Talk:Sea level

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Geography
Geography Portal

This article is supported by the Geography WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage on Geography and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Geography, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

The relevance is that the tidal patterns will tend to be repeated over the course of these cycles, and that should give a better calculation of the mean. Eclecticology

I don't think the article should assert that global warming will cause further rises in sea level. That is only a theory, and a recent one at that. There is also a theory that rising atmosphere temperature will LOWER the sea level: hotter air => more evaporation => more snow at north and south pole => net movement of sea water into polar ice.

Let's leave the issue of causes to sea level rise. --Uncle Ed

See the talk of that page why the causes should be here. In short, causes of rise are related to causes for falling sea levels. --mav 23:28 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. Sea Level Rise is too politicized, representing a not very NPOV. Besides, it does not make sense to make people go to another entry to find out what effects sea level. GregBenson

I does not make sense to me that sea levels would be at their lowest in earth history if we are currently in an interglacial period, according to the exxon graph (or maybe I'm reading it wrong). It could be that plate tectonics pushing up mountains has created the effect of lowering sea levels. Time will tell. --Spyder Krabb

Contents

[edit] Conflicting/Bad information

Two things. 1) the first two paragraphs of the "Changes through geologic time" conflict. The first one says that we are quite close to the lowest level of all time. The next says that during the most recent ice age the sea level was 130 m lower than today. One of these is wrong.

2) the graph looks nice, but it is ambiguous. If it is charting the level then the right side should not read "change." As it is, however, the graph seems to _chart_ the "change" (for instance, if it is showing that in 2000 the change in sea level was 10% more than the change in sea level in 1999)

I was just wandering if sea level was: a. the average height of all HIGH tides for the last 19 years b. the average height of all LOW tides for the last 19 years c. the average height of all spring high tides d. the average height of all neap tides e. the same on all coasts of the U.S. please help if you know!!! ~student with help needed~

[edit] Misleading Graphs

Portraying accurately the changes in sea level is confusing enough as it is without using graphs which mislead. The problem with the graphs shown is that the one entitled "Recent Sea Level Rise" displays a right-hand axis calibrated in Centimeters, whereas the graph entitled 'Post-Glacial Sea Level Rise" displays a right-hand axis calibrated in Meters. This makes it appear as though recent changes in sea level (over the past 100 years) are much more extreme than in fact they really are.

The data portrayed in both graphs actually appears to argue just the opposite, though. Using the periodic highs and lows expressed in METERS in the 'Post-Glacial' graph, it appears that the 19 CENTIMETER rise of the past 100 years (shown in the Recent Sea Level graph) is squarely within the highs and lows of the past six-thousand years (displayed in the Post-Glacial graph).

Since change over time in mean sea level is one of the prima facie pieces of evidence used by scientists when arguing for or against the popular theory of 'global warming' and whether or not the Earth is presently in an abnormal warming trend, wouldn't it be less confusing if the graphs compared 'apples to apples' rather than 'apples to oranges'? --Fungible 08:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

The lead graph shows a rise of 20 cm since 1880. That is 200 mm / 120 years, which is considerably lower than the 3 mm/year given by William Connolley. 200/120 = 1.7 which rounds to 2 (not 3).
Or we can calculate 19 cm since 1905, which is 190 mm / 100 years. That also rounds to 2 (not 3). Cheers. --Uncle Ed 14:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
3 mm/yr *from the satellites* few of which were around in 1880... I don't like adding a specific rate to the fig caption, since this obscures the changes William M. Connolley 15:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sea level rise

This article doesn't seem to say much about sea level rise. There is another article about it (much longer too), but shouldn't it at least be summarized here? At the moment they are treated as completely separate subjects. Richard001 23:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gravity or Gravitational

This article talks about a Gravitational anomaly when I think the author probably meant a Gravity anomaly. I hope someone who is watching this article with a little more knowledge than I have can correct it if neccesary and then create a Wikilink --Matt 07:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your statement, Matt. I don't know if a gravity anomaly is implied in there, but for sure there's no intended reference to a gravitational anomaly. I have edited that piece in the article. But comments from experts are still welcome. --Pallida Mors 76 21:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)