Sea Level new analysis and graphing tools

a reply to: Phage

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

Not completely, no. I do say that any density variations are essentially constant.

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

So planets don't revolve around their center of mass? That's another chapter of physics you need to rewrite. I hope you have the latest version of Word available... you might be typing a while.

I know you can't possibly be saying "just not enough to matter." That's what us 'deniers' say, Phage.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

So planets don't revolve around their center of mass?

You mean rotate? There is a difference between revolution and rotation. Yes they do. Sort of.

They actually rotate about their figure axis which is variable and thus, their rotation is variable. Shifts in the mass of the atmosphere cause variation in rotation. Shifts in mass caused by the movement of faults cause variation in rotation. This is known.

www.space.com...

a reply to: TheRedneck

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.

It is interesting.
This as well:

There are about sixty good-quality, century-long records of sea-level around the world. A couple of them extend back more than 200 years.
Due to differences in local factors (primarily vertical land motion), the rates of sea-level change vary greatly between those locations. Some are recording falling sea-level, and more are recording rising sea-level; the average is slightly rising.
But they all show the same thing w/r/t accel­er­a­tion: none of them have meas­ured a statistically significant increase in the rate of sea-level rise in over 85 years. At most locations it's been more than a century since the rate of sea-level rise meas­ur­ably increased.

a reply to: Phage

The figure axis (we call it center of mass in science) is variable? Really? How much does this center of mass change with time, Phage?

I'd like to know, since it would affect my distance from the rotational axis and thus my centripedal force and finally weight, and that could come in useful if I ever need to go on a diet. I could just move and lose weight! What do you think, maybe I could lose 10 pounds?

Does Weight Watchers know about this?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The figure axis (we call it center of mass in science)

The center of mass is a point. The figure axis is a line segment.

How much does this center of mass change with time, Phage?

Center of mass, not much. Figure axis is variable.

a reply to: Phage

The center of mass is a point. The figure axis is a line segment.

Well, a line, but yeah, I can accept that. It runs through the center of mass, though. The principle still stands.

Center of mass, not much. Figure axis is variable.

Wait, wait, wait! The center of mass has to be changing appreciably if it is changing sea level appreciably. If a mascon is growing under Alaska (largest example quoted of sea level decrease with time), it is also shifting the center of mass toward Alaska.

That was your argument, right?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

That was your argument, right?

No.
I said there is a gravity anomaly around Indonesia which correlates to higher sea levels there.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Phage

Actually, that anomaly, if caused by a mascon, would mean the mascon would be the other side of the center of mass than Indonesia. Just guessing here, but that would but it toward where... England? Is sea level dropping in England?

I'll let you look through your links. It's beddy-bye time for good little rednecks here.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Actually, that anomaly, if caused by a mascon, would mean the mascon would be the other side of the center of mass than Indonesia

How so?

a reply to: Phage


Greenland Glaciers putting on weight

a reply to: D8Tee

Your source:

The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.

a reply to: Phage

Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.

Yes you are correct, it is losing mass. I focused on the surface mass balance, and charts which makes it look like it is gaining as compared to the 1990-2013 mean.

a reply to: D8Tee

There are similar misconceptions (misrepresentations) regarding Antarctica.

a reply to: Phage

Like this one?
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

a reply to: D8Tee
Perhaps. The data are problematic on several levels.
www.scientificamerican.com...

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Phage

Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.

Yes you are correct, it is losing mass. I focused on the surface mass balance, and charts which makes it look like it is gaining as compared to the 1990-2013 mean.

If the entire ice sheet melts, the water level around Greenland will drop tens of meters.

a reply to: pteridine

Yea. Because Greenland will move up. Gradually.
I don't live on Greenland. Do you?

a reply to: Phage

Good article, thanks for the link. Interesting, the comments about the data.

Of this, Scambos said: “The satellite is not at fault here, not inherently, but the data are being pushed to a place it can’t go. The data receive several corrections, and some are problematic.”

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pteridine

Yea. Because Greenland will move up. Gradually.
I don't live on Greenland. Do you?

It would occur in the timeframe of the melt because the ice sheet gravitationally attracts the ocean around it.

ETA: I only lived in Greenland for a short while.

a reply to: pteridine


That is correct. Not sure if the effect would override the overall rise in sea level though.