On 10/02/2014 08:28, N_Cook wrote:

snipped

Sorry, I might have a degree in Civil Engineering, and a diploma in
Topographic Surveying, but your link to GJI_ODN_slope is just a little
bit beyond me! I get the gist of it, but that is about as far as it goes.

Unfortunately our local library isn't up to much. I've been down there
before to look at old OS maps of the neighbourhood, and they have
nothing prior to the 1950's. And the local council archives are much the
same. It's almost as if the authorities around here deny the fact that
the county is more than 50 years old!!! Up in the loft somewhere I have
a set of 1950's OS maps for Northamptonshire, but nothing earlier.

Your Southampton Graffiti page missed one! From 1966, my university
days, on the inside of a cubicle door in a public loo:
HERE I SIT BROKEN HEARTED
PAID A PENNY AND ONLY FARTED

jim, Northampton

On 11/02/2014 00:51, jbm wrote:
On 10/02/2014 08:28, N_Cook wrote:

snipped

Sorry, I might have a degree in Civil Engineering, and a diploma in
Topographic Surveying, but your link to GJI_ODN_slope is just a little
bit beyond me! I get the gist of it, but that is about as far as it goes.

Unfortunately our local library isn't up to much. I've been down there
before to look at old OS maps of the neighbourhood, and they have
nothing prior to the 1950's. And the local council archives are much the
same. It's almost as if the authorities around here deny the fact that
the county is more than 50 years old!!! Up in the loft somewhere I have
a set of 1950's OS maps for Northamptonshire, but nothing earlier.

Your Southampton Graffiti page missed one! From 1966, my university
days, on the inside of a cubicle door in a public loo:
HERE I SIT BROKEN HEARTED
PAID A PENNY AND ONLY FARTED

jim, Northampton


It tends to be only County Archives/Record Offices that have a set of
these old large scale OS maps. I don't get around the country weekdays
when they are open. Will look in Winchester RO , the next time I visit
for some North Hampshire ones as well as the Southahampton ones I will
hopefully look at later this week, to see if there is a county-wide
variation as well as the immediate point of interest, Soton

On 10/02/2014 08:28, N_Cook wrote:
On 09/02/2014 23:13, jbm wrote:
It has been widely publicised that England is sinking whilst Scotland is
rising. Has anyone done a recent study to ensure that this effect hasn't
accelerated, adding to the problems being experienced in Somerset and
the rest of the south of England? I can't find anything official on this
later than 2009.

jim

I've come across the same problem in the last couple of months.
The research I've done that is on the www so far is unfortunately on my
local trivia file
http://www.divdev.fsnet.co.uk/graff.htm
relating to the vectis Tavern , Cowes, IoW and the wrong official
information , so far available, relating to local flooding of 1924.
see about 2/3 down this .gov file , referring to 1924
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environm...tish-ports.pdf

(no wonder the AGW brigade get so hot under the collar when there is
such errors [ deliberate? ] stated as fact in the official literature )
Officially is was the same degree of inundation as 1999 but from
archived 1924 newspaper reports for the Solent area it was obviously at
least 0.4m higher.
The official "record" has converted feet and inches and the change of
datum , all quite correctly but have ignored the probable error the
datum in play in 1924 was still from the First Geodetic Levelling of the
mid Victorian era . Other research terms are
1936 OSGB 36 system and the previous Airy 1830 survey system

It looks as though the error got in because the First Geodetic Levelling
was based on Liverpool and the Second and later on Newlyn and surveying
errors or something
I've not read all this , but page 16
http://www.cage.curtin.edu.au/~will/GJI_ODN_slope.pdf
at most Liverpool higher than Newlyn by an "error" of 0.15m. Could the
error/uplift have been factored in twice, once by the sea Liverpool to
Newlyn error and once by the L to N land error?
The OS went to the trouble of removing the original height references on
all their FBM including number 7435, outside what was the London Rd OS
HQ, now Southampton County Courts.
Hopefully the Soton archives would have maps with the FBM decimal feet
heights on the earliest OS maps and so the FGL and SGL heights.

www I can only find one , unofficial, such FBM height references for
those times, for one FBM in N Ireland, and local datum based on Belfast
( Donaghadee Lighthouse J5980 )
and a height difference for the 2 levellings of -2.71m converted from
feet , earlier height higher.

The 1924 Southampton 5.6m (6.0m) flood anamoly requires the 1924
reference to be based on a datum that was higher than post 1930 datum.
But, so far, in the range -0.15m to -2.71m is a very large ballpark .
I also find it suspicious that all www references, that I've seen, to
trigpoints show the second and third levelling heights results in the
1900s to be all the same value to the third decimal place, as a
scientist I just cannot believe that is possible. Even with GPS and all
the behind the scenes Einstein relativistic corrections, g-variation etc
cannot get that close over decades.

***************
If it was possible for you (jbm) to do the same where ever you are, not
necessarily near the sea) I would be very interested in hearing what you
find as I am in contact with 3 academics who have come at this historic
mis-perception, about the severity of storms historically being worse
now than earlier (making allowance for the great English Channel storm
and the Bristol Channel tsunami/great flood event), they have come at it
from a different direction, but same conclusion.
Go to a local archive where they have series 1 , c186O OS 25 inch scale
maps or pre- 1900 maps with a fundamental benchmark and decimal feet
height and compare it with a later high resolution c1930s map with the
same benchmark.


I dropped in Southampton Archives and the "Fundamental " Fundamental
Bench Mark
From 1868 Series 1 252 scale map, only to 1 decimal place placed on
maps, height of bench mark then 75.6 ft
Later height on the brass plaque screwed over the original bench mark
74.35 ft (no one has tried unscrewing these screws, perhaps because of
the notice saying damage to this is a criminal offence)
Then the Pugh Liverpool - Newlyn height difference of about .15m
gives the error picked up in newspaper reports as between
0.516 and 0.546m .
Get a better value for the Pugh correction and 0.4m looks an easily
verifiable mistatement in the flooding records for Southampton , at least.
0.52m as it stands is not impossible from interpreting the newspapers.
I find it very disturbing that this error in the record is not stated
anywhere that I've found. I can only assume the same error applies to
other ports around the UK as it is independent of Southampton using
their own local PLWD datum, as that is stated in the contemporaneous
record as being 7.48 ft below the then Newlyn datum.

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
...

"The Science Delusion":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

Thanks for that link. Very interesting even if it is OT.

Cheers, Alastair.

Misread the Penna (not Pugh) pdf p16 and Newlyn-Liverpool correction
only 0.02m plus the FGL to SGL correction then the historic level
translation for Southampton tide data is +0.42m +/-0.02m . That is until
we experiment to find the level of seawater that will float Edwardian
domestic furniture (probably reserve that for an event in the next local
flooding public-awareness day ).

"Alastair McDonald" wrote in message ...

"The Science Delusion":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

Thanks for that link. Very interesting even if it is OT.
==========================================

You do wonder though how many scientists he might have really talked to in
developing his ideas. There are not many scientists of my acquaintance,
especially the more able ones, that would go along with half of what is
claimed to make up the 'scientific world view'. It comes across more as an
academic philosopher's ideas of what he imagines science is like rather than
the reality of what most thinking scientists actually believe.

JGD

On 10/02/2014 22:07, Weatherlawyer wrote:


TED Curator Chris Anderson opened Pandora's Box -- further details below -- when he authorised the removal of talks by myself and Rupert Sheldrake from the TEDx Youtube channel. Rupert's talk was entitled "The Science Delusion"
http://realitysandwich.com/171950/sc...d_controversy/

"The Science Delusion":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg




Because you and Sheldrake, talk pseudoscience bunkum.

Sheldrake beleives in something called,"Morphic resonance" yet there's
no proof it exists. http://www.skepdic.com/morphicres.html

From Skeptics dictionary:
"However, his continued pose as a scientist on the frontier of discovery
is unwarranted. He is one of a growing horde of "alternative" scientists
whose resentment at the aspiritual nature of modern scientific
paradigms, as well as the obviously harmful and seemingly indifferent
applications of modern science, have led them to seek their own
paradigms in ancient and long-abandoned concepts. These paradigms are
not new, though the terminology is. These alternative paradigms allow
for angels, telepathy, psychic dogs and parrots, alternative realities,
and hope for a future world where we all live in harmony and love,
surrounded by blissful neighbors who never heard of biological warfare,
nuclear bombs, or genetically engineered corn on the cob."


The next thing for you WL is to believe in David Icke and his shape
shifting lizards that control humanity.

"General" wrote in message
...
"Alastair McDonald" wrote in message ...

"The Science Delusion":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

Thanks for that link. Very interesting even if it is OT.
==========================================

You do wonder though how many scientists he might have really talked to in
developing his ideas. There are not many scientists of my acquaintance,
especially the more able ones, that would go along with half of what is
claimed to make up the 'scientific world view'. It comes across more as an
academic philosopher's ideas of what he imagines science is like rather
than the reality of what most thinking scientists actually believe.

JGD


Which of his ten dogmas do you dispute? They all seem fairly sensible to me.
It his claiming that they are wrong which I find absurb.

Cheers, Alastair.

"Alastair McDonald" wrote in message ...

Which of his ten dogmas do you dispute? They all seem fairly sensible to me.
It his claiming that they are wrong which I find absurb.
============================================

Well then, perhaps it's time to start thinking for yourself!

As to an itemised critique of the dogmas, I really don't have a couple of
hours right now to run through the list in detail and create a complete
personal assessment. But some I agree with certainly, like the nonsense of
naturopathy. Others are totally blinkered like the idea that consciousness
is only allowed to be explained on a purely materialistic basis. And I'm not
sure that some even reflect populist science nowadays. Someone more
knowledgeable will probably correct me here, but isn't at least one strand
of modern cosmological thinking based around the idea that certain constants
haven't always been constant, eg isn't it hypothesised that Big G did vary
in the early universe and so provides one possible explanation of (cosmic)
inflation?