> -----Original Message----- > From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu On Behalf Of James Newton > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 6:22 PM > > The nice thing about actual data is it removes any personal bias. I was > rather amazed to find the following: > > date=20070816&wl_sensor_hist=W5&relative=&datum=2&unit=1&shift=g&s > tn=8729210+Panama+City+Beach%2C+FL&type=Historic+Tide+Data&format= > View+Plot> > > Looks pretty darn stable to me. I do NOT see a rising trend there. Anyone > else got any ACTUAL data to share that conflicts with that? Nice site you found, I haven't been there before. AFAIK, MHW Tide Height is not the same as sea level. The particular station your looking at does not have "Sea Level Trends" available (it's grayed out) probably because they don't make sea level measurements there. Here's the NOAA page for sea level measurements: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html Here's a different Panama City station but it has a very short history (1973 to 1999): http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=87291 08 Here's Pensacola FL (1923 to 1999): http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=87298 40 There's a real long history for your area, San Diego (1906 to 1999): http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=94101 70 Paul Hutch > > If the ocean level rises in one part of the world, doesn't it pretty much > have to rise all over, given some time for the water to move to the lowest > point? > > If the ice was, in fact, melting on average over the world, would > we not see > a trend by now? > > Or is it that the oceans are so deep and broad that the water will not > visibly rise until a much larger quantity of ice has melted? > > -- > James. -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist