Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 35
THE RECORD
OCR for page 36
40
- ''-~¢
-(- 4~
fat ~ ~
:::
FIGURE 1.1 Location of primary (~) and secondary (x' stations
versus estimates of vertical crustal motion for the period 1000 to
ESTIMATES OF RELATIVE SEA-LEVEL CHANGE:
KEY STATION APPROACH
Methods
One approach to estimating change in global RSL is to
analyze data from key stations, arguing that changes at
these stations are representative of changes in RSL in
large (1000+ km) regions surrounding the stations. Ex-
amples of such analyses are found in Table 1.1 (e.g.,
Fairbridge and Krebs, 1962; Barnett, 1983a). The latter
work is summarized here.
The use of the key station approach imposes the follow-
ing series of constraints on the data to be analyzed.
1. High-quality, continuous measurement that reveals
no sudden shifts suggestive of station movements should
be used. The records should be as long as possible.
2. Station locations should be away from areas of
strong tectonic movement (e.g., separated from areas of
major deposition/uplift).
3. Stations should be unaffected by spurious physical
TIM P. BARNETT
-
-_ ~_-~_
12 ~_
TO -2; ~ ~
~~
_~1
~ ~-
1000-2000 yr BP
`~;]
J.~'\-\\
WAX ~ ) 1
I'
/ _
2000 yrBP. Contours are in millimeters per year. After Newman
et al. (1980).
processes (e.g., gauge exposed to strong freshwater inva-
sions).
4. The spatial density of stations by oceans should be
proportional to the relative areas of the respective oceans,
e.g., 2.4/1.5/1.0, for the Pacific/Atlantic/Indian (cf. Sverdrup
et al., 1942~. The stations should be synchronous in time.
Such a distribution will allow equal weight to be given to
all oceans and years in the subsequent analysis, thereby
avoiding biasing problems.
5. Finally, the selected stations must represent large
. . .
geographic regions.
The locations of a set of stations that generally satisfy
these criteria are shown in Figure 1.1 and are listed in
Table 1.2.
A method of inferring, quantitatively, the existence of a
signal that is coherent over all portions of a data field
using empirical orthogonal function (EOF) analysis (cf.
Backus and Preisendorfer, 1978; Barnett, 1978) was ap-
plied to the primary key station set and to the secondary
station set to check sensitivity of the results to data pertur-
bations. The sea-level data at position i are represented by
Representative terms from entire chapter:
station set
