we have to account for the fact that the ocean is actually getting bigger due to GIA at the same time as the water volume is expanding. This means that if we measure a change in GMSL of 3 mm/yr, the volume change is actually closer to 3.3 mm/yr because of GIA
What a load of crap. Sea level is the elevation of the top surface of the ocean, not the depth or volume of the ocean. If the ocean floor is falling, that reduces the potential for coastal flooding, not increases it. Adding 0.3 mm / year on to sea level measurements is incorrect, and is done only for political purposes.
How does a falling sea floor cause sea level in Manhattan to increase by 0.3mm per year?
If you are measuring ocean volume or depth, the GIA may or may not be valid. But using it for sea level (the elevation of the top surface of the ocean) is complete nonsense.
It would be the accounting equivalent of adding your income tax on to your net earnings. No one would be stupid enough to do that.
By their measure the Blue Ridge mountains are still gaining elevation.
That is actually a different issue. It isn’t a question of whether or not the rebound is happening. The problem is how they use this information.
I think that was my point.
I live in the foot hills of the Blue Ridge Mountains and I can tell you that yesterday one millimeter of my ridge line washed towards the Gulf of Mexico yesterday during the rain.
Hey Mike! Did that portion of ridgeline pass through Hawks Bill Creek? My family used to have acreage just outside Luray on that little creek, right before it spilled into the Shenandoah River. Beautiful country.
Steve,
If they really were seriously understanding this planet, then they would have some understanding of where sea level were 4.5 billion years ago.
I did.
We have thousands of theories which when examines closely DO NOT MAKE SENSE.
Why is it many sampling are only dated in the millions of years and not billions on our planet???
Salt has a very fascinating story to tell.
When you use it as a evaporation deposit from the ocean.
It has a definitive time line and can be calculated back 4.5 billion years.
This then takes our creation back to being two objects meeting in space. Molten rock and Ice. Just recently scientist discovered ice in space to be virtually identical to our oceans…hmmm
Taking everything into consideration we loose 1.25mm of ocean water every 10,000 years to space. How did I come up with this?
The land height of our oldest salt mine is a billion years old. Every other salt mine is younger. Massive pressure and water volume prevented carbon testing from being viable until it dried up. This is why many thing are dated in the millions of years and the time line of life to land came out later.
Salt still has a very fascinating story when man found out how to use it to preserve food.
Nutbar? It is your decision…
How are the oceans expanding if the pre-fudge sea level is actually falling? Sounds more like the volume is shrinking (and depending on energy content losing mass, too), which would mean they’d have to “correct” in the other direction.
If the earth’s bottom is dropping somewhere, then it is gaining elsewhere. Unless, CU is believes matter is disappearing or being teleported off of the planet, it is a fallacious statistical manipulation. Maybe they’re theorizing that the earth is condensing?
It’s equivalent to adding an estimate for UHI to rural stations, and to an extent, this is already done, during the “homogenisation” process, so it’s not new.
Advice to those struggling with a diet:
Use a bigger dinner plate and you can claim you’re eating less.
No – I think the dieter wants to put the food on a smaller plate, so it seems like more but really the dieter knows it is so, and will lose weight by eating a second helping. (Well gee, that’s how the global warmers do it!)
Global warming is causing the planet to expand like a balloon being blown up. If we do not stop the warming the earth will soon expand larger than Jupiter and be the largest planet in the solar system! It is worse than we thought!
We’ll be able to step straight onto the Sea of Tranquillity.
Where do the CU Sea Level Group account for the volume of water added to the oceans through aquifer depletion? Roger Pielke Sr. estimated this additional factor in ocean level rise at 1.8 mm/yr. He has a strong relationship with the C of U and a reputation that is well thought of, even by the AGW alarmists.
By not mentioning this fact, the CU sea level group are being dishonest.
White lies are permissible in the service of Gaia, especially towards infidels. Says so in the scriptures.
Glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) is a local phenomenon. North England is rising as a result of the last ice age, but the south end is sinking as the island tips back to what might be called level. Sea level changes at each end—one down, one up, respectively.
The idea that almost all land or most of it is rising, enough to warrant a significant adjustment, is not just ingenuous but constitutes another conscious attempt to defraud the public.
Of course, they will want to claim that all of those wind mills are dragging the island out to sea, but hey!
I bet you that in the not too distant future coastal dwellers will be informed that they are officially in a state of drowning no matter what the sea level is measured to be. Maybe they will be declared as Coastal Zombies, alive but actually dead from GHE drowning.
But they will still be taxed though.
I think they desperately need a correction for the loss of water to space.
Along the lines of “if water wasn’t being lost to space the sea level would rise faster by X mm/y so we’ve added this as an adjustment to correct for it”.
If they give me a grant for $1 million I can also come up with an isostatic correction for the water being subsumed with the sinking continental plates. Its worse than we thought. After a century the ocean basins will be dry and sea level will have risen 6 metres drowning everyone camping in Zucotti Park.
I take issue with that – the models say 5.735 metres (approximately).
I am 73 years old and I find that Alzheimer’s is gradually setting in. One of my worst problems is that abbreviations seem to become meaningless. The title of this article is “CU Explains The Fraudulent GIA.” Probably most readers instantly get the meaning of that title. I don’t have that ability anymore.
I began by pondering what “CU” means. I googled it. Common meanings include “credit union, copper (with a small u), Colorado (State) University, Concordia University, Cumulus clouds, Cameron University, CU mining gazette (short for “see you”), command to call up another system in Linux, Consumer’s Union, etc. Google says it has over one billion entries with that abbreviation. Well I have only forgotten half of them.
If I could look them up at the rate of one per second, twenty-four hours a day, that would only take me ……. (let’s see)…just short of 32 years! I probably won’t be around then.
For GIA, it is a lot less. Google only has 862 million such entries. Maybe I could finish that in (say for an estimate) another 20 years.
Now it may be possible for you to write off an old man with lessening mental ability, but I once earned a master’s degree in Educational Communications Theory. I still remember the rule “Don’t use abbreviations unless you have given the full word(s) in the opening of the writing.”
Do you suppose you could follow that rule in writing these articles? It would help me a lot. (Maybe a few others, too.)