Remember me
▼ Content

2016 set to be hottest year on record



Page 1 of 4123>>>
2016 set to be hottest year on record21-07-2016 19:37
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/21/2016-worlds-hottest-year-on-record-un-wmo#comments

More confirmation that this is to be the hottest year recorded, can we put all the "no warming since 1998" memes to bed now?
21-07-2016 21:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
spot wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/21/2016-worlds-hottest-year-on-record-un-wmo#comments

More confirmation that this is to be the hottest year recorded, can we put all the "no warming since 1998" memes to bed now?


No. Censorship doesn't work, and neither does the use of fabricated data.


The Parrot Killer
21-07-2016 22:58
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
Who said anything about censorship? You can say whatever the damm fool thing that comes into your head nobody is stopping you. The article I linked references NOAA, any evidence of them fabricating data that will stand up to anything resembling scrutiny? thought not.
22-07-2016 06:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
spot wrote:
Who said anything about censorship?
You did.
spot wrote:
You can say whatever the damm fool thing that comes into your head nobody is stopping you.
Weren't you the one hoping we could 'put it to bed now'?
spot wrote:
The article I linked references NOAA, any evidence of them fabricating data that will stand up to anything resembling scrutiny?
Yes. Their own stations don't agree with the master website, and it is not possible to measure anything like a global temperature.
spot wrote:
thought not.

Assuming you've won again?


The Parrot Killer
22-07-2016 10:21
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/21/2016-worlds-hottest-year-on-record-un-wmo#comments

More confirmation that this is to be the hottest year recorded, can we put all the "no warming since 1998" memes to bed now?


What speed is that warming at since 1998?

If it carries on at the too low to actually see because of the range of error in the data collection when do you think it is likely to become a problem?
23-07-2016 15:25
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
I would understand censorship as stopping what you want to say rather than just pointing out that what you say is silly. as for your claim NOAAs own stations don't agree with the master website you are aware that NOAA is not the only agency that produces a temperature record and you will forgive me if I don't just take the word of someone who has proved themselves to be a lying imbecile in interactions I have had with him the past.

Tim the plumber If you want to know the "speed of warming" (I think it would be correct to call it the "rate of warming".) why don't you look it up?
23-07-2016 21:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
spot wrote:
I would understand censorship as stopping what you want to say rather than just pointing out that what you say is silly.
Can't paint your way out the corner, dude. You want to stop what I say.
spot wrote:
as for your claim NOAAs own stations don't agree with the master website you are aware that NOAA is not the only agency that produces a temperature record and you will forgive me if I don't just take the word of someone who has proved themselves to be a lying imbecile in interactions I have had with him the past.

You have just show you have no idea what a 'proof' is. You also have no idea what a false equivalence is, apparently.
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber If you want to know the "speed of warming" (I think it would be correct to call it the "rate of warming".) why don't you look it up?

Does 'looking it up' automatically make it true or Holy in some way?

There is no way to measure anything like a global temperature. Statistics says so.


The Parrot Killer
23-07-2016 22:38
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
I think we would be better off if the moderators enforced their own rules and you were sent back to topix yes. but that's not censorship that is talkboard moderation you would be free to start your own thermodynamics debate forum if that's what you wanted to do all day no legal penalties would be enforced.

I know what proof is thanks.

No looking something up does not make it holy it's just that asking a question when you can easily find the information yourself is lazy.
24-07-2016 11:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
spot wrote:
I think we would be better off if the moderators enforced their own rules and you were sent back to topix yes. but that's not censorship that is talkboard moderation you would be free to start your own thermodynamics debate forum if that's what you wanted to do all day no legal penalties would be enforced.

I know what proof is thanks.

No looking something up does not make it holy it's just that asking a question when you can easily find the information yourself is lazy.

No, it's censorship. You want someone to cut off any opinion not your own and call that 'moderating' the forum. Doesn't work that way, dude.

You do not know what a proof is.

YOU are the one who attempts to use a reference as your argument. YOU are the one that tries to sanctify an argument from a reference. You've even gone so far as to manufacture a 'reference'!


The Parrot Killer
24-07-2016 15:25
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
Manufacture a reference? what when I went back in time and got John Tyndall to write things that contradicted you?
24-07-2016 19:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
spot wrote:
Manufacture a reference? what when I went back in time and got John Tyndall to write things that contradicted you?


I am not going to waste everyone's time to go over piece by piece with you. You are not worth it.

Anyone who wants to bother researching my claim can do so for themselves.


The Parrot Killer
24-07-2016 23:32
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Sounds like Into the Night just wants people to believe what he says rather than understand why it's accurate.

Makes his signature quite ironic, I think.
25-07-2016 14:21
tracy18
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
According to this link http://www.ecowatch.com/3-things-you-should-know-about-the-hottest-year-ever-recorded-1882167279.html15 of the 16 hottest years have been recorded post 2000. If this is true, then global warming threats are true. And for those who wish to live in denial, here is a long list of global warming essays to read and understand how dangerous it is: http://123helpme.com/search.asp?text=global+warming&sort=rating&mode=TEXT
26-07-2016 02:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
tracy18 wrote:
According to this link http://www.ecowatch.com/3-things-you-should-know-about-the-hottest-year-ever-recorded-1882167279.html15 of the 16 hottest years have been recorded post 2000. If this is true, then global warming threats are true. And for those who wish to live in denial, here is a long list of global warming essays to read and understand how dangerous it is: http://123helpme.com/search.asp?text=global+warming&sort=rating&mode=TEXT


It is not possible to measure a global temperature. The data you are quoting is manufactured.


The Parrot Killer
26-07-2016 10:22
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Into the Night wrote:It is not possible to measure a global temperature. The data you are quoting is manufactured.


Well it is but it should be regarded as accurate in a very general sense and as a guide with an easy error range of 2c at best.

The accuracy of past data is further away from this and cannot be easily compared.
26-07-2016 11:57
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
We can only hope you two have a point, however I don't know of any credible evidence to support your views. I suppose NOAA did fake the moon landings so they might as well fake temperature records as well.
26-07-2016 15:18
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
We can only hope you two have a point, however I don't know of any credible evidence to support your views. I suppose NOAA did fake the moon landings so they might as well fake temperature records as well.


1, I think you mean NASA. And no the moon landings happened.

2, Collecting such data is very hard to do. The problems of old data are very great. For example I read of a study which compared the temperature readings got from a weather station with the same one with the old style paint as used before acrylics came out. 0.5c cooler in the old white washed one.

Mathamaticians love to consider bell shaped error ranges. This is utterly wrong in the real world.

If you are doing a process, say making bolts on a lathe, you will do most of the items right. There will be an error range around the point you are aiming for but this will be a slight variance around the point at which you have set your machine.

There will be the odd one which is way out. This is where you have done something wrong. Generally most of these will be wrong in the same way.

The two sets of results will not at all fit into a bell shape.

It's the same for data collection. There will be the deviation from the actual due to calibration issues. This will all be in the same direction but small (like the paint). And then there will be the occaisonal outlier. These will be of a kind. It might be due to the scientist's car being parked close and the shad cooling the box or it might be the exhaust warming it but it will happpen the same-ish when it does.

This means that any maths process based on normal distribution of errors is going to just make those errors camoflarged.
26-07-2016 16:47
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
Thanks for the history lesson but I know who put a man on the moon , perhaps I should have been more clear that I was being sarcastic.

Thanks also on the lesson about surface stations however I don't think operator error explains why sea ice is retreating ice caps are melting, coral Is bleaching ect , it points to a warming world which is what you would expect to see if you release millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

To use your bolts on a lathe analogy I think your like a machinist saying all the bolts coming off my lathe on my shift are rejected because every micrometer in the factory is out of spec. It might be the explanation you want to be true it's far from the most likely.
26-07-2016 16:56
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
The ice caps have stopped melting. The Southern ice cap only had a little melt on the peninsular which appears to be cooling back down and all the other tiny bits of ice loss from Antarctica have either been the occasional ice shelf calving off a big bit which has floated away to warmer waters or the result of volcanoes.

The Arctic has also stopped melting, regaining some of it's losses.

But, yes the world has warmed up a bit since 1970. And yes it would be expected that CO2 would do this. The questions as to what degree of effect CO2 has are complex but hey, I will go with the IPCC's numbers even though the temperauture of the world has not risen in line with their predictions.

Again the temperature data sets should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Edited on 26-07-2016 16:56
26-07-2016 17:23
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
I must admit I'm not an expert but I don't think your source is mainstream, the arctic has stopped melting?? Ice loss is due to volcanoes?? I do take some things with a pinch of salt. I suggest you do too.
26-07-2016 20:33
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
I must admit I'm not an expert but I don't think your source is mainstream, the arctic has stopped melting?? Ice loss is due to volcanoes?? I do take some things with a pinch of salt. I suggest you do too.


You could try this;

https://judithcurry.com/2016/05/22/another-antarctic-sea-level-rise-false-alarm/
26-07-2016 20:58
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Has Judith Curry published the claims in that blog post in a reputable scientific paper?
26-07-2016 21:16
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
ooh look a squirrel

I suppose the argument that Judith Curry is a mainstream source could lead to weeks of entertainment but the link you provided did not deal with what I was getting at.

Its a about the projected melt for one particular glacier where as I was wondering when did the ice stop melting ie melt that was happening now and why are volcanoes suddenly causing ice loss when they were there long before the industrial period. its not just glaciers at the poles it's alpine glaciers as well;

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/news/151021-glacier-national-park-melting-vin

Why is all this happening now? I don't think when NOAA says its warm you can dismiss it as a instrument error I know you know its not simple but the agencies that compile this data know this as well.
26-07-2016 23:02
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
Roland Garros was ruined by rain. Hottest year on record? My ass.
26-07-2016 23:32
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Nice non-sequitur there.
28-07-2016 07:26
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
ooh look a squirrel

I suppose the argument that Judith Curry is a mainstream source could lead to weeks of entertainment but the link you provided did not deal with what I was getting at.

Its a about the projected melt for one particular glacier where as I was wondering when did the ice stop melting ie melt that was happening now and why are volcanoes suddenly causing ice loss when they were there long before the industrial period. its not just glaciers at the poles it's alpine glaciers as well;

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/news/151021-glacier-national-park-melting-vin

Why is all this happening now? I don't think when NOAA says its warm you can dismiss it as a instrument error I know you know its not simple but the agencies that compile this data know this as well.


1, It is warmer now than in 1970.

2, This has caused the balance point of glaciers, the point at which they melt back as fast as they flow down, to reced up the mountain.

3, This is not at all significant in Antarctica where almost all of the glaciers are in conditions of exteme cold. They lose thier ice when chunks float off into the ocean.

4, Greenland's glaciers have retreated a bit but the central ice sheet is at high altitude and is very safe from melting because the temperature increase required to melt it would be of the order of 18c.

5, Alpine glaciers are utterly insignificant in terms of sea level rise. As is any other such ice outside Greenland, Antarctica, 2cm worth of ice in Iceland and a big glacier in Southern Alaska but that again is protected by being at high altitude.

6, Volcanoes do not errupt all the time. The ice melt in Antarctica is the result of temporary erruptions and nothing to do with global warming.

7, Professor Judith Curry is a good scientist. Something of a warmist even. Just not an alarmist.

Edited on 28-07-2016 07:29
28-07-2016 12:08
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
Tim the plumber wrote:


1, It is warmer now than in 1970.

2, This has caused the balance point of glaciers, the point at which they melt back as fast as they flow down, to reced up the mountain.

3, This is not at all significant in Antarctica where almost all of the glaciers are in conditions of exteme cold. They lose thier ice when chunks float off into the ocean.

4, Greenland's glaciers have retreated a bit but the central ice sheet is at high altitude and is very safe from melting because the temperature increase required to melt it would be of the order of 18c.

5, Alpine glaciers are utterly insignificant in terms of sea level rise. As is any other such ice outside Greenland, Antarctica, 2cm worth of ice in Iceland and a big glacier in Southern Alaska but that again is protected by being at high altitude.

6, Volcanoes do not errupt all the time. The ice melt in Antarctica is the result of temporary erruptions and nothing to do with global warming.

7, Professor Judith Curry is a good scientist. Something of a warmist even. Just not an alarmist.


1. I know its warmer then 1970, it is also warmer then 1998. in ten or so years Next time we have a strong El Niño it will be warmer then now. I was the one who made the original post so why are you telling me this? You were making a point that NOAA might be mistaken due to errors with the instruments that you seem to be implying your an expert on. I was making the point considering the other evidence of warming this is unlikely.

2. "Balance point of glaciers" this is not a term I am familiar with nor does it come up in google, I assume that you are such an expert on glaciers you know terms nobody else does.

3. How do you judge what is significant and what is not significant? why should we be reassured by your judgement?

4. Who said anything about the central ice sheets its more the fact that overall Greenland is losing more ice then its gaining and the implications of that that worry me.

5. I wasn't arguing about the significance of alpine glaciers I was using it to show evidence of warming if it was instrument error we would not be seeing this, I assume you concede my point.

6. So multiple ice-sheets that have formed over thousands of years some of which are thousands of miles from a volcano suddenly decide to break up due to volcanoes, am I being trolled?

7. Warmest, Alarmist, do you think it helps the discussion to stick labels on people like that?
28-07-2016 14:21
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:


1, It is warmer now than in 1970.

2, This has caused the balance point of glaciers, the point at which they melt back as fast as they flow down, to reced up the mountain.

3, This is not at all significant in Antarctica where almost all of the glaciers are in conditions of exteme cold. They lose thier ice when chunks float off into the ocean.

4, Greenland's glaciers have retreated a bit but the central ice sheet is at high altitude and is very safe from melting because the temperature increase required to melt it would be of the order of 18c.

5, Alpine glaciers are utterly insignificant in terms of sea level rise. As is any other such ice outside Greenland, Antarctica, 2cm worth of ice in Iceland and a big glacier in Southern Alaska but that again is protected by being at high altitude.

6, Volcanoes do not errupt all the time. The ice melt in Antarctica is the result of temporary erruptions and nothing to do with global warming.

7, Professor Judith Curry is a good scientist. Something of a warmist even. Just not an alarmist.


1. I know its warmer then 1970, it is also warmer then 1998. in ten or so years Next time we have a strong El Niño it will be warmer then now. I was the one who made the original post so why are you telling me this? You were making a point that NOAA might be mistaken due to errors with the instruments that you seem to be implying your an expert on. I was making the point considering the other evidence of warming this is unlikely.


http://woodfortrees.org/plot/wti

If you use this site you can plot any of the data sets. Which one shows any warming beyond a value that you think is more than the error range of the data?

2. "Balance point of glaciers" this is not a term I am familiar with nor does it come up in google, I assume that you are such an expert on glaciers you know terms nobody else does.


No. I can make up terms if I wish. I am sure you understood what I meant. In that way it was 100% sucessful.

3. How do you judge what is significant and what is not significant? why should we be reassured by your judgement?


The only place in Antarctica where there has been any melting of ice due to the climate warming a bit is the peninsular. The rest sees -20c as one of the warmest days of the summer. Global warming is not significant in the vastness of Antarctica.

4. Who said anything about the central ice sheets its more the fact that overall Greenland is losing more ice then its gaining and the implications of that that worry me.


Really. Why? What amount of sea level rise do you consider OK? Is 20mm going to cause trouble??

5. I wasn't arguing about the significance of alpine glaciers I was using it to show evidence of warming if it was instrument error we would not be seeing this, I assume you concede my point.


See 1. The glaciers take a long time to reach the new balance point where the melting is equal to the downflow of ice. Often they will never be stable but always in either retreat or advance.

6. So multiple ice-sheets that have formed over thousands of years some of which are thousands of miles from a volcano suddenly decide to break up due to volcanoes, am I being trolled?


No. Multile ice sheets have been around for a long time and losing their ice by it floating away now and then for a long time. Occaisionally the volcanoes some of them sit on errrupt. When this happens the ice above the volcanoe melts. It's not hard.

7. Warmest, Alarmist, do you think it helps the discussion to stick labels on people like that?


I'll remember that when I am called a denier then. I'll also remember it when you question if Professor Judith Curry is any good as a scientist.
30-07-2016 14:48
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
1) Yes thats a good site it uses different data sets you can also get this;http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2020
which shows a different picture, why?

2) I worked out what you were trying to say however if you use the correct terminology it saves time and you personal credibility seems important to you, using the incorrect terminology detracts from that.

3) Your wrong, try using ten seconds on google or are you to lazy to do that? Pine island glacier for a start.

4) Is 20mm sea level rise not going to cause trouble? and what about another 20mm on top of that? would that cause trouble?

5) I don't really understand where you going with that quote it doesn't seem to make any sense.

6) A bloody volcano erupting would be bloody obvious, the scientists who study these things disagree with you what's more they present evidence.

7) If you post something relevant by Professor Judith Curry we can discuss her work.
30-07-2016 17:05
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
1) Yes thats a good site it uses different data sets you can also get this;http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2020
which shows a different picture, why?


Mostly because you have used the wrong starting point to discuss the temperature from 1998. You have moved the start 18 years earlier. Is this a mystake or a lie?

The lower troposhpere graph (I think that's the one you have trawled through to get one which has any rise) does show a bit of a rise. But it you have 20 data sets and all of them are bouncing around zero change one is bound to look like a rising graph. How much of a trend do you think it shows over the last 17 years?


2) I worked out what you were trying to say however if you use the correct terminology it saves time and you personal credibility seems important to you, using the incorrect terminology detracts from that.

3) Your wrong, try using ten seconds on google or are you to lazy to do that? Pine island glacier for a start.


Can you show something that actually show melting in situe rather than some of it floating off???

4) Is 20mm sea level rise not going to cause trouble? and what about another 20mm on top of that? would that cause trouble?


Nope. 40mm will not be noticable. 200mm just about. 500mm would be noticable and would require slight responce in the way of some additional sea defences.

What are your thoughts on that sort of scale?
30-07-2016 20:57
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
Don't we live in the lower troposphere? If you have 1998 and the present in a graph of where we inhabit it shows warming. because now is warmer then 1998. 1998 was a record at the time, sometime after that there was an internet meme that there was no warming since 1998 popular with dilettantes who don't want global warming to be true and think it's a political issue rather then a scientific issue with political implications of course over a short period of time you won't have year on year increases however now we have had a new record so when people say "no warming since 1998" they look stupid to people who actually follow the issue. they will say no warming since 2016 in a few years though.

Ice shelves break up and form icebergs, this now happening faster then the ice shelves are forming, this shows an unstable system. The reason the reason is simply put more heat in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel usage, I don't think any serious scientist would dispute that. and that is what the lower troposphere records show and that is why I introduced it as an example.

What training have you had in hydrology? you're making some confident assertions on what will and will not be noticeable I think any increase in sea levels will have an effect in areas where the sea already is having effects in extreme conditions. If your so confident I suggest you buy low lying property as you might be able to get good deals soon when people start to think that the properties will be gone by the time you can pay off the mortgage according to mainstream science, but you have superior knowledge obviously.
03-08-2016 23:02
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Are you aware that Antarctica is currently gaining ice mass?

When I say noticable I am talking of normal human walking on the coast perception. The instrumentation to measure sea levels to the tenths of mm I exclude. I also don't think that it is at all possible to define sea level to the mm.

What areas do you think are experiencing trouble due to rising sea levels now? I want to hear of the cause of the trouble being a general sea level rise due to global warming not local subsidance of land obviously as the second would be clearly nothing to do with CO2 etc. You will have to contend with the issue that the oceans have not as yet risen. Good luck.

Edited on 03-08-2016 23:03
04-08-2016 16:43
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Are you aware that Antarctica is currently gaining ice mass?


Yeah, and...?

Greenland and the Arctic are both losing ice mass at rates large enough to more than cancel out Antarctica's gain.

When I say noticable I am talking of normal human walking on the coast perception. The instrumentation to measure sea levels to the tenths of mm I exclude.


So, basically, you want eye-witness accounts as opposed to sophisticated readings?

I also don't think that it is at all possible to define sea level to the mm.


Whether or not you can, that's not what's going on here. They're measuring sea level rise by the millimetre.

What areas do you think are experiencing trouble due to rising sea levels now?


Alaska, for one. Many of the Oceanic islands are also suffering severe physical and economic damage currently due to coastal erosion from rising sea levels. Kiribati and Tuvalu, particularly.

I want to hear of the cause of the trouble being a general sea level rise due to global warming not local subsidance of land obviously as the second would be clearly nothing to do with CO2 etc.


So, basically, you want the crazy idea of everywhere being equally effected by rising sea levels?

If not, please clarify on exactly what you are expecting.

You will have to contend with the issue that the oceans have not as yet risen.


Based on your completely unscientific evidential requirements, it's not surprising you think so...
Edited on 04-08-2016 16:44
04-08-2016 20:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Leafsdude wrote:
When I say noticable I am talking of normal human walking on the coast perception. The instrumentation to measure sea levels to the tenths of mm I exclude.


So, basically, you want eye-witness accounts as opposed to sophisticated readings?

I also don't think that it is at all possible to define sea level to the mm.


Whether or not you can, that's not what's going on here. They're measuring sea level rise by the millimetre.


It is not possible to measure sea level to anything more accurate than a couple of feet. We do not have the instrumentation for it.

All instrumentation requires a reference. The two systems to measure sea level depend on that reference as a zero point.

The first system is coastal tidal stations. These measure the tides that take place each day. The instrument consists of a concrete well with openings to allow seawater to enter (and leave). The design of this instrument minimizes wave action on the measurement.

The reference for this instrument is the land it is sitting on. Unfortunately for the instrument, continents shift and move every day. Currently, the North American plate is tilting slightly to the south, leaving our southern shores slightly lower and our northern shores slightly higher. This can be seen in the tidal station records over time, even though there are many more stations along the southern coast.

When averaged together, the effect produces an erroneous result of a 'higher' ocean reading. This is the problem with statistical math. It summarizes the data, compressing it into a few numbers. This compression is destructive, and can mask important data points.

The other instrument is a satellite system. To measure sea level, the satellite must know its own altitude to great accuracy. This isn't easy when orbiting a spheroid Earth (she's fat in the middle, you know) and varying densities of mass (producing changing orbital velocities) that are caused by the presence of mountain ranges, seas, valleys, etc.

To get a reasonably accurate idea of its own orbit, the satellite references to a ground station in Colorado as it passes. Using the speed of light between the two and accounting for doppler effect, a pretty accurate relative position to the ground stations is possible. The trouble with this system is the doppler may vary slightly (again due to change in orbital velocities), and the ground reference point is again sitting on a moving continent.

The reference for the ground station altitude is sea level, which is the thing you are trying to measure!

The satellite was never designed to measure absolute sea level. It was designed to measure differences in sea level depending on location due to storm and pressure changes, water temperature, etc. It is designed to measure sea level relative to sea level somewhere else at the time. Since the satellite can measure these intervals in a short space of time, the information is useful. It is not, however, good at measuring absolute sea level.

Any time someone is claiming millimeter changes in sea level, they are making shit up.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 04-08-2016 20:42
04-08-2016 20:52
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
Tim if you are indeed correct about what does it prove? I looked into this and I don't think it shows what you think it shows. And I have to admit I find it odd that you seem to have rock solid certainty in the statement; "Antarctica is currently gaining ice mass.". Yet findings on global temperatures and sea levels reported by the same agencies should be viewed with suspicion if not rejected outright according to you. Why apply different standards to different yet similar data?

I also find it odd that you think that we should believe anything you say after making daft statements about volcanoes, or do you think we forgot that?
04-08-2016 20:58
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
Into the Night wrote:


It is not possible to measure sea level to anything more accurate than a couple of feet. We do not have the instrumentation for it.

All instrumentation requires a reference. The two systems to measure sea level depend on that reference as a zero point.

The first system is coastal tidal stations. These measure the tides that take place each day. The instrument consists of a concrete well with openings to allow seawater to enter (and leave). The design of this instrument minimizes wave action on the measurement.

The reference for this instrument is the land it is sitting on. Unfortunately for the instrument, continents shift and move every day. Currently, the North American plate is tilting slightly to the south, leaving our southern shores slightly lower and our northern shores slightly higher. This can be seen in the tidal station records over time, even though there are many more stations along the southern coast.

When averaged together, the effect produces an erroneous result of a 'higher' ocean reading. This is the problem with statistical math. It summarizes the data, compressing it into a few numbers. This compression is destructive, and can mask important data points.

The other instrument is a satellite system. To measure sea level, the satellite must know its own altitude to great accuracy. This isn't easy when orbiting a spheroid Earth (she's fat in the middle, you know) and varying densities of mass (producing changing orbital velocities) that are caused by the presence of mountain ranges, seas, valleys, etc.

To get a reasonably accurate idea of its own orbit, the satellite references to a ground station in Colorado as it passes. Using the speed of light between the two and accounting for doppler effect, a pretty accurate relative position to the ground stations is possible. The trouble with this system is the doppler may vary slightly (again due to change in orbital velocities), and the ground reference point is again sitting on a moving continent.

The reference for the ground station altitude is sea level, which is the thing you are trying to measure!

The satellite was never designed to measure absolute sea level. It was designed to measure differences in sea level depending on location due to storm and pressure changes, water temperature, etc. It is designed to measure sea level relative to sea level somewhere else at the time. Since the satellite can measure these intervals in a short space of time, the information is useful. It is not, however, good at measuring absolute sea level.

Any time someone is claiming millimeter changes in sea level, they are making shit up.


No........

Where have you been anyway I thought you were dead, or appointed Donald Trump's science adviser. Trolling people on topix got boring? we have a better class on here.
04-08-2016 21:52
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
It is not possible to measure sea level to anything more accurate than a couple of feet. We do not have the instrumentation for it.


Of course we do. Satellite measuring equipment is accurate to about half a cm (about 0.016 feet or 0.2 inches). Tidal gauges are even more accurate, but much less global (based on Wikipedia, there's only 3 major systems in the world: Australia, the US and the Netherlands).

All instrumentation requires a reference. The two systems to measure sea level depend on that reference as a zero point.

The first system is coastal tidal stations. These measure the tides that take place each day. The instrument consists of a concrete well with openings to allow seawater to enter (and leave). The design of this instrument minimizes wave action on the measurement.

The reference for this instrument is the land it is sitting on. Unfortunately for the instrument, continents shift and move every day. Currently, the North American plate is tilting slightly to the south, leaving our southern shores slightly lower and our northern shores slightly higher. This can be seen in the tidal station records over time, even though there are many more stations along the southern coast.


All true.

When averaged together, the effect produces an erroneous result of a 'higher' ocean reading.


Actually, averaging ocean levels based on raw gauge readings results in a lower reading, not a higher one. When all the above (continental raising and lowering, etc) are factored in (eg: controlled for), that's when the reading shows a "higher" ocean.

Interesting how you managed to get that bass ackwards.

The other instrument is a satellite system. To measure sea level, the satellite must know its own altitude to great accuracy. This isn't easy when orbiting a spheroid Earth (she's fat in the middle, you know) and varying densities of mass (producing changing orbital velocities) that are caused by the presence of mountain ranges, seas, valleys, etc.

To get a reasonably accurate idea of its own orbit, the satellite references to a ground station in Colorado as it passes. Using the speed of light between the two and accounting for doppler effect, a pretty accurate relative position to the ground stations is possible. The trouble with this system is the doppler may vary slightly (again due to change in orbital velocities), and the ground reference point is again sitting on a moving continent.


True. But again, all of this is known and controlled for when reading, thereby making the reading reasonable accurate.

The reference for the ground station altitude is sea level, which is the thing you are trying to measure!


"Sea level" is an ISA standard, not a literal measurement based on current sea levels. *facepalm*

Any time someone is claiming millimeter changes in sea level, they are making shit up.


Any time someone mistakes "sea level" as based on actual sea level, you know they're ignorant.


I'm looking forward to your reply to my last post in the Global Warming thread located on the Explanations forum, by the way. Should be more fun seeing the length you'll go to from keep admitting anything you have said is wrong.

Edited on 04-08-2016 21:56
04-08-2016 22:38
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
Tim if you are indeed correct about what does it prove? I looked into this and I don't think it shows what you think it shows. And I have to admit I find it odd that you seem to have rock solid certainty in the statement; "Antarctica is currently gaining ice mass.". Yet findings on global temperatures and sea levels reported by the same agencies should be viewed with suspicion if not rejected outright according to you. Why apply different standards to different yet similar data?

I also find it odd that you think that we should believe anything you say after making daft statements about volcanoes, or do you think we forgot that?


The bits of Antarctica which have been shouted about melting are over active volcanoes. Mostly.

Sea levels can be changed by a lot of things. How do you know that the altitude of the sea bed has not altered? The land goes up and down why not the sea floor given that the oceanic crust is so much thinner and lots of it is over the big lava circulation current upwellings?

The reason we know how much ice there is in Greenland and Antarctica is that planes with radar that sees through ice as though it's not there and radar which bounces off ice have flown over it and mapped it very accurately.

This was done in the 1950's and 1960's.

Today we are supposed to accept that the best way to measure ice melt is by looking at the orbits of satilites. My arse!

We have sea level data taken from tidal records used for navigation purposes spliced into modern data with no allowing for the relative accuracy of the numbers.

There is however, a very precise way of measuring the change of ice at the poles with water all over the oceans. It's day length. As mass moves from the poles to the equator it would slow the rotation of the earth. Conservation of angular momentum and all that.

Day length shows no such change. Thus it has not happened.
04-08-2016 23:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Leafsdude wrote:
It is not possible to measure sea level to anything more accurate than a couple of feet. We do not have the instrumentation for it.


Of course we do. Satellite measuring equipment is accurate to about half a cm (about 0.016 feet or 0.2 inches). Tidal gauges are even more accurate, but much less global (based on Wikipedia, there's only 3 major systems in the world: Australia, the US and the Netherlands).

Satellite measurement is NOT accurate to anything less than several feet. It is accurate to relative sea level changes (one part of the ocean higher than another), but not for absolute measurement.
Leafsdude wrote:
All instrumentation requires a reference. The two systems to measure sea level depend on that reference as a zero point.

The first system is coastal tidal stations. These measure the tides that take place each day. The instrument consists of a concrete well with openings to allow seawater to enter (and leave). The design of this instrument minimizes wave action on the measurement.

The reference for this instrument is the land it is sitting on. Unfortunately for the instrument, continents shift and move every day. Currently, the North American plate is tilting slightly to the south, leaving our southern shores slightly lower and our northern shores slightly higher. This can be seen in the tidal station records over time, even though there are many more stations along the southern coast.


All true.

When averaged together, the effect produces an erroneous result of a 'higher' ocean reading.


Actually, averaging ocean levels based on raw gauge readings results in a lower reading, not a higher one. When all the above (continental raising and lowering, etc) are factored in (eg: controlled for), that's when the reading shows a "higher" ocean.

Interesting how you managed to get that bass ackwards.

Incorrect. The southern coast of the United States is sinking, while the northern coast of the continent is rising. There are many more stations on the southern coast.

Neither Australia or the Netherlands have a significant number of stations on all sides of the continent.

Leafsdude wrote:
The other instrument is a satellite system. To measure sea level, the satellite must know its own altitude to great accuracy. This isn't easy when orbiting a spheroid Earth (she's fat in the middle, you know) and varying densities of mass (producing changing orbital velocities) that are caused by the presence of mountain ranges, seas, valleys, etc.

To get a reasonably accurate idea of its own orbit, the satellite references to a ground station in Colorado as it passes. Using the speed of light between the two and accounting for doppler effect, a pretty accurate relative position to the ground stations is possible. The trouble with this system is the doppler may vary slightly (again due to change in orbital velocities), and the ground reference point is again sitting on a moving continent.


True. But again, all of this is known and controlled for when reading, thereby making the reading reasonable accurate.

All this is known, but it is a random number. You cannot control for it.
Leafsdude wrote:
The reference for the ground station altitude is sea level, which is the thing you are trying to measure!


"Sea level" is an ISA standard, not a literal measurement based on current sea levels. *facepalm*

Which is the thing you are trying to measure.
Leafsdude wrote:
Any time someone is claiming millimeter changes in sea level, they are making shit up.


Any time someone mistakes "sea level" as based on actual sea level, you know they're ignorant.


I'm looking forward to your reply to my last post in the Global Warming thread located on the Explanations forum, by the way. Should be more fun seeing the length you'll go to from keep admitting anything you have said is wrong.


You are believing in the made up shit.


The Parrot Killer
05-08-2016 22:29
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
Tim the plumber wrote:


The bits of Antarctica which have been shouted about melting are over active volcanoes. Mostly.

Sea levels can be changed by a lot of things. How do you know that the altitude of the sea bed has not altered? The land goes up and down why not the sea floor given that the oceanic crust is so much thinner and lots of it is over the big lava circulation current upwellings?

The reason we know how much ice there is in Greenland and Antarctica is that planes with radar that sees through ice as though it's not there and radar which bounces off ice have flown over it and mapped it very accurately.

This was done in the 1950's and 1960's.

Today we are supposed to accept that the best way to measure ice melt is by looking at the orbits of satilites. My arse!

We have sea level data taken from tidal records used for navigation purposes spliced into modern data with no allowing for the relative accuracy of the numbers.

There is however, a very precise way of measuring the change of ice at the poles with water all over the oceans. It's day length. As mass moves from the poles to the equator it would slow the rotation of the earth. Conservation of angular momentum and all that.

Day length shows no such change. Thus it has not happened.
What volcanoes? Invisible volcanoes? I'm not arguing that they can't measure ice mass you would think they could spot your volcanoes with that radar though. As for the DEPTH of the sea bed changing , it's improbable and we have no evidence, main stream sceince explains things fine
Page 1 of 4123>>>





Join the debate 2016 set to be hottest year on record:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
Year Long, Arctic Climate Change Study... How 'Green'?121-09-2019 03:46
Alaska, July, hottest month every recorded...119-08-2019 07:13
Hottest day on record (going back to 1880s) in Paris6730-07-2019 00:02
record high temp in france7808-07-2019 06:18
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact