Yes. I have been a tide watcher for many years as it affects the measured depth of drill pipe in the well at any one time on a floating drilling vessel. Knowing local tides is paramount to the offshore oil industry and I have used the Isle of Wight / Southampton as a wacky example of such when training our new boys and girls....Originally Posted by deeen
What reference would you use if you weren't using Mean Sea Level? Lowest Astronomical Tide?
The difficulty is what you measure against? E.g. if the mean sea level "rises" 1 metre in Manila Bay, is that because the sea rose 1m, or the land sank 1m?
I believe modern satellite tecnology can answer that question, the rise in sea levels of 3mm p.a. is measured from satelite I believe, so presumably they can also measure if Manila is sinking, and how much?
Historically this was done by comparing data around a land mass I think, so for example if we noticed over 100 years the sea level at Dover appeared to rise and the sea level at John o'Groates (?) appeared to fall, we would say the UK was tilting so the South was sinking. In other words (oversimplification) the sea level was steady but the land moved.
Nice to hear your perspective. Thanks. I did wonder about the satellite technology.
It is possible to distinguish between a rise in sea level and a sinking landmass. Not very difficult. You just described a sinking (and rising) landmass. With a rise (or fall) in sea level the changes relative to the landmass are evenly distributed laterally, if you see what I mean. I believe the report suggested both were happening in Manila and district simultaneously? " The land level of Metro Manila where there are 10 million residents, has been sinking while its sea level has been rising at a fast pace, an expert said" Thereby compounding the problem.
Manila is sinking, as opposed to sea level rising, at least thats what the article says. There is a difference though it might not seem like that. (Can have a similar effect of course). But Manila is also low laying so if it sinks at the rate quoted then snorkel and flippers will be the order of the day.
For me, if it were true, and their scientists would know as it is perfectly possible to measure, then their ought to be a vast change in direction in the city planning....if there was ever any city planning in the first place. I hope Mr Ayala is careful where he builds next....http://business.inquirer.net/76909/p...iness-district
"The entire Metro Manila is sinking by several centimetres per year, estimated as one metre in four years, said Siringan, adding that in northern suburban Malabon, a fishing area compared to Venice, has been sinking by 10 centimetres a year."
Northern suburban Malabon has been sinking at 10 cm a year. However 1 meter in 4 years (3.281 feet to the metre) is some going.
snip...
Yup well trying to avoid the religion of global warming, to avoid derailing the thread.
The "expert" said 4 x 10 = 100, kind of twitched my antennae
Then said sea levels rising at "almost 1cm a year", no, 3mm
Also trying to attach sea levels to a rainfall event
Just seems like an attempt to alarm and confuse
In my opinion, they need to determine the exact movement (sinking) in landmass
Add 30 cm for the sea level rise in 100 years
Allow for at least 10 years worst rainfall (the recent event, being nothing to do with sea levels)
Allow for 10 year worst storm surge (10 year high tide, 10 year low atmospheric pressure, etc)
Then there is a rational basis for making decisions.
Actually I believe a committee tried this in the past, but the results were not followed through 100%.
Hehe. Funny how you call it a religion. Good analogy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
