Could we refreeze the Arctic?

[Guest]

i did check it, the graph in figure 1 shows sea level has risen ~8.5 feet over the last 4,000 years =62mm/century well within the margin of error of todays measurements, ie, no change in rate of change of sea level, looks like a continuation of recovery from the last ice age 11,000 years ago.

Maybe you would like to show that since Fig 1(b )definitely has no such upward trend.

4) There is a lot of variation in the rate of sea level rise. This is a point frequently missed or ignored by all kinds of people (including some scientists) talking about sea level rise. Take a look at the figure below (from NASA). Changes in sea level clearly vary from place to place. In some parts of the western Pacific ocean, sea level rise has been nearly 1cm per year. In others, sea level is falling. This variability is caused by several factors and nature cycles. This variability is not surprising and does not in any way challenge the fact that globally, average sea level is rising. It just means that the impacts of sea level rise, like very other aspect of global climate change, are variable. For some people they are trivial, to others they are catastrophic.

http://www.globalwar...e_Sea_Level_png

Br Cornelius

Edited December 12, 2012 by Guest

[Guest]

sea level 2 meters higher than present level, 4,000 years ago

http://www.agu.org/p...2GL051983.shtml

I think you will find that that paper says something other than what you think.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

I think you will find that that paper says something other than what you think.

Br Cornelius

"a maximum highstand level of 2 m above present at about 4,000 years ago"

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051983.shtml

so todays sea levels are 2 meters lower than the high point of 4,000 years ago, which illustrates the level of rise over the last 50-100 years is well within natural fluctuations.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Little Fish

[Little Fish]

Maybe you would like to show that since Fig 1(b )definitely has no such upward trend.

fig 1b has a upwards slope from 4,000 years ago. the scale of the left is marked in 10 meter boxes. you can see it starts below the dashed line at 4,000 ybp, and ends on the dashed line at 0 ybp. estimate by eye at about a quarter of one of those 10 meter boxes = 2.5 meters = 2500mm = an average rise of 62.5mm/century over the last 4,000 years

http://academics.eck...8SLRSustain.pdf

Edited December 12, 2012 by Little Fish

[Guest]

"a maximum highstand level of 2 m above present at about 4,000 years ago"

http://www.agu.org/p...2GL051983.shtml

so todays sea levels are 2 meters lower than the high point of 4,000 years ago, which illustrates the level of rise over the last 50-100 years is well within natural fluctuations.

Rebound !!

Read on to where it says that the land ice melt finished 7K years ago.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

Rebound !!

Read on to where it says that the land ice melt finished 7K years ago.

Br Cornelius

ok, but it goes to show there is a large margin of error in the proxy measurements, how you could establish using this data what the natural rate of fluctuation is over 100 years to the mm, when the rebound is likely 3 orders of magnitude larger and modeled, not measured is a mystery.

[Guest]

ok, but it goes to show there is a large margin of error in the proxy measurements, how you could establish using this data what the natural rate of fluctuation is over 100 years to the mm, when the rebound is likely 3 orders of magnitude larger and modeled, not measured is a mystery.

It maybe not as accurate as we would like it to be, but its another one of those sitauations where the more data you have the more accurate the estimate. Current rates are about 3x the rate over the last 4Kyrs and they are still rising.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1029]

Rebound !!

Isostatic rebound from the melting of the continental glaciers continues in the US, Great Britain and probably Scandinavia to this day.

I used to live on the south shore of Lake Erie. Every time the water-level rose, more houses fell into the lake. That's because the crustal block they were standing on is rising faster on the north side, than on the south (There was more ice on the north side.). As a result, the lake erodes the south shore, leaving the Canadians with nice sandy beaches and Ohio with a mud cliff (which slumps).

At Hastings (Remember William the Conqueror?), there is now a beach where William docked his ships. It hasn't been below water in centuries. Same thing at Deat's Beach where Caesar landed in 55 BC.

On the other hand, at Lake Bahrain in Scotlnad, my clan's ancestral home, Dunardry Castle is now completely underwater. And what of the "Rotten Boroughs?"

Isostatic rebound makes it harder to determine the rate of sea-level rise, but not impossible.

Doug

Edited December 13, 2012 by Doug1029

[Little Fish]

Current rates are about 3x the rate over the last 4Kyrs and they are still rising.

I doubt whether the resolution of the data is strong enough to make that claim. you cannot measure with accuracy the sea level rate of rise and rate of fall 4,000 years ago in any meaningful way. there are no measurements of post glacial land rebound which is orders of magnitude greater than any sea level rise due to warming and ice melt. the paper I showed you said the sea level was 2 meters higher 4,000 years ago, and yet that rebound cannot be measured, but has to be modeled with a smooth line.

thought experiment, what is the rate of rise of a smoothed sine wave with 100-year period over 4,000 years? it's a flat line, so zero.

then add on the latest 50 years of precise sine wave data on the end, and you have your hockey stick graph, and yet there is no change in the sine wave data over those 4050 years, so a direct comparison of 2 datasets with different resolutions cannot be made. your margin of error is bigger than the measurements.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Little Fish

[Little Fish]

new research, 60 year oscillation in tide gauge data

"We find that there is a significant oscillation with a period around 60-years in the majority of the tide gauges examined during the 20th Century, and that it appears in every ocean basin"

http://www.agu.org/p...2GL052885.shtml

which looks very different to the data presented earlier, and obviously such a cycle would be invisible in a 4,000 years dataset.

[Doug1029]

thought experiment, what is the rate of rise of a smoothed sine wave with 100-year period over 4,000 years? it's a flat line, so zero.

Considering the difficulty of fitting a sine curve to any set of data and the large errors in the period parameter that are usually present, I'm wondering just how good the fit is. In other words: is a sine curve the right model? Personally, I wouldn't consider just two periods to be evidence of a sine curve, unless the fit was extraordinary and the charts shown in your post do not appear to have all that great of a fit.

Doug

[Little Fish]

Considering the difficulty of fitting a sine curve to any set of data and the large errors in the period parameter that are usually present, I'm wondering just how good the fit is. In other words: is a sine curve the right model? Personally, I wouldn't consider just two periods to be evidence of a sine curve, unless the fit was extraordinary and the charts shown in your post do not appear to have all that great of a fit.

Doug

I was not fitting a sine curve, just demonstrating a thought experiment.

a 60 year regular fluctuation in sea level change would be hidden in the 4,000 year dataset and yet visible in the available tide gauge measurements, so it can't be said that recent rise in sea level is any different to any period in the last 4,000 years.

[Little Fish]

"there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world"."

http://www.telegraph...-ever-told.html

"When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown." <no explanation needed as to why>

"One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".

...etc..

[Doug1029]

all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Regardless of the amount of rise, or whether it is periodic or not, rising sea levels are not likely to be much more than a major inconvenience. They do not threaten the global ecosystem, so we will survive, whatever sea levels do.

Doug

[Little Fish]

rising sea levels are not likely to be much more than a major inconvenience.

if Nils-Axel Mörner (former chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change) is right then its not a major inconvenience, its not even a minor one.

[Little Fish]

arctic temperature was warmer in the 1930s than it was at the end of the 20th century.

and it warmed faster from 1920-1940 than it did from 1980-2000

alarmist's flagellantist fears are unwarranted.

graph published by nasa:

http://earthobservat...p_trends_rt.gif

three wheels on my wagon....

Edited December 14, 2012 by Little Fish

[Guest]

arctic temperature was warmer in the 1930s than it was at the end of the 20th century.

and it warmed faster from 1920-1940 than it did from 1980-2000

alarmist's flagellantist fears are unwarranted.

graph published by nasa:

http://earthobservat...p_trends_rt.gif

three wheels on my wagon....

How about this this one for comparison;

http://planetbye.blo.../in-arctic.html

Br Cornelius

Edited December 14, 2012 by Guest