NavList:

   

Reply

George, you wrote:
"Here, I think that Frank  was being somewhat over-simplistic in
relating change in overall sea level to  one location, even as an
example."

Indeed I was. I was trying to be  brief --and let the data speak for itself
(sorry Fred, data speak for  themselves).

And you wrote:
"Such local changes respond not only to  change in sea level, but also
to changes in land level, which can be rising  or falling.
For example, even within the limited extent of the geology of the  UK,
although in some parts of the coast sea levels are rising, in  others
they are falling. By choosing your location, you could make  whatever
predictions you thought fit."

The correct expression, of  course, is "relative sea level". The Baltic is
shrinking and Sweden and Finland  are gaining land area every year because the
land up there, which bore the  greatest burden of the European ice sheet in the
last glaciation, is still  rebounding and rising rather rapidly. So "relative
sea level" is falling. The  same thing is happening to Hudson Bay in Canada.
On the US East coast about  half, very roughly, of the increase in relative
sea level is attributed to  geological factors. The land in these area is
sinking because the continental  shelf, which was dry ground 10,000 years ago, now
bears the weight of some 100  meters of water.

There are dozens of other tide gauge data sets available  at the web site I
referenced. Here's the best place to start:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html .


-FER
42.0N 87.7W, or 41.4N  72.1W.
www.HistoricalAtlas.com/lunars


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply