The fog must be rolling in .But, but they can see the climate changing with their own eyes
The fog must be rolling in .But, but they can see the climate changing with their own eyes
Like this?I'd rather believe the people actually living there and studying the issue than, you know, someone who isn't.
Sea level has been steadily rising since preindustrial times and there is no upward curve to indicate an acceleration. Its linear.
That why he didnt scream "climate change". I bet doing so threatened his funding and back pedalled.
Right... it couldn't be because he didn't factor in climate change on the initial study... no, had nothing to do with that at all, it's all about funding...
:roll:
There's rising and then there's rising at three times the rate in a short time.
Which would indicate... acceleration and an upward curve...
But you know more than the guy studying the area. Right.
Many media outlets, including the Guardian, jumped to the conclusion that the islands were lost to climate change. But this largely misinterprets the science, according to the study’s author, Dr Simon Albert.
“All these headlines are certainly pushing things a bit towards the ‘climate change has made islands vanish’ angle. I would prefer slightly more moderate titles that focus on sea-level rise being the driver rather than simply ‘climate change’,” Albert told the Guardian.
The major misunderstanding stems from the conflation of sea-level rise with climate change. As a scientifically robust and potentially destructive articulation of climate change, sea-level rise has become almost synonymous with the warming of the planet.
However, as Albert’s paper points out, the ocean has been rising in the Solomon Islands at 7mm per year, more than double the global average. Since the 1990s, trade winds in the Pacific have been particularly intense. This has been driven partly by global warming and partly by climatic cycles - in particular the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
Show me a graph of nonlinear sea level rise.Right... it couldn't be because he didn't factor in climate change on the initial study... no, had nothing to do with that at all, it's all about funding...
:roll:
There's rising and then there's rising at three times the rate in a short time.
Which would indicate... acceleration and an upward curve...
But you know more than the guy studying the area. Right.
You should read the article, because you are jumping to conclusions just like Gaurdian
From Petros's article
Show me graph of nonlinear sea level rise.
Good luck.https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005JC003229
From 2006; there is a graph there (figure 5). Still looking for more and something more recent.
At MacKenzie Beach , some springs a large rock is uncovered and full of sea weed . Other years you do not see the rock because it is sand covered . Apparently it depends on winter storms .From your link....
There is no common reference level for the tide gauge records and this provides a problem when stacking records that do not cover the same time periods. One way overcome this problem is to calculate the rate of change in sea level for each station and stack the rates [Barnett, 1984]. However, many stations have historically only been measured for some months of the year and an annual cycle in sea level could therefore lead to severe bias.
I'd rather believe the people actually living there and studying the issue than, you know, someone who isn't.
That must be where the cold weather came from . Or something .December 2019 Arctic sea ice grew by an average of 82,100 square kilometers *per day. This is 18,000 Sq Kms faster than the 1981 to 2010 average gain of 64,100 square kilometers and is the third fastest December ice growth rate in the satellite record.