Regarding the glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) correction, Professor Dick Peltier, Director of the Centre for Global Change Science at the University of Toronto and one of the leading experts on GIA and its effects on sea level, sent us the initial reference for the GIA correction that we apply to the global mean sea level estimate. The GIA FAQ and 2011_1 release notes have been updated with this reference. Here is Prof. Peltier’s view on our applying the GIA correction and the recent attention it has received (hyperlinks added by us):…..
The physical reason for the necessity of this adjustment to the atimetric satellite measurements of global sea level rise is due to the fact that, due to the large mass of water that was added to the ocean basins during the last deglaciation event of the Late Quaternary ice-age, the ocean basins are continuing to subside of average by this amount….
There should be nothing controversial about the necessity of making this correction. Since the need of it was established 10 years ago I’m surprised that it should be attracting attention!”
— Dick Peltier, June 19, 2011
CU sea level lab confirms that they are adding 0.3 mm of sea level rise per year because the oceans are sinking. The fact that they having been doing something stupid for ten years is reason to continue doing it.
“Sea level” is the elevation of the top surface of the ocean. It is not a measure of the depth of the ocean. Subsidence of the bottom surface does not cause Manhattan to drown.
A few months ago, the “official sea level” didn’t come out on time. Their excuse, changing the website if I remember correctly.
I can picture it now, a group of harried researchers in a dingy room, the stink of fear in the air… sea level is not going up, what are we going to do? A young peach fuzz scientist comes up with a novel idea. Someone is going to get a bonus this year.
If the need for it was established 10 years ago, why have they just introduced it this year?
Talk about Voodoo Science! MSL is determined by relationship to adjoining land surfaces and land elevations are based on height above MSL. Neither is a real dimension. Sea level can also be described as being the location where atmosphere pressure is one atmosphere lower pressures designate higher elevations and higher pressures designate lower elevations. That is arbitrary also due to constant changes in pressure due to weather patterns. Measuring sea level from space is like holding a tape measure in front of my eyes to measure my barn which is a hundred yards away. At that distance my barn is four inches wide while a real measurement shows it is 40 feet wide. It is all relative!
That’s the way Science(©IPCC) is supposed to work: a self-proclaimed expert declares that N=K and you shut your mouth, slobs.
Thank God he is not an economist!
I must set aside my usual sarcasm and vitriol to ask a question. Why glacial isostatic adjustment, and why now. What about the net effects of tectonic drift, what about the literally miles of earth that erode and are washed into the oceans each year, what about the volcanism under the ocean. There are so many geological phenomena that have an affect on sea level, why make a special adjustment for just this one?
Bah, back to sarcasm and vitriol.
This is like Michael Mann’s negative numbers. You have to be a climate scientist to understand this deep and complex subject. And as oceans get deeper, not only will Manhattan be flooded, but it will sink further before it finds the bottom. This is what Ticks off Godzilla and makes him rise to the surface and kill everybody. See, it’s science. And Republicans are trying to turn it into Politics!
The adjustment is so tiny and only effects satellite data and it has 50% error. 0.3 mm/year to everywhere is actual wrong because the effect is variable across the oceans and they admit so. You should be more concerned about the 3mm/year that dodgily added to the satellite data which doesn’t match the tide gauges. GIA should not be a concern- I bet the science is reasonable sound but its still trivial compared to local effects.