Rising sea levels torment Norfolk, Va., and coastal U.S.

Dec 17, 2013 Full story: The Town Talk 36

One block from the beach on the narrow Willoughby Spit, Bob Parsons was watching the weather news on TV in November 2009 when brackish water suddenly oozed up through the wood floors of his home and poured in from the front and back doors.

Read more
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#1 Dec 19, 2013
Where's the denier tina of Norfolk? Gone out to sea!!!!!
litesong

Monroe, WA

#2 Dec 19, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Where's the denier tina of Norfolk? Gone out to sea!!!!!
This article was around last time....... a bit before "tiny minded anne" left. Think she was busy cleaning up after a high tide.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#3 Dec 21, 2013
From the article:
NOAA has projected sea level could rise higher, as much as 6½ feet, by century's end.
That's almost 2000 millimeters over the next 86 years and comes to 23 mm/yr. The current rate for the last 30 years according to the Norfolk area tide gauges is about 6 mm/yr. So when is this quadrupling of the rate going to occur?

NOAA is crossing their fingers that most people won't do that simple arithmetic.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#4 Dec 21, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
From the article:
<quoted text>
That's almost 2000 millimeters over the next 86 years and comes to 23 mm/yr. The current rate for the last 30 years according to the Norfolk area tide gauges is about 6 mm/yr. So when is this quadrupling of the rate going to occur?
Around mid century, if we're foolish enough to continue the same rate of emissions.

http://www.realclimate.org/images//IPCC_AR5_1...

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#6 Dec 21, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Around mid century, if we're foolish enough to continue the same rate of emissions.
http://www.realclimate.org/images//IPCC_AR5_1...
If only that were true. If you plot out the empirical record. the trend is going the other way. It looks like this screen shot
http://oi39.tinypic.com/nr14bq.jpg
taken from this presentation
http://web.archive.org/web/20131213143105/htt...
by R. Steve Nerem at Colorado University's Sea Level Research Group.

That's a few years old now, but it's still true. If you plot out the current satellite data
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2013_rel8/...
and apply a 2nd order polynomial you will get a similar curve.

Real Climate and the AR5 may just as well claim the moon is made of green cheese.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#7 Dec 21, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
If only that were true. If you plot out the empirical record. the trend is going the other way. It looks like this screen shot
http://oi39.tinypic.com/nr14bq.jpg
And what happens if you add 2013, you silly old fool?

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#8 Dec 21, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
And what happens if you add 2013, you silly old fool?
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
There was a 1982 Movie, "The Verdict" with James Mason and Paul Newman, and the tag line from that opus was, "Never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to."

You didn't follow that advice. If you plot out the current data from Colorado University's Sea Level Research Group, and add a 2nd order polynomial trend line, you will find that it continues to display a negative acceleration trend.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#10 Dec 22, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
There was a 1982 Movie, "The Verdict" with James Mason and Paul Newman, and the tag line from that opus was, "Never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to."
You didn't follow that advice. If you plot out the current data from Colorado University's Sea Level Research Group, and add a 2nd order polynomial trend line, you will find that it continues to display a negative acceleration trend.
There's no fool like an old fool!

2013 data are on or above the long term trend line.

The 2011 dip has an explanation in physical reality that was known and talked about at the time (see below), and yet professor Excel is still trying to use it to claim a declining trend.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/2011-la-...

What does this show? Ignorance? Dishonesty? An attempt to deceive?

Or are you really such an old fool steve that you believe your own nonsense?

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#11 Dec 22, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no fool like an old fool!
2013 data are on or above the long term trend line.
The 2011 dip has an explanation in physical reality that was known and talked about at the time (see below), and yet professor Excel is still trying to use it to claim a declining trend.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/2011-la-...
What does this show? Ignorance? Dishonesty? An attempt to deceive?
Or are you really such an old fool steve that you believe your own nonsense?
What I believe is what the data tells us. By that, I mean all of the data, the current data and the data as it was originally reported. It tells me that the guys at Colorado University who authored your link have been manipulating the data to support their thesis for years. The manipulations and deceleration curves are there for anyone who cares to do a little digging to discover. You can call me a silly old fool all you want, it doesn't change the facts.
dfe

Kabul, Afghanistan

#12 Dec 22, 2013
lhle ld lhfel

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#15 Jan 14, 2014
Repost: Topix doesn't seem to like postimage[dot]org.

The usual conspiracy theory rubbish again.

Not applying corrections when they are needed makes your data *worse* not *better*.

You *must* take account of changes in land level when calculating sea level rise. Not doing so makes your data *wrong* not *right*.

Here's the difference between a linear fit and a curve fit. Do you really think the curve fit is statistically a better fit?

(Clue: it's not.)

On top of that, we know the reason for the dip in 2011/2012: not taking account of that reason makes your fit *wrong*.

http://tinylink.net/bl7tk

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#16 Jan 14, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
The usual conspiracy theory rubbish again.
The data's been changed. Deal with it.
Fair Game wrote:
Not applying corrections when they are needed makes your data *worse* not *better*.
That should be true. But when the corrections overwhelmingly fit a pattern one has to wonder what's going on. A pattern of editing correcting and selecting data that always favors one particular viewpoint sends up red flags, or at least it should.
Fair Game wrote:
You *must* take account of changes in land level when calculating sea level rise.
Tide gauges deliver a relative rate of sea level rise which is what is needed for local decision making. Removing the isostatic component from tide gauge data to exaggerate a point of view is fraud.
Fair Game wrote:
Not doing so makes your data *wrong* not *right*.
Data from the satellites is really of academic interest only. Who cares if there's a 'hump' of water in the middle of the ocean?
Fair Game wrote:
Here's the difference between a linear fit and a curve fit. Do you really think the curve fit is statistically a better fit?
The curve tells you if the rate of sea level rise is changing or not and what the sign is if it is.
Fair Game wrote:
(Clue: it's not.)
See above
Fair Game wrote:
On top of that, we know the reason for the dip in 2011/2012: not taking account of that reason makes your fit *wrong*.
Someone over at SkepticalScience back when I was still able to post there complained that Mount Pinatubo, the 1998 El Nino, and the 2011 La Nina skewed the results. So I removed them and posted this graph:
http://oi51.tinypic.com/2nq5ifc.jpg
I'm not going to go to the trouble of removing the 2011 La Nina just for you.
Fair Game wrote:
Take a close look, it's showing a negative acceleration rate. Maybe in a few years it might show a slight bend upwards, and maybe not. But in any case any claim of accelerating sea level rise resulting in multimeter inundation of coastal cities around the world by 2100 or even 2050 is pure unmitigated bullshit.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#17 Jan 14, 2014
Steve Case wrote:
Take a close look, it's showing a negative acceleration rate.
The difference between the the polynomial fit and the linear fit is tiny and not significant.

As well as being clueless about the need for corrections to scientific data, you also seem to be clueless about the need for tests of statistical significance on data.

In short, you know nothing of science and your comments are worthless.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#18 Jan 14, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference between the the polynomial fit and the linear fit is tiny and not significant.
As well as being clueless about the need for corrections to scientific data, you also seem to be clueless about the need for tests of statistical significance on data.
In short, you know nothing of science and your comments are worthless.
My point is that the rate of sea level rise is NOT going up faster and faster every year.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#19 Jan 14, 2014
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is that the rate of sea level rise is NOT going up faster and faster every year.
Er, no, your point was that the rate was going down.

Which you were told was just short term variation.

Which you ignored and continued to claim the rate was going down.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#20 Jan 15, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Er, no, your point was that the rate was going down.
Which you were told was just short term variation.
Which you ignored and continued to claim the rate was going down.
You're right, I have said that the numbers show some deceleration. But that isn't my point.

In order for you guys to have your predictions come true, the rate of sea level rise has to accelerate. And it has to accelerate robustly. This it not happening. The numbers do not show any robust acceleration or any acceleration at all for that matter. You need to come to grips with the fact that your scary scenarios with respect to sea level rise aren't going to materialize.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#21 Jan 15, 2014
Who knows better??

Science or SteveCase?

LOL. Of course, science!

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#22 Jan 15, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
Who knows better??
Science or SteveCase?
LOL. Of course, science!
Do you think the rate of sea level rise is accelerating?

If so, what do you base that one?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#23 Jan 15, 2014
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think the rate of sea level rise is accelerating?
If so, what do you base that one?
First, correction: the global sealevel rise is accelerating.

Based on science. Just read any science source.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#24 Jan 15, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>First, correction: the global sealevel rise is accelerating.
Based on science. Just read any science source.
Not in the last 20 years and probably for some time before that.

Here's the data
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2013_rel8/...
See if you can coax some acceleration out of it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mortgage Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Retirement 1 hr Jimmy1978 1
Outreach Housing LLC & Blair Wright (Oct '08) 11 hr BlairTheDummy 228
News Is President Obama the Worst President in History? (Jun '10) 16 hr Happy 4,598
News U.S. home construction rises 4.4 percent in Dec... Mar 26 calebhart54 2
News U.S. top court to hear Bank of America cases on... Mar 24 dariusrickard 14
News Financial Services Advisor Mar 24 Kent Nelson 2
News Public meeting sought to discuss Blind River's ... Mar 20 Ray 1
More from around the web