Nuclear Power Related Media Thread, page-6402

Sorry for the delay Sewie, but I've just had a chance to look at your link to sea level rise and it looks suspicious. Here is the graph from the article looking very precise and 'up-and-to-the-right'.


But I've always wondered about how they get it so accurate when there are waves, tides, currents, land rising and falling etc, that are interfering with the measurement. Then, further down the article, there is the following diagram.



This diagram shows sea level change over 30 years. Some places, like off the coast of Japan show a rise of around 200 mm, while an area adjacent shows around zero rise in sea level. This is not the way gravity works on a liquid. It looks like what is being measured here is the variance due to the interfering factors mentioned above, and the accuracy of the measurement equipment and process.

So, now put a 100 mm +/- error band on the top graph and you can see that the apparent precision of the graph is way beyond the accuracy of the measurement.

Prior to 1993 it's a mystery as to how they measured average sea level rise, but it can't be any more accurate than the satellite-based measurements they take today.

So the "accelerating rapidly" fear is unfounded as far as I can see.