File talk:Recent Sea Level Rise.png
Inconsequent edit
Just at the first sight, Auckland, Wellington, Dunedin, Lyttelton, Balboa, Cristobal, Honolulu, San Diego, La Jolla, San Francisco, Santa Monica and Tenerife are sited in very well known active earthquake zones with well known volcanic movement, too. Rated by rule No2 ("Not be located at collisional plate boundaries") all that gauges should have been omitted.
Many sites are just a few kilometers apart: Auckland+Wellington+Dunedin+Lyttelton in New Zealand, San Diego+San Francisco+Santa Monica+La Jolla next the Andreas Gap in California, Balboa+Cristobal in Panama 60km apart, Fernandina+Key West+Pensacola in Florida, Marseille+Genova+Trieste in Italy and France, Newlyn+Brest just 200km apart and Buenos Aires+Quequen at the Rio del la Plata. Perhaps it was the idea to average the data of nearby gauges, but then we must consider that we still have just collected data from tectonically suspicious zones in California, New Zealand and Northern Mediterranian, some data colletions from Argentina, Western Channel, Florida, Panama all to be rated and weighted as just one gauge site each, and some few single data columns from Tenerife, Honolulu, Cascais and Lagos.
There are no data in account from Skandinavia, Canada, Alaska, nothing from any Asia, Arctica and Antarctica, nothing from the Indian Ocean and just Lagos for whole Africa. No gauge from Australia, the most stable continent nearly without any tectonical activities.
On the other hand, in private I think, a more widely spread gauge selection would not result in a very different conclusion: in average the global mean sea level rises 2mm per year liniarly. But a more globally spread gauge selection and an explicite explanation why so many gauges were taken from tectonocally activ zones in California and New Zealand would make such a survey more credible scientifically.--46.115.74.232 (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
