PART 5/ Opdaterede Sol/Is/temp/hav data

"effects of the vertical movement of the platform"

ABSTRACT
Modern atoll reefs began to grow after rising postglacial eustatic sea level overtopped degraded carbonate platforms that had been exposed as subaerial limestone plateaus during synglacial drawdowns in sea level. Stable atoll islets atop emergent paleoreef flats did not begin to develop until after the mid-Holocene hydro-isostatic sea level highstand in the tropical Pacific Ocean. Atolls have been occupied since stable islets formed during the last two millennia. Rising global sea level will impact atoll environments adversely for continued habitation once ambient high-tide level rises above the mid-Holocene low-tide level. That crossover will submerge the resistant paleoreef flats that underpin stable atoll islets and subject their unconsolidated sediment cover to incessant wave attack before ambient sea level actually overtops the islets.

Tehe, du spurgte efter om hvornår jeg selv siger jeg har taget fejl...
I denne forbindelse mht sealevels i dit skriv har jeg taget fejl af 2 kolloner i et skema i dit skriv!! 1 point til dig, Vertical movements er faktisk kun en mindre bidrag yder. Således skal jeg lige granske ÈN GANG TIL, hvordan de kommer fra tilsyneladende helt flade trends til havstigninger, vender tilbage :-)

Således skal jeg lige granske ÈN GANG TIL, hvordan de kommer fra tilsyneladende helt flade trends til havstigninger, vender tilbage :-)

Figure 4 shows how the sea level trends from SEAFRAME stations have evolved from one year after installation to the present. These trends will continue to stabilise for many more years, as is demonstrated by Figure 6.

N A Nielsen skrev:
Ja, du begår fejl i et væk, Frank - men du tror samtidig, at du kan korrigere arbejdende forskeres arbejde.

Du beskylder forskerne for at justere deres data, så de "slavisk følger IPCC" - og klager samtidig over min tone.

Kan vi kalde det paradokser?

" Frank - men du tror samtidig, at du kan korrigere arbejdende forskeres arbejde"

Although sea levels in the Tuvalu region normally fall in response to El Niño, the decrease that occurred during 1997/1998 El Niño can be considered extraordinary.

Sea levels were lowered by 35 cm in March and April of 1998. By November 1998, sea level had completely recovered. Following the El Niño, the sea level resumed its normal seasonal cycle.

The historical gauge was sinking relative to the SEAFRAME primary benchmark by an average of about 1 mm per year. For effective long-term sea level monitoring the vertical stability of tide gauges must be monitored relative to a benchmark network that stretches a fair distance inland to stable ground. The SEAFRAME gauge at Funafuti, which is located around 3 km from the historical gauge, is considered to be vertically stable.

jamen Nielsen????

Kan du slet ikke se hvad du står med i dine hænder lige nu????????????

Du står med "Arbejdende forskeres" GIGANT FEJL idet de pludseligt ikke længere har korrigeret for El Nino, som det ellers er gjort tidligere??

Altså selv nu hvor DET SKRIGER TIL HIMLEN at der er FEJL, kan du ikke se det??

Hvis man ikke korrigerer for El Nino år, vil man få forkerte estimater. Mit gæt er, at SEAFRAME har korrigeret for El Nino - i hvert fald for 1998.

Figure 4 shows how the trend estimate has varied over time. In the early years, the trend appeared to indicate an enormous rate of sea level rise. Later, due to the 1997/1998 El Niño when sea level fell 35 cm below average, the trend actually went negative, and remained so for the next three years. Given the sea level record is relatively short, it is still too early to deduce a long-term trend.

The sea level data recorded since installation is summarised in Figure 15. The middle curve (green) represents the monthly mean sea level. The upper and lower curves show the highest and lowest values recorded each month. The most notable features of the monthly means are the annual peaks, which appear every year around March except in 1998, when a large drop in sea level was recorded during the 1997/1998 El Niño.

Det er lidt overraskende, at dette emne også kan leder til meget voldsomme følesesmæssige udbrud og personangreb fra en person, der tilsyneladnede har nogle psykiske problem og føler sig kaldet til at håne alle selv om vedkommende på ingen måde har en videnbasis eller forståelse for dette emne.

Helt enig, og iøvrigt super godt at vi kan gøre fælles front mod dem der ikke bidrager til god dialog her på klimadebat.dk . Fedt at vi på tværs af grænsen af folk for og imod rigtigheden af global warming budskabet kan enes om at her på klimadebat.dk opfører vi os ordenligt, bidrager til en spændende positiv og givende debat.

Kench teamed up with Peter Cowell, a geomorphologist
at the University of Sydney in Australia, to model what might
happen. They found that during episodes of high seas—at
high tide during El Niño events, which raise sea level in the Central
Pacific, for example—storm waves would wash over higher
and higher sections of atoll islands. But instead of eroding
land, the waves would raise island elevation by depositing
sand produced from broken coral, coralline algae, mollusks,
and foraminifera.
Kench notes that reefs can grow 10 to 15 millimeters a year—faster than the sea-level rise expected to occur later this century. "As long as the reef is healthy and generates an abundant supply of sand, there's no reason a reef island can't grow and keep up," he argues.
[...]
"Pictures of flooding you see on the news have more to do with poor shoreline management and people settling on marginal land than with sea-level rise," says Simon Donner, a climate scientist at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, in Canada who has examined sea-level variability in South Tarawa.
Some Kiribati officials agree: "[E]vidence shows that widespread erosion along the ocean and lagoon shorelines is primarily due to [local] human activities," wrote Naomi Biribo, permanent secretary in the fisheries ministry, and her Ph.D. adviser, geomorphologist Colin Woodroffe of the University of Wollongong in Australia, in the July 2013 issue of Sustainability Science.

"We have chosen NOT to adjust for El Nino this time BECAUSE: ..... "

Det vil altså sige, at fordi at det midlertidige kæmpedyk i sea level tilfældigvis faldt tidligt i perioden hvor man tilfældigvis har måledata, så siger man at sea level GENERELT er stigende.

Det er sådan det ser ud når man ødelægger videnskaben.
Dette ER enten extrem inkompetence, eller overlagt vildledning. Pick your choice.
Vælger man aktivt helt at ignorere at klimadata jo også normalt justeres i retning af IPCC-sysnpunkter, tjah, så kan man måske blot kalde det inkompetence.

4.2. Anomalies
The following section describes the anomalous observations in the records from the SEAFRAME stations, that is, the departures from normal conditions.

4.2.1. Sea level anomalies
The sea level anomalies (Figure 11) are derived by removing the predicted tides (including seasonal and annual cycles) and a linear trend from the sea level data. The anomalies highlight irregular events, such as the effects of the 1997/98 El Niño during which sea levels became significantly lower than normal (20-30 cm) at many of the SEAFRAME stations.
The effects of El Niño (or La Niña) upon sea level is felt strongly along the equator as

Og Nielsen, så klantrer[sic] du KFL for at han ikke lige har læst sit skriv og derfor ikke ved med sikkerhed om de har korrigeret for El nino.
Jeg måtte læse det grundigt igennem flere gange før jeg følte mig sikker på at de ikke har korrigeret for El Nino i deres endelige resultater, og som ekstra tjek downloadede jeg deres data og tjekkede at det var rigtigt.

Det er ikke KFL´s skyld at han ikke "lige" ser det.

Desuden jeg kommer frem til en stigning på ca 3.6 mm/år og de kommer frem til 3.7 mm/år. Hvis man ikke indarbejder El Nino i analysen, ville man kommer til ca 4.4 mm/år. Derfor er det min påstand, at man må have indarbejdet El Nino i den statistiske model til beregning af trenden på samme måde som jeg har gjort.

Det er statistiske set OK at gøre noget sådan, hvis der er en valid fysike/mekanisk begrundelse herfor.

As at December 2010, based on the short-term sea level trend analyses performed by the National Tidal Centre using the Tuvalu SEAFRAME data, a rate of +4.0 mm per year has been observed. Accounting for the inverted barometric pressure effect and vertical movements in the observing platform, the net sea level trend is +3.7 mm per year. By comparison, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4, 2007) estimates that global average long-term sea level rise over the last hundred years was of the order of 1 to 2 mm/yr. Figure 4 shows how the trend estimate has varied over time. In the early years, the trend appeared to indicate an enormous rate of sea level rise. Later, due to the 1997/1998 El Niño when sea level fell 35 cm below average, the trend actually went negative, and remained so for the next three years. Given the sea level record is relatively short, it is still too early to deduce a long-term trend.

At any location, the SSH changes over time due to many well understood factors (ocean tides [kan I huske månecyklerne

, NAN], atmospheric pressure, glacial isostatic adjustment, etc.). By subtracting from the measured SSH an a priori mean sea surface (MSS), such as the CLS01 mean sea surface, and these known time-varying effects, we compute the sea surface height anomalies (SSHA). Each point in the global mean sea level (GMSL) time series plots is the area-weighted mean of all of the sea surface height anomalies measured by the altimeter in a single, 10-day satellite track repeat cycle (time for the satellite to begin repeating the same ground track). Our goal is to observe the changes of the GMSL due to less understood factors, such as ocean mass changes from melting land ice and groundwater depletion, thermal expansion and contraction of the oceans, and the interannual variability caused by phenomena such as the ENSO.

Derfor er det min påstand, at man må have indarbejdet El Nino i den statistiske model til beregning af trenden på samme måde som jeg har gjort.

Figure 4 shows how the trend estimate has varied over time. In the early years, the trend appeared to indicate an enormous rate of sea level rise. Later, due to the 1997/1998 El Niño when sea level fell 35 cm below average, the trend actually went negative, and remained so for the next three years.

CU har - så vidt jeg ved - ikke korrigeret for cyklerne 18.61 og 8.85. Hvis de har, har de ikke gjort det på en overbevisende måde.

Uanset hvad du siger, så tvivler jeg på, at CU har justeret for de omtalte cykler.

a slowdown in thermosteric sea level rise over the last decade has masked some of the acceleration from the cryosphere.

Hvis man ikke korrigere for de to omtalte cycler regionalt, kan man ved korte tidsrækker få en accelation eller deaccelation, der er misvisende. Dette er der generelt enighed om.

It is found that the GMSL rises with the rate of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr during 1993–2003 and started decelerating since 2004 to a rate of 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012. This deceleration is mainly due to the slowdown of ocean thermal expansion in the Pacific during the last decade, as a part of the Pacific decadal-scale variability, while the land-ice melting is accelerating the rise of the global ocean mass-equivalent sea level. Recent rapid recovery of the rising GMSL from its dramatic drop during the 2011 La Niña introduced a large uncertainty in the estimation of the sea level trend, but the decelerated rise of the GMSL appears to be intact.

Du har i dit skriv lavet indtil flere stråmænd af mig.

Husk lige, at jeg er aktuar, cand.scient i matematik og statistik og at jeg burger den erhvervede viden og erfaring i denne forbindelse.