Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 Next
Comments 81601 to 81650:
-
Rob Painting at 12:02 PM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Camburn - IF the North Carolina data were anything but a local phenominum.....the sea level SHOULD be rising quit fast in the Southern Cook Islands. It isn't Why? Sea level rise isn't globally uniform, (for a myriad of reasons) so why do you expect a higher rate there? -
fatir.b at 12:01 PM on 23 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
I agree that "Of course it's not all sunshine and rainbows. Meeting the $5.1 trillion global renewable energy investment from 2011 to 2020 will require a five-fold increase from current investment levels. And of course there is the political challenge involved in implementing the necessary policies to allow this renewable energy investment increase to happen". Also support this report with a few hints. What about natural disasters e.g.: volcanic emissions, the impact of the earthquake, wind, etc.. Of course scenario is attainable, but in the report is only mentioned mitigation and therefore I 'think' based on the examples that I mentioned about report are need 'small corrections and additions' to the report, and should turn attention mechanisms of the adaptation. Guided by the idea that we have to adapt to the nature and not vice versa. I apologize if someone understood this comment as a malicious. Thanks. -
Tom Curtis at 12:00 PM on 23 June 2011Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
rgriffin42 @59, the same thing concerns climate scientists and interested observers like me. That is what all the discussion of tipping points is about. It is very possible that at a certain rise in temperature, some natural feedback will kick in that is strong enough that will rapidly accelerate the rate of warming. Potential candidates are the the release of methane from clathrates, the release methane from formerly frozen tundra, and the deforestation of the amazon, two of which can individually release more CO2 equivalent of methane than has been released by humans since the industrial revolution. Another suggested tipping point is the possible shut down of the North Atlantic conveyor, with a consequent significant reduction in temperatures in Europe. However, as best understood at the moment, that is not likely for several centuries, at which time it may bring relief to Europe, but will not trigger an ice age. In fact, from geological studies, we know the possibility of a cooling tipping point is remote. If there was such a cooling mechanism, it would place a hard ceiling on global temperatures - but we know global temperatures have been significantly higher than they currently are. Hence the instability you mention may make things get a lot worse a lot faster than we are expecting, it is very likely that they will be our salvation. -
Eric the Red at 11:58 AM on 23 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
To what denial are you referring? That is exactly the trend to which I am referring. 2007 was anomalously low, just like 1996 was anomalously high. Other than that, the trend looks robust. I do not know why so many people are getting exciting about breaking the 2007 low this year. I have always understood. -
Rob Painting at 11:53 AM on 23 June 2011It's the sun
The way I read 1 & 2 of rdmtask's comment, is that he/she thinks the heat driving global warming is from the heat given off by burning of fossil fuels, rather than the CO2 given off increasing the Greenhouse Effect. This confusion continues here: "All energy enters the earth via solar radiation, all energy leaves the earth via solar radiation" Where he/she appears to claim that the Earth is a star. -
scaddenp at 10:54 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Sorry, I should be clearer. The tectonic effect is regional GIA adjustment. Rather different to say my local area where Malrborough Sounds on one side a fault are dropping 4mm/year while 50km away, on another fault, the range goes up at close 5mm/year. Relating coastal sealevel predictions to globalin that setting is tough. Estimating GIA?, not so much. (Actually I am not so sure about their GIA adjustment.The basis for it depends on an estimate of crustal rheological parameters that I am not so sure about, but that's another story - more data coming. It wont effect the shape of their curve.) -
Camburn at 10:37 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
scaddenp: North Carolina is an area that is sinking so to make the statement that tetonics is not an issue with North Carolina is false. -
Bibliovermis at 10:34 AM on 23 June 2011It's the sun
As for #4: The incoming energy from the sun primarily is shortwave radiation. This is absorbed by the planet and emitted as longwave radiation. The greenhouse gases absorb and reflect this longwave radiation. The "greenhouse effect" You are arguing against over a century of accumulated scientific knowledge based on your lack of understanding. -
scaddenp at 10:34 AM on 23 June 2011It's the sun
And further note, that we have enough coal to change the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere back to pre-pliocene levels. -
scaddenp at 10:22 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
You will note however, that Prof Steffen was quite capable of relating global level to local levels. Really big differences over short distances are difficult but they are due to tectonic effects not present in North Carolina. You will also note that the paper did compare their results to other sealevel proxies. -
quokka at 10:21 AM on 23 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
#41 Stephen Leahy I call Germany's decision to phase out nuclear power dumb not smart. There is absolutely no way that it will not result in emissions higher than they would have been if nuclear was retained and operated in parallel with new renewables build. It cannot be otherwise. The UK now has a "legally binding" commitment to 50% emissions reductions by 2027, so it would be well to study it's plans too. Of course for all nations, one does not have have to question the sincerity of commitments, to observe that what is being said may well not be what is achieved. It's all still words at the moment and does not constitute "proof" in any sense that any particular path is anything like optimal. There is an unfortunate habit of lumping all renewables together and make implications about future growth of renewables based on their share of current electricity generation. This obscures rather than informs. It it overwhelmingly solar/wind that must be grown to do the heavy lifting, if renewables alone are to deliver the goods. Today, the situation is that in OECD countries nuclear supplies 22% of electricity, solar/wind/geothermal 4%. In Germany solar/wind/geo supplies 7.7%. (Source IEA Monthly Electricity Stats). If all the OECD shut down nuclear over the next decade, it would require the current solar/wind group to be expanded by a factor of six or more just to maintain the current level of emissions in electricity generation. What hope for emissions reductions then? This is how important nuclear is. I believe that the UK now has the highest commitment to emissions reductions over the next two decades. Their anticipated pathway including nuclear deserves study, recognizing that for each nation there are specific factors that must influence their choices. The The Renewable Energy Review and supporting documents are important contributions. -
Patrick 027 at 10:19 AM on 23 June 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
re my 26, first big paragraph: The energy is absorbed above when and where kinetic energy is dissipated mechanically (mechanical damping of the waves) and otherwise converted to APE in thermally indirection motion with the resulting APE being dissipated radiatively (thermal damping of the waves). Sometimes conditions favoring absorption are what cause energy and momentum of the wave to be absorbed where they are. Sometimes nonlinear wave breaking from sufficient increases in amplitude cause the wave energy to be absorbed when and where it is. -
dhogaza at 10:07 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Camburn: Southern Cook Islands is one of the reconstructions they calibrated against. Please read the post and study the diagrams. -
Camburn at 09:59 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
"Getting a regional resolution is of course much more complex and that is why I usually avoid discussing regional sea level in public, as we do not have good answers yet. There will be regions where sea level is going down even though just a few hundred kilometres away the water will be rising." Prof Steffen This paper is a regional paper. A good paper for the region. As far as globally, nope. -
Camburn at 09:52 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Ok.....the correlation to world wide global sea level was bothering me. Here is what Prof. Konrad Steffen says about sea level rise "In addition, as a result of the gravitational pull from the spinning Earth, if you add the equivalent of one metre of sea level rise to the oceans in the Northern Hemisphere, it will translate to about 1.6 metres sea level rise in the Southern Hemisphere, and only about 40 cm in the Northern Hemisphere. He is the director of CIRES and should be an authority on sea level rise etc. IF the North Carolina data were anything but a local phenominum.....the sea level SHOULD be rising quit fast in the Southern Cook Islands. It isn't. This paper has to do with sea level and hydrology, an area that I have studied intently for 20 years. No I am not a Prof as Prof Steffen is, but this paper still shows nothing at all globally. -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:42 AM on 23 June 2011It's the sun
rdmtask... In addition to the moderator's comments you need to be aware that you are coming to a conclusion that is diametrically opposed to the conclusions of the vast majority of the published literature on this topic. If you're genuinely interested in learning about the science of climate change you should spend time reading the articles here on SkS. And you don't even need to take the word of the authors of these articles. Almost every one of them fully cite the relevant research. You can follow those links and read the actual research for yourself. -
Camburn at 09:35 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Can anyone elaborate on the correlation between the rate from the Southern Cook Islands and North Caronlina? Being it seems North Carolina can all of a sudden become global....yet....sea level rise is negative in the Southern Cooks and positive in North Carolina. Tell me again how this paper is global in nature? -
rdmtask at 09:05 AM on 23 June 2011It's the sun
I find myself skeptical that the current trend of increasing global warming is currently sustainable reasons. 1) The current increase in global temperatures is a result of burning fossil fuels, releasing energy into the atmosphere. While the global may increase over a period of time, the heat emitted from burning fossil fuels is contained within the bounds of the earth. Eventually (and discounting any changes in solar output), the heat emitted will be reabsorbed back into the surface of the earth, reducing the atmospheric temperature back to near the original temperature of the pre-combusted fuel (the mass of gas surrounding the earth does not hold a candle to the amount of mass contained within the crust). 2) Fossil fuel supplies are limited, as is the amount of heat we can eject into the atmosphere is finite. At some point we MUST stop putting energy into the atmosphere. 3) While the heat island effect exists, it is a two way street. Energy is just as easily emitted into space as it is absorbed into the earth. Granted, there will be larger temperature fluctuations within the city than outside of it due to an increased surface area (sq mile to sq mile). The amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is nowhere near significant enough to significant detract from that. 4) The amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, while significant, are unlikely to have anything to do with global warming for the same reason as item 3 above. If it can contain heat well, it rejects it just as well. Energy from the surface of the earth is reflected with the same percentage as energy from the sun. This is not to say it cannot wreck hell on the earth’s ecosystems, just that it a political issue versus an actual energy issue. Essentially we are looking at an energy balance problem. All energy enters the earth via solar radiation, all energy leaves the earth via solar radiation. Unless there is a statistically significant solar change, the current temperature fluctuations are due to the energy revolution of the 1900’s. Recent increases in the global temperature can probably (not going do the work) be correlated relatively accurately to the number of cars in use around the earth (or number of people on the earth). So from where I stand, blaming temperature increases on CO2 is a fallacious argument, as it is a neutral player.Response:[DB] I'm not even sure where to begin...first-off, please read Newcomers, start here. Then take a gander at The Big Picture.
- The current global rise in temperatures is a result of the energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, due to rising levels of CO2. As long as we keep emitting more CO2, the imbalance will continue and so will the rise in temperatures.
- The energy being accumulated is not due to energy being released by us, but by the CO2 we release.
- UHI is immaterial as scientists measure anomalies, not absolute temperatures. See also CO2 effect is weak.
- How to put this kindly...this makes little sense as written.
Energy does not leave the system as solar radiation but as thermal emission from the Earth. CO2 lengthens the exit path by that radiant thermal emission, so the lower levels of the atmosphere heat up due to the increase in back radiation. See The Greenhouse Effect has been Falsified.
-
Tom Smerling at 08:48 AM on 23 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
You may have already seen all of Christy's talking points, but just in case you missed this one, here is a link to a presentation he made to a group that generally opposes government regulation, the American Chemical Society ("Chemistry for Life") http://www.softconference.com/ACSchem/player.asp?PVQ=GLHF&fVQ=FFJJJL&hVQ= You can download his .ppt at http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_ARTICLEMAIN&node_id=215&content_id=CNBP_025739&use_sec=true&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=497c1eaa-f868-403a-9c4a-9642bafea89eResponse:[DB] Hot-linked URL's.
-
Eric the Red at 07:55 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
can you elaborate on how the site shows the MWP and LIA.Response:[DB] Please read the OP above, paying particular attention to Figure 2.
-
Albatross at 07:54 AM on 23 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
Can I suggest that John Cook adds the following update from the National Solar Association to the post: "Dr. Frank Hill issued a follow-up statement: "We are NOT predicting a mini-ice age. We are predicting the behavior of the solar cycle. In my opinion, it is a huge leap from that to an abrupt global cooling, since the connections between solar activity and climate are still very poorly understood. My understanding is that current calculations suggest only a 0.3 degree C decrease from a Maunder-like minimum, too small for an ice age." There you have it. I'm sure WUWT, FauxNews and those in denial about AGW who have been propagating the misinformation surrounding this story will promptly correct the public record ;) Notice how Dr. Hill is reluctant to comment outside his field of expertise. In contrast, notice how "skeptics" routinely talk through their hats and pontificate on subjects way,way outside their level of understanding or expertise. -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:26 AM on 23 June 2011Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
rgriffin42... With regards to chaos theory Tamino has a very good recent post on this explaining that this issue is basically the difference between weather and climate. And on the issue of glacial-interglacial cycles... yes, there are very good and clear explanations on how this happens. Several articles are located here on Skeptical Science. And you can just try googling Milankovitch cycles. -
rgriffin42 at 07:08 AM on 23 June 2011Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
The parts of chaos theory that worry me in the context of climate change involve phase shifts and Lorenz' "strange attractors." Heating a teapot full of water from 70 degrees (F) to 211 degrees (F) just means hotter water, but with just a little more heat making it one degree hotter, a phase change occurs and the water starts turning into steam. Strange attractors often occur in non-linear systems where huge numbers of observable data circle around one region of a graph, but then, either due to a slight pertubation or for no apparent cause, the data starts to circle around another portion of the graph. The implications for climate change could be profound, but not readily testable. While temperatures now are generally circle around a mean temperature with a range of about -10 degree (F) to 110 degree (F), these aspects of chaos theory suggest that it is conceivable that the next tiny increment of carbon dioxide in the air could cause a radical shift with mean temperatures and ranges far different up OR down. I'm not suggesting that this is true, but it is one possible explanation for another problem with climate models. Last I heard, we still don't have good models to explain either why the earth has entered ice ages or how it ever gets out of one. Chaos theory suggests that for some very minor reason or no particular reason other than the way the non-linear interactions operate, huge changes in climate could result. -
dana1981 at 07:00 AM on 23 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
I agree Stephen. A lot of EU countries are making those smart choices. China is actually doing pretty well too. But fossil fuels are very entrenched in many others (i.e. USA, Canada, Australia), preventing us from having the political will to make the smart choices. -
Albatross at 06:46 AM on 23 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
Pauls @58 is correct. People arguing against that have not worked in disciplines when there are not a great number of experts to draw on. We try and avoid it of course, but sometimes it is neigh impossible. -
Albatross at 06:42 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
More inconvenient findings for the "skeptics" and those in denial, and yet another "Hockey Stick". Interesting how the site reflects the MWP and LIA, yet "skeptics" wish us to believe that the results are not applicable to a larger context. The larger context being that something unprecedented in the last 2000 years is unfolding before their very eyes. And I also find it quite ironical that 'skeptics' who abuse the GISP2 record, are now whining about the findings from this study, especially when the study's authors did place their findings in a global context and demonstrated that their data are consistent with global sea level reconstructions made by Church and White (2006) and Jevrejeva et al. (2008). But I understand that they have to imagine every kind of excuse to dismiss the paper's inconvenient findings. But doing so is not 'skepticism' it is denial. -
scaddenp at 06:26 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Inference of sealevel from single point is very different from inference of global temperature from a single point. Ignoring tectonic effects, there is an absolute relationship between global level rise and a local sea level rise - not so for temperature. The problem with a global inference of sealevel is quantifying local tectonic change which the paper believes is well-constrained. -
Stephen Leahy at 06:26 AM on 23 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
Dana; 'political will' really means making political choices on what to spend public money on and what policies to push. Germany made a commitment to reduce emissions 80% and generate 80% of their energy from renewables by 2050. They've made that choice for economic reasons - to ramp up their low-carbon, super hi- efficiency technologies that they can sell to the rest of us. I call that a smart choice. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:25 AM on 23 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
81, Eric the Red, And what exactly would yet another record low (which would be the 6th such record in the past 20 years, meaning that each subsequent record broke the previous records) mean as far as a trend? At what point would a truly skeptical person start to say "whoa, what's going on here?" You think the trend is important. What is the trend in sea ice extent? What is the trend in your own repeatedly demonstrated belief system? At what point, on what issue, are you going to start demonstrating anything other than blatant denial?
Do you understand now?
-
dhogaza at 06:25 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
As far as this study, it is trying to extrapolate more from one single point than is justifiable.
They establish the correlation exists. Perhaps you might educate us as to why we'd expect the correlation to suddenly stop correlating for those years for which there's no overlapping data? Geologically we're talking about a short timespan here, it's not like the continents have been whizzing around the planet over the last couple of millenia. -
dana1981 at 06:22 AM on 23 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
Eric - no question there, but when it comes to climate solutions, in most cases the biggest obstacle will be political. -
stefaan at 06:12 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Camburn, can you please do some effort to read the article (its free) and the comments? -
Camburn at 06:07 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
dhogaza: Nope. Show me 100 points that are from different grids and we can talk. As far as this study, it is trying to extrapolate more from one single point than is justifiable. ( -Snip- ). So, nothing new.Response:[DB] Insinuations of academic fraud snipped. Please re-read the Comments Policy as well. Future comments will be expected to adhere and conform to the policy. Posting here in this forum is a privilege, not a right.
-
Eric the Red at 06:06 AM on 23 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
The Teske plan was the highest of the scenarios. Hence, it may be overly-optimistic. If it is feasible, then the biggest obstacle will be politcal. -
Eric the Red at 06:00 AM on 23 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
michael, Of course no one knows what the end of summer sea ice extent will be. That is the point. Currently (June 22), the sea ice extent is similar to 2010, and much lower than 2007. Yet, 2007 turned out to be much lower than 2010. Thus, the sea ice today is not necessarily relevant to what will happen in September. Do you understand now?Response:[DB] Why the fascination with extent when volume is the better metric? That's like focusing on HadCru data for Arctic temps when GISS is by far the better metric. Extent is not really relevant except for albedo flip & Arctic heat budget.
-
dhogaza at 05:56 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
"To suggest that a single data point would statistically show a global average is out of the realm of stats." However, it does, over the period of time for which overlapping data is available. Gee, imagine that. It is a reasonable supposition that the correlation will extend into the past, which is all they claim. Meanwhile, I foresee a future where teams of researchers look for similar sites around the globe and perform a similar exercise. And when these efforts extend the window of overlapping data further into the past and confirm that they fit the NC data within a reasonable error bounds, Cameron will state "to suggest a dozen points would statistically show a global average is out of the realm of stats". And later 50 points ... And still later 100 points ... -
stefaan at 05:54 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
@Camburn, You are probably familiar with the difference between looking to something with the naked eye or with a microscope. The first one offers you a non detailed view of a large area while the second offers you a detailed view of a small area. What is presented in this work is a 'microscopic' study of a small area in North Carolina and they compared these results with other 'macroscopic' studies from around the world. "To suggest that a single data point would statistically show a global average is out of the realm of stats" is correct but that is NOT what the autors of the article did! -
Camburn at 05:38 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Philippe: Feel very free to quote me. If the skeptic is educated, then he would understand regional does not make global. -
Eric the Red at 05:28 AM on 23 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
paul, In a 3-judge court, one judge will excuse himself if a conflict of interest is present. To say that there are not enough people qualified is a straw man. There is no reason why he had to take part. -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:07 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Camburn "The analysis suggests, but does not confirm. It is a regional analysis, not a global analysis. To suggest that a single data point would statistically show a global average is out of the realm of stats." I will make sure to quote, attribute the quote and qualify it as coming from a "skeptic" whenever I run into this kind of suggestion from another skeptic, which is bound to happen sooner or later (likely sooner). -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:04 AM on 23 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
The most ironic thing about McI. is that his own paper does not withstand scrutiny when computer code is released and examined the way he claims should be done for all these evildoers like Mann and Jones. See the link I provided earlier to the analysis of the miserable piece of propaganda called McIntyre & McKitrick and the appending dismal work by Wegman. These people giving lessons on honesty, conflict of interest or integrity in science is about the most pathetic joke ever. -
michael sweet at 04:12 AM on 23 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Eric, I know that 2007 was the lowest year at the end of the melt season. The problem is you are mixing up different measurements. You said "The melt pool may not be significant as the sea ice extent is essential the same as last year". This clearly is talking about the current sea ice extent, not the end of summer extent. Obviously you cannot tell what the end of this year will be since it has not happened yet. As CBD said, "Right now ice melt pond formation, extent, area, and total volume are all at new record values... ". If that is not a problem for you than that is how you feel. But to claim that the ice has somehow recovered is not true. -
Camburn at 04:12 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
"This analysis suggests that our data can be expected to track global mean sea level within about ±10 cm over the past two millennia, within the uncertainty band shown for our analysis." The analysis suggests, but does not confirm. It is a regional analysis, not a global analysis. To suggest that a single data point would statistically show a global average is out of the realm of stats. -
Camburn at 03:21 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
I did read it and the references. From the references, we have a range on -0.3 to +1.7mm/year. So North Carolina is rising at .9mm/year. It is cold where I live today. I do not deduce that it is cold everywhere from a regional deduction.Response:[dana1981] Please see the quote immediately above Figure 2
-
pauls at 03:20 AM on 23 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
54 - I'm going to disagree with you as well Eric, disagreeable chap that I am. The 77% figure was highlighted simply because it is the highest. There is no conflict of interest issue there. Perhaps there's an issue with an outlier being given so much attention but that's a different matter. About lead authors reviewing their own work, it's simply an unfortunate fact that there are only a limited number of people qualified to write reports on these specialist topics and most of those will have published work for consideration. While it may be technically a conflict of interest for a lead author to review his/her own work it's unavoidable in many circumstances. -
dhogaza at 03:15 AM on 23 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
Albatross - I mostly agree with your post, but this: "3) It seems to have escaped McIntyre's attention that there were several FF industry people on the panel, and ignoring whatever influence they might have had. It is also lost on McIntyre and Lynas that many individuals and groups had to sign off on the report." assumes honesty on McIntyre's part (i.e. if he had noticed, he would've highlighted it) and good journalism on Lynas's part. I'd say that the evidence is strongly against either assumption. Of course, maybe you were just being sarcastic ... -
dhogaza at 03:13 AM on 23 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
"52, Philippe Chantreau - McIntyre may be highlighting this matter based on a double-standard but his arguments as written are not dependent on it." Oh, sure, just as his mountain-from-molehill "auditing" efforts of climate science papers don't rest on his double-standard of never scrutinizing denialist papers. He's cleverly dishonest. There's no way the IPCC, working scientists, etc can fully protect themselves from clever dishonesty. As I said earlier, you live in a fantasy world if you believe that anything the IPCC or the climate science community does will change things one iota. -
KR at 03:07 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Camburn - Sea level rose quickly in North Carolina due to local isostatic rebound (dropping coastline), which was one of the reasons this location was chosen. A descending coastline in an area of heavy sedimentation accumulated more mud, giving thicker sections for each time point, allowing sufficient foraminifera collections for reasonable analysis. The foraminifera species distribution ratios are quite sensitive to depth, permitting estimations of what depth each time point corresponded to. Applying an inverse isostatic rebound correction allows extracting the sea level independent of coast level, which is reasonable to assume is a global sea level barring problems with the isostatic correction. I believe those uncertainties are a major part of the uncertainty bars in this paper. So, yes, Camburn - as the moderator pointed out, it's worth reading a post, and possibly the references thereof, before commenting. -
dhogaza at 02:58 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
I imagine you think it's important to compare these results with data from elsewhere, then, Camburn. Hmmm, I wonder what that last graphic in the post is, if it's not just that? -
Camburn at 02:56 AM on 23 June 2011Sea Level Hockey Stick
Sea level rose in North Carolina. This does not represent global sea level.Response:[dana1981] In the future, please read a post before commenting on it. The relation to global sea level is discussed in the post.
Prev 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 Next
