Nmysys wrote: Planet Earth
Changing Tides: Research Center Under Fire for 'Adjusted' Sea-Level Data
By Maxim Lott
Published June 17, 2011
| FoxNews.com
NASA Projects Sea Level Rise
Is climate change raising sea levels, as Al Gore has argued -- or are climate scientists doctoring the data?
The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters -- or about the thickness of a fingernail -- every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.
"Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring," said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.
Does this mean they have a metric ruler planted in the sand on the beaches and watch during the tides to see what the rise is every year. Damn they are good. rofllol
Firstly, Al Gore has no scientific validity. Secondly, there are lots of other ways in which to measure the rise of sea level. One example I posted elsewhere is mangrove swam peat that is now underwater. Mangrove peat forms at sea level, can be dated and has provided a measure of sea level rise over the past ten thousand years. The question is not if SL is rising but how much and whether or not the fudge factor of .3 mm is justified. So Mr. Taylor is intentionally misstating his point. In fact his statement is totally wrong as SL is rising. Thirdly, if the ice at the polar regions is melting, you can expect to see a rise in SL. Volumes can be calculated and there needs to be a mass balance. The water tied up in ice has to go into the ocean. But, just like a cork sinks lower into the water when you put a weight on it, so does the ocean floor subside slightly with the addition of glacial melt water. Measuring eustacy (the actual rise in sea level based upon the addition of water into the ocean) is difficult. For example, the east coast is subsiding (sinking) instead of rising after ice unloading because of plate tectonic matters unrelated to SL rise.
What the CU group is trying to account for is residual rebound (rr). This is the rebound of land still to take place. The asthenosphere takes well in excess of 10,000 years to reach a new equilibrium following ice loading or removal. You can get away from this issue by measuring SL in places far away from former ice loads.
Ultimately what is important from my perspective is not the volume of ocean water, but relative Sea Level rise. If I have a house in a coastal region, I do not care about whether the land is rebounding or sinking or if ice is melting and ocean volumes are enlarging. What I DO care about is whether or not the coastline is moving closer to me and whether or not it will stop before it reaches my house. The same consideration exists for all coastal metropolitan areas. Relative sea level rise in NY is pronounced because the eastern seaboard is subsiding at a rate far greater than the residual rebound following the last ice sheet withdrawal. We do know that Sl is rising because of polar ice cap melting, but quibble over how fast. I'm not a proponent of major sea level rises in a short time (100 years), but I can subscribe to sea level rising enough to flood parts of NY city over the next 1000 years.
California is a non issue. Its position along a transform plate margin insures that the land will rise at a rate exceeding sea level rise. JMHO
So who says ya can't teach an old dog new tricks. I now sorta understand. So there is a real way to fiqure it out.
major bean wrote: Obviously, you do not know how science works. It is not me who relegates scientists of the past to the role of fakes and psuedo-scientists. It is the scientists of the next generation who label them so.
You need to learn to read and understand. The change in organisms work by the laws of nature to acheive this change. But the nature does not change. You do not understand that animals are not "nature" and are governed by "nature". They reside in nature just as we do. And nature never changes, but our understanding of nature does change.
Your extreme effort to misunderstand is not portraying you as a person of knowledge, but rather, one who is trying very hard to argue by misrepresenting what I have posted. That is not a good character trait for a "scientist" to have.
No, I obviously do not know how science works after spending ten years in graduate school learning just how it works and then spending another 3 decades practicing science. But you obviously are the expert in terms of how science works. Your whole diatribe about regarding fakes and pseudo-scientists must be based upon one or two examples. Your generalization is out of order and a totally stupid assertion. Please define what you consider nature. All living things make up nature together with the physical part of the world in my book and according to definition (see
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/nature
)
Nature [noncount] a : the physical world and everything in it (such as plants, animals, mountains, oceans, stars, etc.) that is not made by people.
So would you like to reconsider that nature does not change? Plants and animas evolve as I pointed out before. Ocean chemistry changes as does the atmospheric composition through time. We are a part of nature too as we are mammals, you know, a class of animals.
I do not try to misunderstand. Rather, now I'm trying to illustrate just how ignorant you really are because your whole thought process is flawed because your basic knowledge is lacking. If you are going to argue, at least try to understand the words you use.
What you are describing is the understanding of a grade school child with regards to "nature". The school child's understanding is the definition of the birds, animals, plants, etc as nature. It is a layman's definition.
Scientists define "nature" as the forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world. Those who study the hard sciences know the difference between the childs understanding of the word and how the scientist understands "nature".
Rockdoc, go to your scientific texts for the definition, not Webster's dictionary. You will find that I am not mistaken in the least.
Trying to insult me into submission or to impress others will not change your lack of understanding of this matter.
I am not uneducated, so do not wave your credentials. I am not impressed in the least.
Your attempt to blur the line between science and technology is disgusting. If you have the education that you claim, then you know the slight of hand that you are attempting to use to impress others. Stop it.
MB, just try going by what is defined rather than making up your own rules. It really does not matter whether I go to my scientific texts or a dictionary Webster's or a specialized one like my geologic glossary, they all say the same thing. If you insist on being ignorant, I can't help it. Processes are not nature, they are processes. I'm not interested in insulting into submission, you do that on your own accord.
As for technology and science, the line is often blurred, especially in my field. I do not have to claim anything about my education, it is a matter of public record. As for attempting to impress others, who cares? This is not a matter of impressing people, it is a matter of fundamental facts. At this point, I doubt there is anything I could say that would sink in, so I'll just turn the thread over to you so you can expound your scientific wisdom.
