would definitely be easier than trying to vary the gravitational constant.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
Yes.
It also is a good explanation for correlation between Earth's gravity map and the bump in sea levels around Indonesia.
No?

a reply to: Phage

Why are you asking me? I like the physics books just the way they are.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Why are you asking me?

To put it bluntly, because you seemed to have difficulty reconciling the two in another thread.

a reply to: Phage

Can you see that with continued warming Greenland's ice will, indeed melt?

Rhetorical question. How much warming will that entail, and how long of a time frame?

a reply to: Phage

Not really. I do speak math more fluently than I do English, so maybe that confused you.

So, you are saying the density of the planet is 'off-center' due to these time-dependent mascons? So you would also be saying our planetary revolutions are changing, right? After all, a planet revolves about it's center of mass...

You might want to call NASA and let them know...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

So, you are saying the density of the planet is 'off-center' due to these time-dependent mascons?

Yes. Are you saying that the density of the planet is homogeneous?

So you would also be saying our planetary revolutions are changing, right?

The revolution of the Earth around the Sun is not affected by the distribution of the mass within the Earth in any appreciable manner.

You might want to call NASA and let them know...

Let them know what?

a reply to: Phage

Is that a linear increase, or logarithmic with regards to C02 and temperature?

Is this a test? Are you talking about that famous formula? Do you think it implies a saturation point?

Was asking if there is a linear relationship between C02 and forcing is all.

a reply to: D8Tee

Was asking if there is a linear relationship between C02 and forcing is all. Was asking if there is a linear relationship between C02 and forcing is all.

There is not.
Nor is there a linear relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature.