Moving the comments to this new page, seems to be a challenge, so I’m going to sum up the events and discussion, so far, and hope for more input. The purpose of this thread, is to elicit comments, observations and questions in order to refine a posit, that the “observed” sea level rise, using satellites, is nothing more than noting underwater volcanic activity. Comments not pertinent to this discussion will be deleted. Flames, and or derisive comments will either be deleted or held for ridicule, either way, it will end poorly. That said, critical comments are welcome, provided they hold some meaning.
Latitude, using Steve’s site as a message board, brings so information to me. He shows me this.
Now, anyone familiar with the sea-level discussion should be familiar with this map or something similar. This shows our recent sea level rise.
Latitude also shows me this……….
Now, I probably shouldn’t have to, but for the ones slow on the uptake, (you probably don’t know who you are), the maps delineates the Underwater ring of fire, where thousands smaller underwater volcanoes are, and are being very active. A J.K. Hillier from Cambridge brought this to light a few years ago. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029874.shtml
Lat also shows me this, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12218 …. from the article,
”Thousand of new volcanoes revealed beneath the waves. Satellites can detect volcanoes that are more than 1500 m high because the mass of the submerged mountains causes gravity to pull the water in around them. This creates domes on the ocean’s surface that can be several metres high and can be detected from space.”
So, we can see that underwater volcanoes displace water, the larger ones, causing water to be elevated several meters high, so too, it would seem that the smaller ones would do the same except on a smaller scale.
Obviously, there are several points to be made and more questions to be asked. Lat continues, Latitude says:
“…….For some reason, sea bottom volcanoes hold a standing wave over them.
If you add more volcanoes, you obviously add more sea height. There’s no other physical reason that the ocean would stay that much higher in the Indo-Pacific. The two red dots off Japan give it away, along with the fact that it follows – exactly – the ring of fire.”
He then offers,
From the article, “Data produced by radar sensors like ERS-1 have been used to produce global seafloor elevation data. Radar pulses cannot penetrate the deep ocean, but they can be used to accurately measure the height of the sea surface relative to a global ellipsoid such as WGS 84. As you know, the geoid is defined as mean sea level adjusted to account for the effects of gravity. Geodesists invent reference ellipsoids like WGS 84 to approximate the geoid’s shape with a figure that is easier to define mathematically. Because gravity varies with mass, the geoid bulges slightly above the ellipsoid over seamounts and undersea volcanoes, which often rise 2000 meters or more above the ocean floor. Sea surface elevation data produced by satellite altimeters can thus be used to predict fairly detailed bathymetry, as shown in the map below.”
I’m familiar with WGS84 as a GPS data set. Lat offers this for a more detailed explanation of use of SATELLITE ALTIMETER DATA http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/bathymetry/predicted/explore.HTML
Mike, who shall be known from hence forth as Grumpy Grampy says, ”[T]he prevailing wind direction also contributes to the sea level. I have a problem with satellite sea level measurements as the surface of the globe is always in flux over extremely long periods of time. You have a valid point about the Ring Of Fire which is ignored by many as is the Gakkel Ridge and the string of Geothermal activity that makes up the West Antarctic Peninsula and beyond.”
I offer the notion that the volcanic activity would cause some expansion of the water. How much? I haven’t a clue. Lat correctly points out that we should see both expansion when heat is applied and contraction when the heat is removed. I didn’t offer then, but I’d state now, if the volcanoes are as active as we’re led to believe, then there would be almost a constant source of heat for that area.
Lat shows a monstrous volcano in about center of the red glob on the global sea level map. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread594646/pg1
Grumpy Grampy offers, “I see it as the rate /speed and direction of change in sea level. I also see it as the current manifestation of the PDO Ocean Atmosphere circulation pattern. The ENSO region of the equator is losing height at about the same rate as the western pacific is gaining. I understand they have found many volcanoes using the method you describe. ( I prefer the term “Geothermal activity” as a lot of what they are finding is vents on the ocean floor). I see this as more of an indication the PDO shifted to what is called the negative phase related to the west coast of the US. What they are showing is not a standing wave but change in elevation over time. The way these graphics are produced are meant to confuse people and based on short periods of time they are little more than conversation pieces.”
Lat replied, “They are showing a change in elevation that is not possible or sustainable. Is it going to keep changing elevation forever??
It’s a stupid satellite glitch…..That change in elevation does not taper off to the east because of currents or temperature…it’s running the wrong way!
It tapers off to the east because of satellite drag. It’s the same effect you get with radar when it tries to look over the horizon at a thunderstorm. Theses satellites are orbiting west to east, it’s still feeling the drag as it goes east, as it gets further away it feels less drag, so the little red blogs taper off.”
Grumpy Grampy….. “It is going to change elevation forever but not in the same direction, but averaged over the time measured they claim that is what was measured. Example: In 2002 they measured 10 mm and in 2009 they measured 150mm the average per year would be 20mm per year and it does not matter that they only took two data points. I say it is BS and does not mean anything. I also agree about the quality of satellite results. Maybe in 40 or 50 years they will have the “Bugs” worked put of the equipment. They can not admit problems as their jobs depend on people thinking they are getting results. The only measurement of sea level that is meaningful is its relation to connecting land surfaces. The only measurement of land surface is it relation to sea surface. Global sea level is a fantasy used to scare little children. Using satellites to measure sea level is a waste of money and resources. I feel the same way about using a satellite to measure global temperatures. Satellites provide weather information that can save lives and help people prepare for severe events. I look at the satellite imagery when weather systems are approaching my location.”
I bolded part of Grumps comment, because this is a pertinent point, that warrants a discussion all by itself. But, it doesn’t address what we’re seeing with the red colored part of the map. Prior to the bolded statement does.
Lat, “…..But that tag line heading east is a artifact of the satellite, it has nothing to do with real life. Look at the two red dots off Japan, they have that same drag line. That has to be something pulling on the satellite, and as it get further over the horizon, the pull gets less. That’s the taper. The satellites are shooting straight down, it’s impossible for that taper to be real sea level where it is. But something pulling on it will give that effect.”
These are my thoughts. Clearly, the tapering is an artifact of the altimetry employed by the satellites. I think though, it is better to concentrate on the specific issue of why that red blob persistently exists there. We can see it on other sea level maps.
More interesting though, if we lengthen the time period, obviously using a different data set, we see this……
A slightly less pronounced blob with more of the tailing artifact. Or, less refined satellites.
Now, I had always thought, that instead of seeing sea level rise and fall, what we were seeing was an expression of heat and cooling. On this map above, we see Iceland and Greenland with pronounced altimetry. Dr. Hillier noted a decrease in volcanic activity in that area. This is consistent with the maps above the most recent.
As to the side discussion as whether this is an expression of rate or persistence, it is both. Clearly, regardless of the satellite data set, we see a continual rise in sea level in the area of the “Ring of Fire” for over the last nineteen years! This defies logic and knowledge. Unless there was a giant dimple in the ocean 20 years ago, this clearly isn’t what occurred. That said, Grump’s (Mike’s) analogy is spot on. They took two end points and averaged. So, the question is, what caused the extreme rise there, and how does it relate to our global average?
My question, is it the volcanoes themselves causing the rise of the surface water or the heat expanding the water, or both?
Last comment. This subject is rife of pits and pratfalls. I don’t wish to discuss all of the other difficulties with the data sets and adjustments, unless they can be tied to this particular line of thought. Clearly, there are more problems with the satellite altimetry than one can cover in a thread. Suffice it to say, this should be just another nail in the coffin of the sea-level alarmism. Again, all constructive comments are welcome.
Update! I had remembered some news bit about the underwater volcanoes by Iceland a while back and wanted to check to see if we’d see the same thing.
One of the problems I’m having, is that while Aviso offers a data download, apparently the number they give for a specific date is a cumulative value. I haven’t found where its broke down specific to location.
So, if we scroll to the bottom of the comment section, we’ll see where Lat brings us, yet another map. This is of the earth’s gravity field as shown by GOCE.
So, this gets me to thinking I can find some more information about gravity and how it might relate to what we’re seeing as sea-level rise. So, off I go, and I find this little jewel of a press release…. http://www.universetoday.com/8738/gravity-map-released/
And, I find this…….. now, I’m not a graphics guy, so this is a bit crude, but I’ve added some black lines that follow another graphic presented here earlier. ….. The Ring of Fire graphic.
What does this all mean? Well, for one, we’ve shown how the sea level maps offered by the various satellites’ altimetry are showing gravitational pull, specifically from underwater volcanic activity. I don’t believe there can be any serious doubt about this. We have also brought forth significant questions about the tailing effect shown in the altimetry maps. And, we can say this is probably artifact of the satellite altimetry rather than any reflection of reality.
Now, there are some more fundamental questions we need to ask. First, would the gravity manifest itself as an increase in sea level? This seems a bit counter-intuitive to me. It seems to me, the higher the pull, the closer to the source matter would be. And, obviously, with the links provided in the post and comments, we see documentation that 1) this is a function of altimetry and 2) this is a known dynamic.
It seems likely to me, but I can’t prove it………. yet. That the people reporting sea-level rise are either errant in accounting for this dynamic or (to be very charitable) are simply ignoring it.
Even if the underwater volcanic activity does manifest itself as an increase in sea level, wouldn’t the maps have an entirely different impact if the explanation of underwater volcanic activity as the primary cause was accompanied with the maps? Of course it would. They (the people putting forth the alarmism in this field) know it. And now, we all know it, too.
Something I would like to add….
Sea floor volcanoes, because of their mass, create a huge spike in gravity.
They are also highly magnetic.
Satellites measure the distance from the satellite to the surface,
Anything that pulls a satellite down, the satellite will register as a rise in the surface, not
a fall in the satellite.
We know the Indo-Pacific ring of fire has been very active. Tsunamis, earthquakes, tidal waves.
For all we know, the Indo-Pacific could be adding a 100 new sea floor volcanoes a week….
…or not. We don’t know.
Since we’re really only looking at a 1/2 inch, it could just as easily be volcanoes attracting and holding water over them, gravity and magnetism pulling satellites down, probably a combination of both…
….but it ain’t sea level rise
There’s no physical reason for that dark red glob in the middle of the Ring of fire and it follows the ring of fire exactly……………
Even the last two undersea earthquakes in Japan are marked, exactly where they were.
If they are using this to measure sea level rise, then there isn’t any………….
My long time suspicion is that sea levels are falling and they have not returned to the levels experienced during the mid Holocene. That is being masked by other factors.
Measuring sea level is not my expertise at all, but my thought is that if sea levels have really increased at the rate they claim, then it should be observable. I mean, isn’t 3 mm/year for 3 decades nearly 10 cm? That sort of level should be easily seen on shallow beaches, because wouldn’t that translate to several meters of lost beach?
Sorry if that was so simple…snip it if you’d like. However, something I question more is the whole following the ring of fire exactly. Has anyone run a quantitative correlation there? Also, if the correlation is true, why do we not see a correlation with the mid-Atlantic ridge?
Scott, I agree, we should see a noticeable loss of shallow beach front. I’m not aware of any, but then, I live in Kansas. It should need to be stated, but for any novice that may wander by, this has nothing to do with tidal gauges. And, as far as I know, there’s not been any effort to assimilate them into one big anomaly score such as temps.
No, no quantitative correlation has been done, but given the tail effect described by Lat, I think it would be difficult to do. As to the mid Atlantic ridge, IDK, but as I pointed out earlier, the Icelandic activity of the 90s is seen on prior data sets, and seems consistent with what is occurring in this instance.
Oh, snap. #$%$%$###$%%^ meds. Earlier, I was trying to put this in a coherent form, I’d done a little extra work, but apparently, some of what I’d done got lost. I can’t wait until its just beer screwing with me. Now, if I can just remember all that I did. I’ll post the Iceland correlating map soon.
If the North Atlantic Ridge is being more consistent we would not see the rate of change.
I repeat that I see it as a “Temporary manifestation” of the PDO which cycles with a periodicity of about 60 years. We should see 30 years of increase and 30 years of decrease in sea level in regions of the Pacific due to changing wind and current patterns. The changes in a region in the middle of the ocean might not even affect the coastal areas near by due to undersea formation such as coral reefs. It is sort f like wind patterns that are affected by changes in land surface elevations.
I agree the satellites could be disturbed by the presence of the volcano activity in the region. I agree the heat emitted by the volcanoes will expand the water in the region and increase the Sea Surface Temperature there also. I have argued in the past about the effect of Geothermal activity in a region that has diminishing ice extent.
What we seem to be seeing is a combination of natural conditions that is being exaggerated by measuring equipment and methods.
Lat’s point about the volcano influence is valid and I only wanted to add the PDO as a contributing influence.
Obviously, what you’re stating is correct. During warm cycles, we should see rise, during cool cycles, we should see a decrease. I think what I’m trying to get at, and perhaps what Lat is stating, is that, not only are the measuring devices exaggerating the rise, but the assumptions about what they are seeing is incorrect. I don’t think geothermal activity should be lumped in with sea rise, it certainly isn’t the connotation when one speaks of sea level rise and rate of rise.
I want to introduce a guy who claims to be an expert on sea level:
an interview with Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner
Mike, I had never seen that!!! Wow, just wow.
Here is an overview of sea level research:
We have lift off Houston!………….
I had time to sit down and find what I’m looking for.
The whole sea level rise trend, is based on that one part of the Indo-Pacific.
It’s all bull crap………….
Yep, just confirmed Jason’s and Envisat’s orbit….
…they are definitely picking up gravity.
and no one is/can/knows how to adjust for it
Lat, is your source or does your source have literature on this?
There you are!
All I did was google “jason 1” orbit, then envisat orbit, etc
They are going over the poles, but traveling west to east, just like I thought.
They are either picking up gravity or magnetism, and that’s the “tail” going east of the sea level rise. As they get further away, the effect gets less with each pass, that’s the tail.
Google envisat sea level, it show the same thing. Thus they are in agreement, and all of them wrong.
If this is their official trend map, then that’s their official numbers they are using. It’s bullshit……………
Yeh, I’ve been real busy today and trying to heal up, so I haven’t had much time.
I’ve been looking for the real data they use, but I haven’t found it yet. All I got so far, is a total value for the day of the read, but not values for specific locations.
And yes, I’ve been looking for other reasons why those tails would exist in the real world, and can’t find any. But it would be great if we could nail down some documentation on this artifact.
The thing that gets me, is that they have to know about this stuff, and they don’t reference any of it.
Here’s the envisat sea level map – Dec 03 – Jan 11
Looks just like Jason. I think just because they looked in agreement, no one asked why?
lol, great minds, I was looking at that earlier today. They’re almost identical.
Latitude: I would tend to agree with one of Grumpy Grampy’s earlier comments that the pattern in these short-term sea level change maps is ENSO related. If they were to have a La Nina start year and an El Nino end year, the patterns would be different and would exaggerate an El Nino.
Bob, thanks for coming by, its appreciated. I highly value your opinion. That said, the sea level map at the top, is 2002 – apr 2011. I would greatly appreciate more input from you on this issue. (A note, first time commentators get stuck in moderation, but once that’s done, you won’t be moderated unless you include too many links.)
So, it starts in the midst of a prominent El Nino, includes two others, it also includes 2 prominent La Ninas and finishes in one (we’re presently exiting a La Nina, but it isn’t as prominent temp wise as others.) So, we should be seeing a declining trend there, not increasing.
(lol, the only good use I can find for GISS temps is that Hansen likes to exaggerate spikes, making the Nino/Nina delineation easier to spot.)
Bob, did you notice that GRACE is a better proxy for sea level than either Jason or Envisat?
…and that GRACE is supposed to be gravity?
Just to note, I added the GRACE graphics after Bob had commented. But again, they are so similar to the sea-level maps, that, at least in my mind, they may as well be synonymous.
I didn’t realize that Bob didn’t see it……..
Something ain’t right. It’s no coincidence that Jason and Envisat are showing a sea level trend, in the exact same places that GRACE is showing more gravity.
Exactly the same places, and no other places……
I think we’ve been had.
It somewhat agree with what is expected so they are not looking for a problem. When HADCRU started showing a downturn due the statistical method errors they started looking closer at how they were producing their reports. BINGO they changed method.
It is all relative. The important question that has not yet been answered: Relative to what? Would you want your representatives in Congress to fund them if they told the truth: We do not know where we are going put we are getting nowhere faster!
Not only do we not know where we’re going, we don’t know where we’ve been. As you say, its all relative, but to what, no one knows.
"Another Envisat instrument called the Radar Altimeter-2 (RA-2) uses radar pulses to measure sea surface height (SSH) down to an accuracy of a few centimetres. Near-real time radar altimetry is a powerful tool for monitoring a hurricane’s progress and predicting its potential impact because anomalies in SSH can be used to identify warmer ocean features such as warm core rings, eddies and currents.
Water temperatures are the main underlying energy reservoir that power hurricanes; together with the correct atmospheric conditions, temperatures need to exceed 26ºC in order to form and maintain a tropical cyclone. Because warm water expands, scientists can locate warm underwater ocean features by detecting bulges in the ocean surface height, as detected by RA-2. ”
So, they understand how this applies to hurricane activity, but not underwater volcanic activity?
This is a bit dated, (2001) but if I understand what its saying, (this is a big IF ), it actually speaks of the tailing effect, and pretty much states sat. radar doesn’t have the precision necessary for what its being used for.
If someone could read and interpret, I’d be more than grateful. I get much of it, but some, not so much.
Just for my own curiosity, I want to find the size of the cone they are shooting.
This really isn’t rocket science, this is a Hummingbird fish finder you can buy at Bass Pro Shops………
Who do we know that’s totally into sea level and how it’s done?
lol, I’ve racking my brain thinking about that very question. But, I can’t think of anyone that deals with altimetry.
What gave it away is that they talk about “pings” and “clicks”, that’s fish finder talk.
They sent a fish finder up there…….
This works exactly the same way.
When you mark a wreck way off to the side, you get a smaller ping back than if it was right under the boat. It can even look like flat bottom. As you move the boat over it, it gets bigger
As you move the boat away, it tapers off and gets smaller…….that’s the tail we’ve seeing leading off to the east. The satellites are still picking up either gravity or sea surface over the horizon. It’s not under them at all.
A fish finder reads the time it takes the ping to get back, to tell you the depth.
That’s exactly what they are doing, reading the time back, same thing.
If the satellite is pulled down 1/2 inch, it don’t know it.
If the water is mounded up a 1/2 inch because of gravity, it don’t know it.
If you boat is riding a crest, or down in a trough……….
I’m looking at stuff about magnetometers right now…..If I find what I think I’ll find………..
Remember, basalt is magnetic
June 27, 2011 at 7:02 am
Don’t know if he’d be able to help, but Roy Spencer can probably tell you how changes in gravity are (or aren’t) accounted for when doing satellite analyses.
Scott, I thought of John Christy too.
also they mentioned a 1 cm error between the equator and poles…..
yep you read that right…….
That explains why the trailing at the equator and not the poles.
I was reading it into the wee hours of the morning. I can’t believe it didn’t put me to sleep, but the short-comings of the altimetry were shocking to say the least.
When you catch up….
Look at the sea level maps….
….and the gravity map together
An update to come!!!!
and we have liftoff Houston………..
Grace is actually a more accurate map of sea level rise…..LOL
South tip of Africa – check
South tip of Greenland – check
South tip of South America – check
The entire Ring of Fire, New Zealand up to Russia – check
Yes, if the maps weren’t labeled or known, I’d swear that both gravity maps were sea-level maps. Something else that I hadn’t noticed earlier.
See the gravity map that you linked? Notice that it doesn’t have the tailing artifact?
Yep, that’s the very first thing I saw……
The sea surface is a Hummingbird Fish Finder, it’s shooting a cone…
As the target moves further away from the center of the cone,it gets smaller because it takes longer for the “ping” to get back.
It’s the cone giving it the tail. Of course, they are using something like “paint” to blend it all in.
The gravity is not, it’s not shooting anything down…
…it’s only reading pull
These rocket scientists put a damn Bass Pro Shops Fish Finder up there
Check your emails goofy!………;)
Well someone has been looking at that sea level trend map and telling us that those islands are sinking…….
…..I picked the one dead center of the darkest red
no sea level rise at all
This post is getting a bit messy and started out more as an inquisitive post, rather than a statement. At some point in the near future, when I find the time, I’m going to clean it up and make a more declarative statement then what is seen here.
That’s a great idea….I’m still looking for stuff too
ok the last stone just fell into place….
I was having a hard time accounting for that little bit of yellow orange off the coast of Peru/Chili….
It’s the Dorsale du Chili, another underwater volcano range
I’m wondering if these satellites are picking up any sea level value at all!
I think so…..
There’s no other explanation for the tail….
They are sending out microwaves in a cone.
Well correct that…
You could also get a tail from gravity. it would just tug less as you get over the horizon, that would also be a tail.
But we know the sea level satellites are using microwaves, so that settles it.
on second thought…..yes, the second ones hurt
Leave that open for discussion
If GRACE is measuring gravity by pull, of course
Then pull can affect any satellite up there.
I’m still looking….and reading now
Found this, put it here so I can find it later…..
That’s the same GRACE map I found, only a better rendition.
Latest CU sea level trend 5/27/11
Its moved, but still in the ring of fire area. I’d bet there’s some volcanic or seismic activity there.
Green gravity is not GRACE it’s GOCE, ESA March 2009
I’ll need to remember to fix that!
Read me James –
GOCE and sea level, plus drag geoid……
What’s up with the low gravity south of India?
Oh and James, 50 + comments – you hittn da big time! Keep it up, always check out your site.
Thanks Greg, I appreciate the words. I should have some new content soon, but as you can see, we’re a bit preoccupied by this topic. The low gravity fields, is something consistent with out posit. (The satellites are incorrectly interpreting gravity for sea level rise, or at least improperly attributing sea level rise.
And, you bring up something interesting. One of my best contributions to any science discussion, isn’t my scientific knowledge or ability, but rather my recollections of Sesame Street. One of the best little lessons you could ever have your child or grandchildren watch is that one where they sing “One of these things is just like the other, one of these things are just kinda the same…..” ————— I see inconsistencies. And as you know, climatology is chock full of them.
So, go here, look at the map. http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/products-images/index.html No depression south of India. That’s the “reference” map. The merged illustration of T/P, Jason-1 and 2. Now look at each individually. How is it, that each individually will show a decline in sea level south of India, but when combined, they show a rise? I think their coloring outside the lines……..
I’m with you. I mean, it would be great if all these so-called objective measurements were just that…measurements. No agenda. No preconceived notions. Just the numbahs. I can dream can’t I?
If the GRL’s from the AGU page are remotely accurate:
“Neither previously used empirical curve (exponential or power-law) describes the true size-frequency distribution of seamounts. Nevertheless, we predict 39 ± 1 × 103 large seamounts (h > 1 km), implying that ∼24,000 (60%) remain to be discovered.”, also to mention Grumpy Grampy’s statement about vents. You say:” I don’t think geothermal activity should be lumped in with sea rise, it certainly isn’t the connotation when one speaks of sea level rise and rate of rise.” This confuses me. How can so much energy, even knowing very little about actual amounts of energy not be an underlying factor in rise and rate of rise? Why do you think geo. activity should be excluded? Signed, drunken sailor or more aptly drunken aircraft mech.( I flew everywhere- never even saw a canoe. Join the Navy…. see the desert! wooooo!) LOL.
lol, yeh military life……
I may have not worded my comment to Grumpy properly. The point I was trying to make, is that we’re told that sea level is rising. We’re told it is because we’re hotting the world up through CAGW/CC/whatever. Causing all the poor glaciers to melt and we’re all going to drown via the dastardly molecular properties of CO2.
If its because of geo-thermal, so be it. We can account for it and quit bothering with it. Personally, the more I look into this. (Lat has brought some more very illuminating information.) The more I’m of the belief that the sea level isn’t rising, nor has it risen in the last several years. (I’m going to write a separate post on this, but I’ve got some issues to work through before I present it.)
I believe most of the reported rise is simply misinterpreted artifact. I’m going to have to clean alot of this up and present it in one coherent post, but I think, most isn’t rise at all. Not through geo-thermal, nor melting glaciers. Because I don’t think we can show the sea level has actually risen.
Clearly, I’ve got a lot more work to do to pursue this, and I’m not sure how far I can carry it, but we have many glaring difficulties with many of the assumptions gone into sea level rise via satellite sensitivity.
ok gotcha, thanks.
This chap, Church, has been the source of some wacky ‘science.’
on the ABC, Ozzie, news a CSIRO person has developed a model for ocean salinity. cannot find it at the moment. maybe too close to the broadcast.
lol, yes, much like burning coal, volcanoes have the ability to morph from having a warming to a cooling effect. Thanks for reminding us of the inanity of typical alarmists.
However, in this discussion, we’re more tuned to discussing underwater volcanoes. Obviously in that case, the sulfates won’t aerosolize, so the net effect would be expansion of the water through heat. But, even going beyond that, it seems our satellites may be misinterpreting what it sees. In either case, or most likely a bit of both, much of our reported “sea-level rise” is nothing but geo-thermal activity, artifact from satellites, and a geoid that shifts.
BTW, nev, now that you’ve posted once here, you will no longer be subject to moderation and your comments will post immediately…….. unless there are too many links in your comment. Thanks for popping by.
@Latitude and James,
Awesome subject. Today when I saw a supposedly new range of volcanoes ( I say that because I’m sure I remember a U.S. Nuc sub documenting this in 1970 something- I can’t locate the reference yet ) off the coast of the Antartic, I compared its location to the maps above. Sure enough I see the correlation. When the location is viewed at this image:
it seems the tail is east to west, am I looking at that wrong?
Thanks! and , Mark, yes, it does appear like it’s going east to west. This is one of the reasons why I haven’t made a further post on this. I’ve too many questions that need answered before I can make a too many definitive statements. What we can say, is that our sea level rise attribution is errant. I also suspect that what we see as a great rise in area such as the ring of fire is mostly the sats. picking up lava activity. There is, no doubt, thermal expansion of the water, but probably not that much. It would be interesting to get true temp measurements from the “ring of fire” and the alleged depression just to the east of it. And then do a test to see if the thermal differences could account for the differences we’ve seen for over a decade.
One day, when I get it all together, I’ll make this a much more clear and articulate post. But, I need more answers than questions before I do. Lat may have some different insights. His perspectives are always interesting.
I anxiously await. What you guys are saying makes too much sense, the electromagnetic bias adjustments can’t be right. Latitude says: June 27, 2011 at 6:17 pm, I think we’ve been had.
Dr.Spencer’s 2010 book “The Great Global Warming Blunder” in his summary he flatly states “The public has been misled by politicians and news reporters who have selectively filtered the science and economics related to climate change and energy use.” As a layman coming to a greater understanding of the climate change issues, the more I read the more depressed I become. Well, pissed is more like it. Keep up the good work, looking forward to more.
When I said the electromagnetic bias adjustments can’t be right, I’ve never been more wrong.
See: http://space.cv.nctu.edu.tw/Publication/pdf/20760407.pdf Its a short .pdf that explains the above images well. Here’s what caught my eye:
“Disregarding the sea surface topography (SST), marine
gravity anomaly is basically equivalent to MSSH, and
the two have a simple, linear relationship in the spectral
Mark, sorry I somehow missed you posting another comment. I’ve made a quick first read of the paper you’ve provided. Thanks! But, yes, the gravity and MSSH is being used as an equivalent. I think the problem lies in the various gravitational shifts that may or may not result in actual sea level change. For instance, the additional gravity generated by magma moving throughout a volcano.
After reading the paper, one of the things that struck me the most is the choices available to the authors. Every time one has a choice in computations such as this, the propensity for error increases and the veracity becomes more reliant upon judgement more than anything else.
I’ll re-read it again to see if I can find other notes of interest. Thanks again!!
Pingback: MORE SEA LEVEL STUFF……. SO FAR | suyts space
Very nice site!
Pingback: The top 10 posts for the year (by views) | suyts space
Pingback: A Happy New Year To All —- A Look Back And Forward | suyts space