File talk:Post-Glacial Sea Level.png

It's clear looking at the this graph that the Tahiti figures are distorting the picture and generally representing something different to the rest of the data - the variance is just too high, and they change by 12-14m sometimes within less than a 50 years or so.

At a minimum, I think it would be more useful to show how the graph would look without these measurements, otherwise I think this is a misrepresentation.

And I do wonder how we'll save Tahiti if their sea level does often rise and fall by 12-14m in 50 years? If that is natures normal rhythm, then I think many of us may be in trouble.

I guess it is still possible to include these measurements if you use an appropriate method to reduce the significance of their variations, given their obviously huge variance in the normal course of things.

definitions
Could the author please define explicitly the items in the legend? What are they? Thanks. Rtdrury (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Raw data
Where can I find the raw data that was used to produce the graph? Thanks. Joseph449008 (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

updating with newer Barbados data?
Hello, thanks for the great image. Maybe there is some benefit to updating your image with a newer iteration of the Barbados data? This version of the image seems to use Fleming 1998 and 2000, which I think rely on the early 90s publications of the Barbados data from Fairbanks 1989

However, you can get datatables of refined/updated/increased Barbados corals, and uplift corrected measurements of Barbados, from this paper also by Fairbanks:

''Peltier, W.R., Fairbanks, R.G., 2006. Global glacial ice volume and Last Glacial Maximum duration from an extended Barbados sea level record. Quaternary Science Reviews, Critical Quaternary Stratigraphy 25, 3322–3337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2006.04.010''

Who knows, maybe they have even updated it again since the paper I listed. 131.114.9.81 (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)