NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Sea level rise (off-topic)
From: Frank Reed CT
Date: 2006 Jul 12, 01:49 -0500
Hi Geoffrey, you wrote:
"At the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory there are people who spend
their time doing just this sort of statistical analysis and I contacted
Professor Philip Woodworth at the POL to ask him about higher order
trends in the data. He tells me that it is possible to extract an
"acceleration" of 0.78 +/- 0.3 mm/year/century for the New York Battery
data."
Even the professionals agree that these "accelerations" are not
statistically significant. Just a few months ago, one researcher in New
Zealand announced that he had developed a "new" method for analyzing
tide gauge data that "finally" shows evidence of the long-sought
acceleration! Note that this is the SAME data that we can all look at
on the NOAA site, the same data that Woodworth and others have been
analyzing and publishing on for almost twenty years. Woodworth's
articles that I am aware of have never claimed that there is a
statistically significant acceleration.
Maybe there really is evidence for acceleration in sea level rise
lurking in there somewhere. It sure isn't readily apparent in this most
reliable form of data on the topic. We can all look at that tide gauge
data for The Battery, and that is what I am encouraging --have a look.
That there is a linear trend lasting for over a century is clear
enough, and the only reasonable cause for the non-tectonic component,
is "global warming" of whatever cause. When you subtract that linear
trend and graph the residuals, there is no significant curvature. Can
one go on to find a quadratic term by massaging the data? Sure --you
can do that with any data set. Is it scientifically relevant? Not in
this case. And that's a lingering issue for models of anthropogenic
global warming, which is why people are still re-analyzing in the hope
that some statistical adjustment might somehow produce it.
A closing thought: relative sea level has been rising at a bit less
than a foot per century in the northeastern US for 150 years at least.
No one noticed this until they looked at the tide gauge data. This rate
is not problematic. Considerably faster sea level rise would be an
expensive problem!
Now what does it cost to build a 300 mile wide mylar reflector at the
Earth-Sun Lagrangian point? That would give us a permanent one
arcminute wide spot in the middle of the Sun, enough to lower the
amount of sunlight reaching each square meter of Earth by about 1 Watt
(out of about 1000 Watts). And of course, when it gets too cold, we
turn the umbrella sideways. Too hot again? Turn it back... Naturally
the nations of the world would have no problem agreeing on such
adjustments. ;->
-FER
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
From: Frank Reed CT
Date: 2006 Jul 12, 01:49 -0500
Hi Geoffrey, you wrote:
"At the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory there are people who spend
their time doing just this sort of statistical analysis and I contacted
Professor Philip Woodworth at the POL to ask him about higher order
trends in the data. He tells me that it is possible to extract an
"acceleration" of 0.78 +/- 0.3 mm/year/century for the New York Battery
data."
Even the professionals agree that these "accelerations" are not
statistically significant. Just a few months ago, one researcher in New
Zealand announced that he had developed a "new" method for analyzing
tide gauge data that "finally" shows evidence of the long-sought
acceleration! Note that this is the SAME data that we can all look at
on the NOAA site, the same data that Woodworth and others have been
analyzing and publishing on for almost twenty years. Woodworth's
articles that I am aware of have never claimed that there is a
statistically significant acceleration.
Maybe there really is evidence for acceleration in sea level rise
lurking in there somewhere. It sure isn't readily apparent in this most
reliable form of data on the topic. We can all look at that tide gauge
data for The Battery, and that is what I am encouraging --have a look.
That there is a linear trend lasting for over a century is clear
enough, and the only reasonable cause for the non-tectonic component,
is "global warming" of whatever cause. When you subtract that linear
trend and graph the residuals, there is no significant curvature. Can
one go on to find a quadratic term by massaging the data? Sure --you
can do that with any data set. Is it scientifically relevant? Not in
this case. And that's a lingering issue for models of anthropogenic
global warming, which is why people are still re-analyzing in the hope
that some statistical adjustment might somehow produce it.
A closing thought: relative sea level has been rising at a bit less
than a foot per century in the northeastern US for 150 years at least.
No one noticed this until they looked at the tide gauge data. This rate
is not problematic. Considerably faster sea level rise would be an
expensive problem!
Now what does it cost to build a 300 mile wide mylar reflector at the
Earth-Sun Lagrangian point? That would give us a permanent one
arcminute wide spot in the middle of the Sun, enough to lower the
amount of sunlight reaching each square meter of Earth by about 1 Watt
(out of about 1000 Watts). And of course, when it gets too cold, we
turn the umbrella sideways. Too hot again? Turn it back... Naturally
the nations of the world would have no problem agreeing on such
adjustments. ;->
-FER
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
