Remember me
▼ Content

Positives on Global Warming



Page 1 of 212>
Positives on Global Warming02-02-2016 19:19
shashikiranm
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
The negative consequences of global warming are well-documented — melting ice caps, rising sea levels, loss of habitat for polar bears and countless other species, mass disruptions and dislocations around the world as formerly habitable areas become unlivable. It sounds like the world's going to become a very unpleasant place to call home if everything that's been predicted comes to pass.

The less-publicized reality of climate change is that some change is likely to be beneficial. Granted, virtually every positive effect has a negative corollary, and sometimes the negative outweighs the positive (territorial disputes over low-lying islands will cease, which is good, but only because the islands will be underwater, which is worse). But it's not all bad. The following list details the top 10 effects of global climate change that could be good for the planet. This may not convince the doomsayers, but should global warming transpire as many scientists predict, it could make waiting for that toasty Armageddon a much more endurable experience.



1.More Usable Land
Climate change could produce more usable land for agriculture.

Presently, vast swaths of the Earth — the northern half of Canada, for instance, and the majority of Russia's land area — aren't suitable for agriculture. As the globe warms, however, high-latitude zones now on the verge of cultivation could become agriculture-friendly. More food for the world's people is certainly a good thing, although it must be acknowledged that climate change could at the same time transform other fragile regions such as sub-Saharan Africa into more of a desert than they are already.



2. Longer Growing Seasons
Longer growing seasons are one possible benefit of global warming.

It's conceivable that the world's current breadbaskets could become even more productive as temperatures warm, increasing yields. Farmers accustomed to one harvest a year may even see two. What's more, a larger variety of crops could be grown in more locations than is currently possible.



3. Extra CO2 For Plants
More CO2 in the atmosphere would be good news for plants.

We humans can only expel carbon dioxide, but plants love it. With heightened levels of CO2 in the atmosphere thanks to a warming globe, plants will have the opportunity to get drunk on the stuff, growing larger and more robust. This in turn would be good news not just for agriculture, but also for the many animal species that depend on plant life (at least those not already threatened by habitat degradation).



4. Northwest Passage Becomes Reality
An ice-free Arctic Ocean could mean good news for shipping companies.

The long-sought shipping lane through Canada's polar regions is already close to being a viable alternative during the summer months. Its existence could mean the world's largest ships, particularly oil tankers too big for the Panama Canal, which have to round the southern tip of South America, would have a much shorter route between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans at their disposal.



5. Arctic's Resources Become Accessible
A milder climate could make the Arctic's natural resources more available.

Nobody really knows just how much oil exists in the Arctic, but oil companies and various nations, are moving fast in an effort to find out. Russia is already taking a lead staking claims to promising stretches of international waters that had long been under frozen lock and key. Drilling for Arctic oil, currently not a viable option, could be soon.



6. Less Energy Required For Heating
Credit: Advanced Telemetry
Credit: Advanced Telemetry
This obvious benefit of warmer winters has yet to come to pass, as recent winters across North America and Europe have actually trended colder than normal in many locales. Whether this is simply a statistical anomaly or a more long-term effect of climate change remains to be seen.



7. Warmer Weather is Healthier
Warmer weather could mean fewer cases of the flu and other cold-weather ailments.

The doomsayers have made much of tropical diseases such as malaria spreading as the globe warms, but cold-weather illnesses like the flu kill more people every year. If warmer winters (when they do finally take hold) mean less time spent indoors in close quarters, where so many contagions are spread, maybe someday flu shots will become a thing of the past.



8. Warmer Weather is Safer
Expect fewer icy roads, and fewer car accidents, in a warming climate.

No more middle-aged men falling down with heart attacks while shoveling snow. No more motorists careening off icy highways. No more kids falling through thin ice, or elderly people freezing in their homes. Wintertime is a dangerous time. Granted, record-breaking heat waves have killed scores of people, especially in northern cities where older buildings aren't equipped for such heat, but those structures are being demolished and replaced daily.



9. People Enjoy Sunny Climates
Climate change could bring more sunny days.

Where do senior citizens go to retire? Cleveland? Not usually. Statistics may not show the residents of Florida to be any happier than people elsewhere, but nobody would complain if they had their weather. However, some scientists believe climate change has thus far led to an increase in extreme conditions, from heat waves and cold spells to snowstorms and flooding, not just warm, sunny days.



10. Increased Interest in Alternative Energy
The threat of climate change has spurred interest in alternative energy.

Fear of global warming has already led many people to look beyond fossil fuels at wind and solar power as possible alternatives for powering our way of life. If climate scientists are to be believed, it will likely be too little, too late. But ironically, such efforts could represent progress toward weaning us from our dependence on foreign oil. A warmer globe leading to energy independence? Even this cloud could have a silver lining.
03-02-2016 14:22
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
Change in and of itself is not bad. The Problem is the rate of change.

If it's too fast, it becomes systems overload. If it changes incrementally like it's been doing since the 1970s, it might be something that might cause a great deal of stress but can be handled by resilient systems.

Human structures are quite often - due to infrastructure and politics - not that resilient. What to do with all the coastal cities if the oceans rise quickly, for instance? See New Orleans..
04-02-2016 20:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Hank Samler wrote:
Change in and of itself is not bad. The Problem is the rate of change.

If it's too fast, it becomes systems overload.

Wow, how technical.

I would still prefer to win the lottery right away rather than slowly over a million years.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-02-2016 15:25
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
My house might become beach front property.
05-02-2016 17:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
spot wrote:
My house might become beach front property.

..or formerly beachfront property will be further inland, opening up new beachfront real estate.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-02-2016 17:20
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:
My house might become beach front property.

..or formerly beachfront property will be further inland, opening up new beachfront real estate.


.


I don't follow, but hell its a free forum and say what you want to say, whatever floats your boat, if boats do in fact float according to the laws of physics.
05-02-2016 17:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
spot wrote: I don't follow,

Are you aware of what happens when the sea level lowers?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-02-2016 17:44
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
IBdaMann wrote:
Hank Samler wrote:
Change in and of itself is not bad. The Problem is the rate of change.

If it's too fast, it becomes systems overload.

Wow, how technical.

I would still prefer to win the lottery right away rather than slowly over a million years.

Winning the lottery is one of the worst things that can happen to a person. One loses touch with reality and usually ends up poorer than when one started. Of course, you might be the exception. But life systems usually just die out if the change is too fast.
05-02-2016 17:47
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: I don't follow,

Are you aware of what happens when the sea level lowers?


.


Why would it lower?
05-02-2016 17:52
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
Miami had been under water before. Miami will be under water again. This is not a question of if, but of when. The climate changes regardless of what man does or does not do. I think it is better to adapt than try to eliminate CO2 from the air.
Edited on 05-02-2016 17:53
05-02-2016 20:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
spot wrote: Why would it lower?

For the same reason it would rise, i.e. changes in the amount of water in the ocean and relative elevation of land.

Are you aware that the ocean level fluctuates, i.e. rises, lowers, rises, lowers, etc..

As far as anyone knows, the ocean could be lowering right now.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Edited on 05-02-2016 20:45
05-02-2016 21:03
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: I don't follow,

Are you aware of what happens when the sea level lowers?


.


Why would it lower?
When an ice age begins, in a few thousand years time.


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
05-02-2016 21:12
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Miami had been under water before. Miami will be under water again. This is not a question of if, but of when. The climate changes regardless of what man does or does not do. I think it is better to adapt than try to eliminate CO2 from the air.
Good thinking, mainly because eliminating CO2 will achieve nothing.

John Kerry admits at COP-21 that US emissions cuts accomplish nothing for climate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAtiygrbTSg


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
Edited on 05-02-2016 21:14
05-02-2016 23:32
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: Why would it lower?

For the same reason it would rise, i.e. changes in the amount of water in the ocean and relative elevation of land.

Are you aware that the ocean level fluctuates, i.e. rises, lowers, rises, lowers, etc..

As far as anyone knows, the ocean could be lowering right now.


.



I hope when they are planning future flood defences they dont take such a pig ignorant approch as you seem to want us too.
06-02-2016 00:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
spot wrote:I hope when they are planning future flood defences they dont take such a pig ignorant approch as you seem to want us too.

I can only hope such people won't be your type of fanatically religious brain-dead moron.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-02-2016 00:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: Why would it lower?

For the same reason it would rise, i.e. changes in the amount of water in the ocean and relative elevation of land.

Are you aware that the ocean level fluctuates, i.e. rises, lowers, rises, lowers, etc..

As far as anyone knows, the ocean could be lowering right now.


.



I hope when they are planning future flood defences they dont take such a pig ignorant approch as you seem to want us too.


Flood defenses are built around rivers to keep them from overflowing their banks during heavy flow. They are built around river deltas to keep the accumulating silt from flooding out populated areas. That's pretty much it. It's about rivers, not the sea.

BTW, such defenses were ALWAYS built after the fact, when flooding became a problem in some area. Never before the flooding occurred.


The Parrot Killer
06-02-2016 00:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Earthling wrote: When an ice age begins, in a few thousand years time.

The only two ways Earthling-1 can imagine to make himself feel smart are to:

1) insist he knows things he doesn't, and
2) hurl insults at those who are smarter

He never learned about the third option, e.g. become smarter.


Earthling-1, how do you KNOW the ocean level is not lowering right now? You hero Christie tells you so?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-02-2016 01:49
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
Earthling wrote:Good thinking, mainly because eliminating CO2 will achieve nothing.

John Kerry admits at COP-21 that US emissions cuts accomplish nothing for climate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAtiygrbTSg


Eliminating CO2 would achieve something. Liberals have brain disease. If they had their way, they would spend 100 quintillion dollars to rocket all CO2 in the air into space. After that, crops all fail and every person on Earth starve to death.
06-02-2016 01:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Earthling wrote:Good thinking, mainly because eliminating CO2 will achieve nothing.

John Kerry admits at COP-21 that US emissions cuts accomplish nothing for climate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAtiygrbTSg


Eliminating CO2 would achieve something. Liberals have brain disease. If they had their way, they would spend 100 quintillion dollars to rocket all CO2 in the air into space. After that, crops all fail and every person on Earth starve to death.


There would be no trees to hug either.



The Parrot Killer
06-02-2016 02:42
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: Why would it lower?

For the same reason it would rise, i.e. changes in the amount of water in the ocean and relative elevation of land.

Are you aware that the ocean level fluctuates, i.e. rises, lowers, rises, lowers, etc..

As far as anyone knows, the ocean could be lowering right now.

We know that the trend is upwards from satellite measurements. NASA's Ocean Surface Topography Mission maintains a continuous record of sea surface heights. This graph shows their results to date:



It's from here:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/2015rel4-global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-retained

You can see the annual rise and fall of sea levels (due to monsoons, ice formation, etc.) superimposed on a long-term upward trend. Worthy of note is 2011, when a strong La Nina caused widespread flooding across Australia, with so much water shifted on to land that the sea level fell temporarily by a measurable amount.
Edited on 06-02-2016 02:43
06-02-2016 20:24
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
Indeed the hint that sea levels would rise gave an invitation for the sort of pataphysics that regulars of this board have come to know and love.
06-02-2016 21:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Surface Detail wrote: We know that the trend is upwards from satellite measurements.

We know that you are gullible. There is no way to accurately measure the earth's ocean level.

You should be able to convince yourself.

1) There is no point on the ocean's surface that is not constantly in waves that you know can reach heights of many meters, much less a point that is somehow fixed at "sea level."
2) Not even an entire constellation of dedicated GPS satellites can render an accurate distance of much less than a meter (Pilots never rely on GPS as an altimeter or to land).

How can you allow a chart from a government agency govern your perception of reality? I'd be happy to tell NASA that they're not fooling me.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-02-2016 22:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: Why would it lower?

For the same reason it would rise, i.e. changes in the amount of water in the ocean and relative elevation of land.

Are you aware that the ocean level fluctuates, i.e. rises, lowers, rises, lowers, etc..

As far as anyone knows, the ocean could be lowering right now.

We know that the trend is upwards from satellite measurements. NASA's Ocean Surface Topography Mission maintains a continuous record of sea surface heights. This graph shows their results to date:



It's from here:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/2015rel4-global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-retained

You can see the annual rise and fall of sea levels (due to monsoons, ice formation, etc.) superimposed on a long-term upward trend. Worthy of note is 2011, when a strong La Nina caused widespread flooding across Australia, with so much water shifted on to land that the sea level fell temporarily by a measurable amount.

NASA satellites are not able to measure anything with that kind of absolute accuracy. What this particular satellite program does is measure comparative sea levels against that in other places within a short timespan. They are incapable of measuring absolute sea level, since it is not possible to measure a ground reference that accurately to reference them by.

The closest we get these days is about +-100 ft accuracy.


The Parrot Killer
06-02-2016 22:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: We know that the trend is upwards from satellite measurements.

We know that you are gullible. There is no way to accurately measure the earth's ocean level.

You should be able to convince yourself.

1) There is no point on the ocean's surface that is not constantly in waves that you know can reach heights of many meters, much less a point that is somehow fixed at "sea level."
2) Not even an entire constellation of dedicated GPS satellites can render an accurate distance of much less than a meter (Pilots never rely on GPS as an altimeter or to land).

How can you allow a chart from a government agency govern your perception of reality? I'd be happy to tell NASA that they're not fooling me.
.

Absolutely correct. Landing solely by GPS is extremely dangerous. It's not even good enough to make an approach with at all. GPS approaches are supplemented by ground stations at the airport. That's good enough to get you to 800ft above the ground. If a glide slope (a land beacon) is provided, that's good enough to get you to 200 ft above the ground. Below that, you are required to use eyeballs unless you Cat III capability (mechanical eyeballs).

Even navigating solely by GPS enroute at altitude by pilots is severely restricted. Pilots are required to use GPS as a supplemental aid only, unless that GPS has certain minimum capabilities, among which it must be permanently wired to the aircraft power and not depend on batteries or temporary connections.


The Parrot Killer
06-02-2016 23:20
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: We know that the trend is upwards from satellite measurements.

We know that you are gullible. There is no way to accurately measure the earth's ocean level.

You should be able to convince yourself.

1) There is no point on the ocean's surface that is not constantly in waves that you know can reach heights of many meters, much less a point that is somehow fixed at "sea level."
2) Not even an entire constellation of dedicated GPS satellites can render an accurate distance of much less than a meter (Pilots never rely on GPS as an altimeter or to land).

How can you allow a chart from a government agency govern your perception of reality? I'd be happy to tell NASA that they're not fooling me.
.

Absolutely correct. Landing solely by GPS is extremely dangerous. It's not even good enough to make an approach with at all. GPS approaches are supplemented by ground stations at the airport. That's good enough to get you to 800ft above the ground. If a glide slope (a land beacon) is provided, that's good enough to get you to 200 ft above the ground. Below that, you are required to use eyeballs unless you Cat III capability (mechanical eyeballs).

Even navigating solely by GPS enroute at altitude by pilots is severely restricted. Pilots are required to use GPS as a supplemental aid only, unless that GPS has certain minimum capabilities, among which it must be permanently wired to the aircraft power and not depend on batteries or temporary connections.



Of course your a pilot as well, is there anything your not an expert on, seriously there is no dispute about the trend in sea levels except amongst wilfully ignorant liars on the internet
06-02-2016 23:39
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: We know that the trend is upwards from satellite measurements.

We know that you are gullible. There is no way to accurately measure the earth's ocean level.

You're wrong there. The great thing about science is that you don't have to believe anybody. If you care to look, NASA and the instrument makers explain exactly how they manage to achieve their claimed accuracy.

1) There is no point on the ocean's surface that is not constantly in waves that you know can reach heights of many meters, much less a point that is somehow fixed at "sea level."

Nobody claims the existence of such a point. The mean sea level at a point is the time average of the sea height.

2) Not even an entire constellation of dedicated GPS satellites can render an accurate distance of much less than a meter (Pilots never rely on GPS as an altimeter or to land).

The Jason-2 ocean altimetry satellite doesn't use the GPS system for precise positioning; it uses the DORIS (Doppler Orbitography and Radiopositioning Integrated by Satellite) system. This is a dedicated satellite positioning system that is accurate to within about a centimetre.

How can you allow a chart from a government agency govern your perception of reality? I'd be happy to tell NASA that they're not fooling me.

If you cared to look, you'd find that there are detailed explanations of how the systems work. That's the beauty of science - you don't have to take anyone at their word.
Edited on 06-02-2016 23:50
06-02-2016 23:45
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: Why would it lower?

For the same reason it would rise, i.e. changes in the amount of water in the ocean and relative elevation of land.

Are you aware that the ocean level fluctuates, i.e. rises, lowers, rises, lowers, etc..

As far as anyone knows, the ocean could be lowering right now.

We know that the trend is upwards from satellite measurements. NASA's Ocean Surface Topography Mission maintains a continuous record of sea surface heights. This graph shows their results to date:



It's from here:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/2015rel4-global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-retained

You can see the annual rise and fall of sea levels (due to monsoons, ice formation, etc.) superimposed on a long-term upward trend. Worthy of note is 2011, when a strong La Nina caused widespread flooding across Australia, with so much water shifted on to land that the sea level fell temporarily by a measurable amount.

NASA satellites are not able to measure anything with that kind of absolute accuracy. What this particular satellite program does is measure comparative sea levels against that in other places within a short timespan. They are incapable of measuring absolute sea level, since it is not possible to measure a ground reference that accurately to reference them by.

The closest we get these days is about +-100 ft accuracy.

As usual, you're completely wrong. The satellites use the DORIS system to determine their position in space to within about a centimetre relative to a network of 50 precisely located ground beacons. They then use radar altimetry to determine the height of the ocean surface above a reference ellipsoid to an overall accuracy of about 3 cm.
06-02-2016 23:48
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
spot wrote:
Of course your a pilot as well, is there anything your not an expert on, seriously there is no dispute about the trend in sea levels except amongst wilfully ignorant liars on the internet

ITN's a fantasist. My favourite is the one where he claimed to make fireworks as a hobby.
07-02-2016 03:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Surface Detail wrote:
spot wrote:
Of course your a pilot as well, is there anything your not an expert on, seriously there is no dispute about the trend in sea levels except amongst wilfully ignorant liars on the internet

ITN's a fantasist. My favourite is the one where he claimed to make fireworks as a hobby.

I do both. To deny them out of hand is just appealing to the Stone. If you wish to show me evidence to the contrary anything I've said about the use of GPS in aircraft, you are welcome to point out the CFR to me.

As to fireworks, you'll just have to take my word for it. Those who come to see my shows every year seem to enjoy it.


The Parrot Killer
07-02-2016 03:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: Why would it lower?

For the same reason it would rise, i.e. changes in the amount of water in the ocean and relative elevation of land.

Are you aware that the ocean level fluctuates, i.e. rises, lowers, rises, lowers, etc..

As far as anyone knows, the ocean could be lowering right now.

We know that the trend is upwards from satellite measurements. NASA's Ocean Surface Topography Mission maintains a continuous record of sea surface heights. This graph shows their results to date:



It's from here:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/2015rel4-global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-retained

You can see the annual rise and fall of sea levels (due to monsoons, ice formation, etc.) superimposed on a long-term upward trend. Worthy of note is 2011, when a strong La Nina caused widespread flooding across Australia, with so much water shifted on to land that the sea level fell temporarily by a measurable amount.

NASA satellites are not able to measure anything with that kind of absolute accuracy. What this particular satellite program does is measure comparative sea levels against that in other places within a short timespan. They are incapable of measuring absolute sea level, since it is not possible to measure a ground reference that accurately to reference them by.

The closest we get these days is about +-100 ft accuracy.

As usual, you're completely wrong. The satellites use the DORIS system to determine their position in space to within about a centimetre relative to a network of 50 precisely located ground beacons. They then use radar altimetry to determine the height of the ocean surface above a reference ellipsoid to an overall accuracy of about 3 cm.


The 50 (actually 60) precisely located ground beacons are precisely referenced to what? How is their precision measured?

This is the same problem with measuring sea level by using tidal stations.

I noticed that you claim 3cm accuracy, yet your graph shows mm type accuracy.

I also noticed that the data only goes back to 1992.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 07-02-2016 03:43
07-02-2016 04:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Surface Detail wrote:You're wrong there.

Your justification for your assertion that I am "wrong" is your strange, unquestioning belief that whatever you read on the internet is true.

If a US government agency posts something on the internet, you believe it, whether it be ocean-level accuracy, violations of physics, ...anything whatsoever.

I don't mind you having a strong devotion to a faith and I don't mind you believing that I am "wrong" for disagreeing" but if your reason is nothing more than the idea that I should read the internet site that you believed...well, we don't have much to discuss beyond that.

Surface Detail wrote: The great thing about science is that you don't have to believe anybody.

Then why do you believe wacky things just because they're posted on the internet?
You know that if there were a point on the ocean surface that were miraculously fixed at "sea level" a constellation of GPS satellites could not ascertain its elevation anywhere close to the accuracy you seek...and you know this. No approximation algorithms will magically provide such accuracy.

On top of this, there is no such fixed point. The already large margin of error is thus magnified. You know this as well. Since we don't know the actual sea level we can't use land-based references. You know this too.

But if NASA posts "Oh yeah, we can nonetheless ascertain an accurate sea level because of ...satellites!" then you say that should be believed without question.


Surface Detail wrote: The mean sea level at a point is the time average of the sea height.

That doesn't improve the accuracy. Sorry.
Surface Detail wrote: The Jason-2 ocean altimetry satellite doesn't use the GPS system for precise positioning; it uses the DORIS (Doppler Orbitography and Radiopositioning Integrated by Satellite) system.

I didn't say it had to be GPS. I'm saying that it's not any more accurate. It's a different form of measurement, not a more accurate one.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-02-2016 08:34
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
So IB calls everyone who doesn't agree with his crackpot scientifically illiterate rejection of the earth's natural 'greenhouse' effect, not only wrong, but "scientifically illiterate warmazombie religious morons!".

Yet his only 'justification' is his zealous "Dunning-Kruger effect" belief in the evidence-free, irrational, poorly informed rantings of his own imagination, and his un-sceptical faith in "truly authoritative sources" like the wacky junk-science conspiracy blogs run by laypeople with no background in science that he has posted to support his claims.

IB's funniest 'truly authoritative source" was the wacky blog run by a layperson religious zealot Cliff Harris who believes he can predict the climate using the Bible.




Edited on 07-02-2016 09:18
07-02-2016 08:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Ceist wrote: IB's justification for calling everyone else wrong is ...


I don't call everyone else "wrong"; I strictly limit such labels to those that are wrong.

...oh, so you're wrong, btw.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-02-2016 09:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Ceist wrote:
So IB calls everyone who doesn't agree with his crackpot scientifically illiterate rejection of the earth's natural 'greenhouse' effect, not only wrong, but "scientifically illiterate warmazombie religious morons!".

Yet his only 'justification' is his zealous "Dunning-Kruger effect" belief in the evidence-free, irrational, poorly informed rantings of his own imagination, and his un-sceptical faith in "truly authoritative sources" like the wacky junk-science conspiracy blogs run by laypeople with no background in science that he has posted to support his claims.

IB's funniest 'truly authoritative source" was the wacky blog run by a layperson religious zealot Cliff Harris who believes he can predict the climate using the Bible.


Making stuff up again Ceist? LOL

You seem to have spent almost all your time on this forum nursing your hatred of anything outside your Religion. All you have contributed are baseless accusations, twisted wording, outright lies, and character assassinations without end. It must really suck to be you.


The Parrot Killer
07-02-2016 11:54
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
I would be very happy for IBdaMned and Into the Dark to prove me wrong and provide us all with a list of all the 'authoritative science sources' they have used to support their batshit-crazy scientifically illiterate junk-science claims.

However I suspect we'll be waiting till the 12th of Never.


07-02-2016 12:12
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
Into the Night wrote:You seem to have spent almost all your time on this forum nursing your hatred of anything outside your Religion. All you have contributed are baseless accusations, twisted wording, outright lies, and character assassinations without end. It must really suck to be you.
I see that you no longer reserve your rants for Russel's cesspool.
Are your outbursts worthwhile?


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
Edited on 07-02-2016 12:13
07-02-2016 12:19
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
Ceist wrote:
I would be very happy for IBdaMned and Into the Dark to prove me wrong and provide us all with a list of all the 'authoritative science sources' they have used to support their batshit-crazy scientifically illiterate junk-science claims.

However I suspect we'll be waiting till the 12th of Never.
Not all of their comments are "batshit-crazy," but some certainly are as ridiculous as CAGW.


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
07-02-2016 13:06
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Earthling wrote:
Ceist wrote:
I would be very happy for IBdaMned and Into the Dark to prove me wrong and provide us all with a list of all the 'authoritative science sources' they have used to support their batshit-crazy scientifically illiterate junk-science claims.

However I suspect we'll be waiting till the 12th of Never.
Not all of their comments are "batshit-crazy," but some certainly are as ridiculous as CAGW.

I'm sure they can post quite normal comments about what they had for breakfast etc, but when it comes to rejecting the earth's natural greenhouse effect, atmospheric sciences, applying the laws of of physics, thermodynamics etc, their comments are off the planet crazy.


Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by CAGW as it's not an acronym scientists use and I've found people mean different things when they use it.



Edited on 07-02-2016 13:10
07-02-2016 13:13
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
Ceist wrote:Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by CAGW as it's not an acronym scientists use and I've found people mean different things when they use it.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cagw+hypothesis


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
Edited on 07-02-2016 13:13
07-02-2016 13:33
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Earthling wrote:
Ceist wrote:Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by CAGW as it's not an acronym scientists use and I've found people mean different things when they use it.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cagw+hypothesis

As I explained, people often use that acronym to mean different things. I know what the letters stand for. I asked what YOU personally think Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming means. Specifically what do you mean by 'Catastrophic'?

I've found that people are often battling a strawman of their own creation or what the tabloid press says, instead of what scientists actually discuss in the published literature.



Edited on 07-02-2016 13:36
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Positives on Global Warming:

Remember me

▲ 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