PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

British nuclear industry needs overhaul before it can expand
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
Quote:
unknown eventual magnitude


Yeah, that bit's rubbish. We know there's about 65 metres of sea level rise when the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets melt. It's the timing we're unsure about.



OFFENSIVE REMARK DELETED

But perhaps not anytime soon, according to this report:
Quote:
Journal of Coastal Research

Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses
J. R. Houston and R. G. Dean
Director Emeritus, Engineer Research and Development Center, Corps of Engineers, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, U.S.A.
Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Coastal Civil Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, U.S.A.

Abstract
Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise. To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60 - 156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations. To compare these results with worldwide data, we extend the analysis of Douglas (1992) by an additional 25 years and analyze revised data of Church and White (2006) from 1930 to 2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records.

and from the discussion:

Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the +0.07 to +0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required to reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted, Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010). Bindoff et al. (2007) note an increase in worldwide temperature from 1906 to 2005 of 0.74uC.

It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.



Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9808
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years


From that it would seem that they are not sure of their result and that it should be checked. I don't think that does your case much good, Inspector.
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7628

PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
biffvernon wrote:
Quote:
unknown eventual magnitude


Yeah, that bit's rubbish. We know there's about 65 metres of sea level rise when the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets melt. It's the timing we're unsure about.




OFFENSIVE REMARK DELETED

But perhaps not anytime soon, according to this report:
Quote:
Journal of Coastal Research

Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses
J. R. Houston and R. G. Dean
Director Emeritus, Engineer Research and Development Center, Corps of Engineers, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, U.S.A.
Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Coastal Civil Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, U.S.A.

Abstract
Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise. To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60 - 156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations. To compare these results with worldwide data, we extend the analysis of Douglas (1992) by an additional 25 years and analyze revised data of Church and White (2006) from 1930 to 2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records.

and from the discussion:

Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the +0.07 to +0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required to reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted, Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010). Bindoff et al. (2007) note an increase in worldwide temperature from 1906 to 2005 of 0.74uC.

It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.






This paper tells us nothing useful about SLR in the 21st C. Conclusions about the future can't be drawn from the 20th C. data set as both ice sheets were in balance until the mid 90s, today they are contributing 1.3mm/yr between them with unequivocal acceleration. In the last few years the ice sheets have overtaken ice caps and glaciers to become the most dominant source of sea level rise - a source [b]absent[/b from a 20th century tide gauge study (thermal expansion demoted to 3rd most significant term).

We also know sea level rise is highly localised so no macroscopic conclusions can be drawn from just the US tide gauges.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
This paper tells us nothing useful about SLR in the 21st C. Conclusions about the future can't be drawn from the 20th C. data set as both ice sheets were in balance until the mid 90s, today they are contributing 1.3mm/yr between them with unequivocal acceleration. In the last few years the ice sheets have overtaken ice caps and glaciers to become the most dominant source of sea level rise - a source [b]absent[/b from a 20th century tide gauge study (thermal expansion demoted to 3rd most significant term).


Suddenly the Arctic/Antarctic antiphase balance has been upset! I see, so since 2000 not only has there been a reversal of previous observations of the 20th century, but we've been able to detect and assess the magnitude of the change, and then project into the 21st century. Not only that, in just ten years of data we've detected not just a positive trend accurate to 2 places of decimals (from ten observations), but an accelerating trend which we can quantify?. Truly astonishing! All that from 10 years of data! And we've attributed the source of the change. Does our statistical powers of analysis know no bounds? References I see none?

Quote:
We also know sea level rise is highly localised so no macroscopic conclusions can be drawn from just the US tide gauges
I think the US seaboard is probably quite macroscopic!

Last edited by An Inspector Calls on Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal wrote:
Quote:
It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years


From that it would seem that they are not sure of their result and that it should be checked. I don't think that does your case much good, Inspector.


No, you obviously don't understand what your quote means. The authors are quite sure of their result. The authors have simply produced a review of seas level records, not a scientific study of the causes of sea level rise/fall. They're concluding that investigations should continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.


Last edited by An Inspector Calls on Sat Apr 02, 2011 11:51 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12459
Location: York

PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The authors have simply produced a revue
Hey I usually use that spelling mistake as a joke! Nice to see it's catching on!
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
The Price of Time
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
2 As and a B



Joined: 28 Nov 2008
Posts: 2592

PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Did they produce a big one?
_________________
I'm hippest, no really.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aurora



Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 8502

PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 5:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

More from David King Rolling Eyes

Quote:
Express - 03/04/11

ONLY NUCLEAR POWER WILL STOP THE LIGHTS GOING OUT IN BRITAIN

PROFESSOR Sir David King, a former government chief ­scientist, has not let the crisis in Japan dampen his enthusiasm for nuclear power. He believes the case “has never been stronger”.

Article continues ...


and this from the Irish Independent:

Quote:
Stop the self-delusion and bring on nuclear energy

Ruth Dudley Edwards explains how the crisis in Japan has actually allayed her fears of nuclear meltdown.

Article continues ...

Rolling Eyes Evil or Very Mad

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
2 As and a B



Joined: 28 Nov 2008
Posts: 2592

PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 7:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_King_(scientist)#Academic_career

Quote:
Academic career

He was born in South Africa in 1939, and after an early career at the University of Witwatersrand, Imperial College and the University of East Anglia, King became the Brunner Professor of Physical Chemistry at the University of Liverpool in 1974. In 1988 he was appointed 1920 Professor of Physical Chemistry at the University of Cambridge and subsequently became Master of Downing College (1995–2000) and Head of the University Chemistry Department (1993–2000). During this time, King, together with Gabor Somorjai and Gerhard Ertl, shaped the discipline of surface science and helped to explain the underlying principles of heterogeneous catalysis. However, the 2007 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to Ertl alone [4].

King has published over 500 papers on his research in chemical physics and on science and policy, and has received numerous prizes, Fellowships and Honorary Degrees. King was knighted in 2003 and in 2009 made a Chevalier of the Légion d'Honneur. He continues as Director of Research in the Department of Chemistry at Cambridge University

Scientist turned political bureaucrat, and never an expert on nuclear science.
_________________
I'm hippest, no really.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aurora



Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 8502

PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interestingly, Ruth Dudley Edwards (Irish Independent article) is no expert either. Rolling Eyes

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Dudley_Edwards
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7628

PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
Quote:
This paper tells us nothing useful about SLR in the 21st C. Conclusions about the future can't be drawn from the 20th C. data set as both ice sheets were in balance until the mid 90s, today they are contributing 1.3mm/yr between them with unequivocal acceleration. In the last few years the ice sheets have overtaken ice caps and glaciers to become the most dominant source of sea level rise - a source [b]absent[/b from a 20th century tide gauge study (thermal expansion demoted to 3rd most significant term).

Suddenly the Arctic/Antarctic antiphase balance has been upset!

It's perfectly possible for the bipolar seesaw to have been upset by the Arctic's positive reinforcement of the linear warming trend.
An Inspector Calls wrote:
I see, so since 2000 not only has there been a reversal of previous observations of the 20th century, but we've been able to detect and assess the magnitude of the change, and then project into the 21st century. Not only that, in just ten years of data we've detected not just a positive trend accurate to 2 places of decimals (from ten observations), but an accelerating trend which we can quantify?. Truly astonishing! All that from 10 years of data! And we've attributed the source of the change. Does our statistical powers of analysis know no bounds? References I see none?

There are three totally independent methods for accessing ice sheet mass balance (no idea what you mean by 'ten observations') and they are in close agreement. The GRACE satellite pair have measured changes in the gravitational field over the ice sheets 'weighing' the mass from space. Other satellites and aeroplane mounted sensors have been measuring dH/dt, the rate of change of ice sheet surface elevation and regional climate models based on weather observations have modelled surface mass balance, which when combined with glacier discharge rates across the grounding like provide a third independent measure of total mass balance.

These three data sets tell the same story of stable ice sheets until the mid-nighties when both started losing mass, both at accelerating rates.

Here's a ref from last month:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL046583.shtml

An Inspector Calls wrote:
I think the US seaboard is probably quite macroscopic!

Not in SLR terms, it's relatively small area with unique characteristics. Look up SLR fingerprinting to see how eustatic sea level rise is highly location dependent, both on the area in question and importantly on the source of the mass. Losing 500 Gt from GrIS has a very different impact on SLR than losing the same mass from WAIS.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The ten observations refer to the ten years of this century; you were suggesting that sea level rise was entirely constant in the previous century.

By all means cite papers that detect the Greenland ice sheet melting. However, it's the impact on sea level that matters here. The paper I cited detected no change in rise rate around the macroscopic coast of the USA. Hardly surprising when you're spreading (possibly) a small, extra volume of water across the vast surface area of the oceans.

And besides, you, biffie and kennie are straining over a gnat here. There's not going to be a 65 m sea level rise in the next century; those entirely honourable people at the IPCC in AR4 suggested (we think) 590 mm.

M. Ablain, A. Cazenave, G. Valladeau, and S. Guinehut (2009) in
A new assessment of the error budget of global mean sea level rate estimated by satellite altimetry over 1993–2008
suggest 'a 60% reduction compared to the 3.3 mm/yr sea level rise (glacial isostatic adjustment correction applied) measured between 1993 and 2005. Since November 2005, MSL is accurately measured by a single satellite, Jason-1. However the error analysis performed here indicates that the recent reduction in MSL rate is real.
http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/193/2009/os-5-193-2009.pdf

A 60 % reduction would takes us right back to the rise rates measured in the 20th century using tide gauges.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
There's not going to be a 65 m sea level rise in the next century;
I've never heard anybody suggest that. I used the figure of 65m for sea level rise when all the polar ice melts. I can't see how that can happen "in the next century".
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Aurora



Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 8502

PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bandidoz wrote:
[deleted all the posts that added nothing to this discussion - keep it clean, guys]

Bandidoz, can you make the 'Inspector' disappear as well? Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bandidoz
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 2705
Location: Berks

PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, despite all the complaints we receive.
_________________
Olduvai Theory (Updated) (Reviewed)
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group