Well, I’m halfway through another part of my sea-level study and I thought I’d update you all with my progress. First, some background…… as we saw earlier, the data which met my first criteria didn’t tell us much. So, I’m drudging through the data once again, only this time I’m using the same criteria, but catching the data sets that ended in 2009. So far, the total data set still shows an increase in sea-level, but that’s before dividing the data by their coastal regions. Fortunately, PSMSL has already divided the data by a Coastal code. Very nice. Now, as I stated, I’m only half way through this particular part. So we should not try to attach much meaning to all of this. This is just an update……. or a tease if you will. Now, recall the map of the data points that met my criteria. Well, you don’t have to recall, I’ll just show it to you…….. 🙂
So, Coast Code 40, (that’s PSMSL code for Norway coastal area) Had at least(remember, only 1/2 done) 7 reporting stations that mysteriously quit reporting in 2009. Here is the location with some data in some balloons. (Name, GPS, 1981 sea level and 2009 sea level)
Ok, so the balloon idea didn’t work like I wanted them to. But, here’s a graph of the Coastal Code’s trend.
But, that’s only CC(Coast Code) 40!! I’m glad you brought that up!
Here is CC 50 with data ending in 2009. (Balloons worked better!!)
CC 822……… (arhhgg the balloons again!)
Well, there are more examples, and other examples of stations using the same criteria that show an increase in sea level. For the U.S. and Canada, one could almost see the reasoning to stop using some stations, after all, how many do you need? But, what of our Scandinavian friends? There were over a dozen sites with good data and continuity, but now they’ve only 2 or 3? It doesn’t make much sense. Anyway, that’s my tease for the day. Questions, comments, and concerns are welcomed.