Satellite Measurements-- Sea Level Rise

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate Policy > Satellite Measurements-- Sea Level Rise

Page 1 of 2

Satellite Measurements-- Sea Level Rise13-02-2018 07:50
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	New study confirms that oceans are rising quicker: http://ktla.com/2018/02/12/sea-level-rise-is-speeding-up-25-years-of-satellite-data-show-study/
13-02-2018 10:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (19753)	More random numbers.
13-02-2018 10:56
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1339)	http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/02/06/1717312115 If you look at the acrtual study they are talking about the graphs show no real acceleration. Edited on 13-02-2018 10:57
13-02-2018 16:17
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2608)	That projection agrees perfectly* with climate models used in the latest International Panel on Climate Change report, which show sea level rise to be between 52 and 98 centimeters by 2100* Somewhere between 52 and 98 is perfection, eh? Think ITN is right. More random numbers.
13-02-2018 17:31
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1339)	The graphs show a rise of about 1.5mm/yr. That's 6 inches by 2100 over the 2000 level. Or 5 inches over now.

13-02-2018 22:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (19753)	It's not possible to measure sea level to this kind of accuracy. There is no valid reference point for it. The only reference points for a local sea level is a land station (such as a tide station) or the reference beacon located at Boulder, CO for the satellite system. Both are located on land. Land moves. It rises, it sinks, it moves from side to side, etc.
15-02-2018 00:39
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Tim the plumber wrote: The graphs show a rise of about 1.5mm/yr. That's 6 inches by 2100 over the 2000 level. Or 5 inches over now. Remember when I poked into it I discovered that NASA was suddenly claiming that the Earth's mantle was shrinking (with no evidence) so they added "ocean rise" to make up for this shrinking. In fact the rise of the oceans hadn't changed at all since the civil war unless is has been reducing since that was the end of the little ice age and the time that the Greenland glaciers started shrinking back to their original bases. After the civil war the oceans were rising 1 mm per year. NASA has since told us that the mantle is shrinking 1 mm per year so IF the 1.5 mm "rise" is accurate it means that in fact the sea levels have slowed their rise as one would expect since all of the low latitude glaciers have gone back pretty much to their original positions.
15-02-2018 01:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (19753)	Wake wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: The graphs show a rise of about 1.5mm/yr. That's 6 inches by 2100 over the 2000 level. Or 5 inches over now. Remember when I poked into it I discovered that NASA was suddenly claiming that the Earth's mantle was shrinking (with no evidence) so they added "ocean rise" to make up for this shrinking. In fact the rise of the oceans hadn't changed at all since the civil war unless is has been reducing since that was the end of the little ice age and the time that the Greenland glaciers started shrinking back to their original bases. After the civil war the oceans were rising 1 mm per year. NASA has since told us that the mantle is shrinking 1 mm per year so IF the 1.5 mm "rise" is accurate it means that in fact the sea levels have slowed their rise as one would expect since all of the low latitude glaciers have gone back pretty much to their original positions. Why would the mantle shrink? Does NASA say? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-11-2018 23:17
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: The graphs show a rise of about 1.5mm/yr. That's 6 inches by 2100 over the 2000 level. Or 5 inches over now. Remember when I poked into it I discovered that NASA was suddenly claiming that the Earth's mantle was shrinking (with no evidence) so they added "ocean rise" to make up for this shrinking. In fact the rise of the oceans hadn't changed at all since the civil war unless is has been reducing since that was the end of the little ice age and the time that the Greenland glaciers started shrinking back to their original bases. After the civil war the oceans were rising 1 mm per year. NASA has since told us that the mantle is shrinking 1 mm per year so IF the 1.5 mm "rise" is accurate it means that in fact the sea levels have slowed their rise as one would expect since all of the low latitude glaciers have gone back pretty much to their original positions. Why would the mantle shrink? Does NASA say? This is supposedly from a study that showed that the Earth's core is cooling and allowing the mantle to shrink. There is really no way of testing such a thing so this should not have been added to the calculations.
20-11-2018 19:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (19753)	Wake wrote: Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: The graphs show a rise of about 1.5mm/yr. That's 6 inches by 2100 over the 2000 level. Or 5 inches over now. Remember when I poked into it I discovered that NASA was suddenly claiming that the Earth's mantle was shrinking (with no evidence) so they added "ocean rise" to make up for this shrinking. In fact the rise of the oceans hadn't changed at all since the civil war unless is has been reducing since that was the end of the little ice age and the time that the Greenland glaciers started shrinking back to their original bases. After the civil war the oceans were rising 1 mm per year. NASA has since told us that the mantle is shrinking 1 mm per year so IF the 1.5 mm "rise" is accurate it means that in fact the sea levels have slowed their rise as one would expect since all of the low latitude glaciers have gone back pretty much to their original positions. Why would the mantle shrink? Does NASA say? This is supposedly from a study that showed that the Earth's core is cooling and allowing the mantle to shrink. There is really no way of testing such a thing so this should not have been added to the calculations. So it's essentially another random number they are using to generate random numbers for data. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-08-2022 16:13
Roj475 ★☆☆☆☆ (69)	Into the Night wrote: So it's essentially another random number they are using to generate random numbers for data. Hard to say without a link for the basis of this. For all we know it could be third hand and misunderstood through the passing of conversations... I went to the NASA site and also a scientific news site and cannot locate any publication connected to NASA and Earth's mantle shrinking.
11-08-2022 16:13
Roj475 ★☆☆☆☆ (69)	Into the Night wrote: So it's essentially another random number they are using to generate random numbers for data. Hard to say without a link for the basis of this. For all we know it could be third hand and misunderstood through the passing of conversations... I went to the NASA site and also a scientific news site and cannot locate any publication connected to NASA and Earth's mantle shrinking.
11-08-2022 19:20
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2003)	I went to the beach today and the sea is in the same place
11-08-2022 19:27
Roj475 ★☆☆☆☆ (69)	duncan61 wrote: I went to the beach today and the sea is in the same place If this water was in the same place I assume it is without tides and would more likely be a lake or a river... Either way, I assume it was a pleasant adventure.
11-08-2022 22:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (19753)	Roj475 wrote: Into the Night wrote: So it's essentially another random number they are using to generate random numbers for data. Hard to say without a link for the basis of this. No link necessary. That's attempting to prove a negative. That's a fallacy, dude. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 11-08-2022 22:23

11-08-2022 23:35
IBdaMann★★★★★ (12963)	Roj475 wrote:If this water was in the same place I assume it is without tides and would more likely be a lake or a river... You would be mistaken. The ocean has not risen discernibly in the last roughly 130 years. The Victoria Quay in Perth, Australia bears this out. Photographs from the late 1800s show the sea level at the same level it is today. https://politiplex.freeforums.net/thread/71/sea-level-rise-debunked By contrast, the Santa Monica lifeguard stations only show that the ocean has not risen discernibly since the early 1960s. https://politiplex.freeforums.net/post/149 The Victoria Quay is therefore the more authoritative source for debunking the "rising sea level" crap that warmizombies spew ... but the Santa Monica lifeguard stations will always be a classic example.
12-08-2022 04:59
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2003)	4 May 1897 Work began on the Fremantle Inner Harbour, designed by State Engineer CY O'Connor, in 1892 and the harbour was officially opened on 4 May 1897. The port has played a significant part in Western Australia's development and history, including wartime. The Port Authority have kept very accurate records of the sea level.When I first started research on AGW/CC in April 2019 one of the first calls I made was to the Fremantle Port and there records indicate no rise in the harbour at all. Nils Axel Morner was appointed by the IPCC as head research on sea levels when it first formed in the late 80s as he was considered the worlds expert on sea levels.In 18 months of research with a team of other scientists he found no sea level rise in the Southern hemisphere and a possible 1mm/decade in the Northern hemisphere but that could be attributed to land movement.IPCC did not like this so they made it up.If you read the IPCC reports and I do some of it as it is 7000 pages it uses the language maybe or possibly.The report never gives a 100% declaration because they do not know but have to write something to stay in business.The big players with skin in the game are NASA and NOAA.I get the fortnightly report and sometimes I can not finish it as it is so outrageous.The ice is not melting.The sea is not heating and expanding.I watched a 60 minute show on Pacific islands disappearing and they are walking around in ankle deep water where the small island used to be however the year before the young women in the interview used to picnic on it the year before.Are they claiming the sea went up 2 metres in 6 months just in that one spot.You can see all the trees from the before photo and now they are all lying down in the shallows and spread out.Could a hurricane/cyclone torn through the area and washed it all away.Of course not it is white capitalist pigs that did it with there nasty emissions and now we have to give them money.The show is called 60 minutes but is broken in to 10 minute segments in the same segment there is an Islander man saying the water has come up and his friend who lived in a shack by the sea had to move.Its a stick cottage with palm fronds for walls and you can see it has been blown to bits and big holes everywhere.Its still 20 feet from the shoreline just damaged.He possibly became bored of fixing it every year and moved to the city to get a real job.I could do 80 pages of what I have learned over more than 3 years but you can get where I am going.There have been hostage situations where the actual hostages go was there another one as none of the stuff the media reported happened.There is a lot of spin.The photo of the smoke stack will show black stuff pouring out but the photo is taken near vertical at sunset.Same photo same place on a sunny day shows wisps of white steam.If you wish to be concerned about sea levels that is your right.I am not
12-08-2022 06:33
James_ ★★★★☆ (1139)	Research on Australia's sea level rise. A generalised additive model of Australia's two longest records (Fremantle and Sydney) reveals the presence of both linear and non-linear long-term sea-level trends, with both records showing larger rates of rise between 1920 and 1950, relatively stable mean sea levels between 1960 and 1990 and an increased rate of rise from the early 1990s. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825214000956
12-08-2022 06:56
IBdaMann★★★★★ (12963)	James_ wrote:Research on Australia's sea level rise. James__, look at the photographs. There's no discernible rise. Go with the photographs. Go with Victoria Quay. Go with Gan Airport (still six feet above sea level, just as in the 1940s). Go with the Santa Monica lifeguard stations. Attached image:
12-08-2022 10:28
Roj475 ★☆☆☆☆ (69)	Into the Night wrote: No link necessary. That's attempting to prove a negative. That's a fallacy, dude. A poster has claimed data.... Another poster refers to the previous poster's position and adds a negative position, but the whole time... The data was never in existence. Without a link, it is a fabricated position on here and being reworded in each reply until you all have your agreed statement to justify your position whilst passing it off as someone else's unjustified data.
12-08-2022 10:31
Roj475 ★☆☆☆☆ (69)	IBdaMann wrote: Roj475 wrote:If this water was in the same place I assume it is without tides and would more likely be a lake or a river... You would be mistaken. The ocean has not risen discernibly in the last roughly 130 years. The Victoria Quay in Perth, Australia bears this out. Photographs from the late 1800s show the sea level at the same level it is today. https://politiplex.freeforums.net/thread/71/sea-level-rise-debunked By contrast, the Santa Monica lifeguard stations only show that the ocean has not risen discernibly since the early 1960s. https://politiplex.freeforums.net/post/149 The Victoria Quay is therefore the more authoritative source for debunking the "rising sea level" crap that warmizombies spew ... but the Santa Monica lifeguard stations will always be a classic example. All well and good, but the position I am arguing is the posters above referring to NASA data and not whether sea level has risen, fallen or remained static.
12-08-2022 18:05
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2003)	IBdaMann wrote: James_ wrote:Research on Australia's sea level rise. James__, look at the photographs. There's no discernible rise. Go with the photographs. Go with Victoria Quay. Go with Gan Airport (still six feet above sea level, just as in the 1940s). Go with the Santa Monica lifeguard stations. I am sure that building is the passenger terminal.If you do a 180 you can see the open ocean duncan61
13-08-2022 03:48
James_ ★★★★☆ (1139)	IBdaMann wrote: James_ wrote:Research on Australia's sea level rise. James__, look at the photographs. There's no discernible rise. Go with the photographs. Go with Victoria Quay. Go with Gan Airport (still six feet above sea level, just as in the 1940s). Go with the Santa Monica lifeguard stations. When I was there we had to take LSTs into Freemantle. The water was too shallow. We had to climb a ladder to get up onto the pier. The picture shows that's not necessary today. And since that's the passenger terminal, where I most likely went to and from Australia. And with data kept from both Sydney and Freemantle, I should ignore that as well? Next you guys will say the last Ice Age never happened. I know who you guys remind me of, Al Gore. He also said look at the pictures. IBDM, a picture for you and Duncan to look at. Enjoy. p.s., he's Tom Ellis who plays Lucifer on the TV show Lucifer. He likes people like you guys looking at his picture. If you're wondering, he is married to J. Robert Oppenheimer's granddaughter. Attached image: Edited on 13-08-2022 04:04
13-08-2022 04:13
James_ ★★★★☆ (1139)	And if this is right; https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/22/perths-double-whammy-as-sea-levels-rise-the-city-itself-is-sinking It is well known that the valley that Phoenix, Arizona, USA is in has cracks along its outer edges is because it sank. This is because it's ground water was pumped out. And now they say something similar is happening in Perth but the picture says it's not happening. They have pictures to look at as well as video. https://azgs.arizona.edu/center-natural-hazards/earth-fissures-subsidence-karst-arizona and https://www.pinalcentral.com/san_tan_valley_sentinel/local_news/experts-discuss-what-causes-the-ground-to-sink-and-crack/article_8013794f-d15e-5d6d-9a15-2f8a68127df6.html Attached image: Edited on 13-08-2022 04:18
13-08-2022 04:40
James_ ★★★★☆ (1139)	And here are some pretty pictures to look at. The first one is a melting glacier. Attached image:
13-08-2022 04:41
James_ ★★★★☆ (1139)	The next one is a pretty graph. Attached image:
13-08-2022 04:51
James_ ★★★★☆ (1139)	Now which do you like better? I like the one on the left better but you guys might disagree. Is that Ella (Aimee Gracia) on the left and Lucifer on the right or is it a short guy walking next to a tall woman? I'm familiar with both the actor and the actress so I know what I'm looking at. I happen to like Det. Decker. And I hope you guys like the nice pictures of the retreating glacier and CO2 levels. You guys really need to be mindful that I accept that ice ages have happens and that it is warming and that CO2 is helping the ozone layer recover from ODSs. Please don't try to convert me to your religion. Attached image: Edited on 13-08-2022 04:52
13-08-2022 05:45
Into the Night★★★★★ (19753)	Roj475 wrote: Into the Night wrote: No link necessary. That's attempting to prove a negative. That's a fallacy, dude. A poster has claimed data.... Another poster refers to the previous poster's position and adds a negative position, but the whole time... The data was never in existence. Without a link, it is a fabricated position on here and being reworded in each reply until you all have your agreed statement to justify your position whilst passing it off as someone else's unjustified data. Discard of philosophy. Discard of science. Discard of mathematics. NONE require a link of any kind. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-08-2022 05:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (19753)	James_ wrote: And here are some pretty pictures to look at. The first one is a melting glacier. Compare winter to summer is useless, dude. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-08-2022 05:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (19753)	James_ wrote: The next one is a pretty graph. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

13-08-2022 05:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (19753)	James_ wrote: And I hope you guys like the nice pictures of the retreating glacier Not retreating. Comparing winter to summer at a single glacier is meaningless. James_ wrote: and CO2 levels. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2. James_ wrote: You guys really need to be mindful that I accept that ice ages have happens Try English. I see you believe this religion too. James_ wrote: and that it is warming It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. James_ wrote: and that CO2 is helping the ozone layer recover CO2 does not interact with ozone. James_ wrote: from ODSs. ....such as? James_ wrote: Please don't try to convert me to your religion. You like your religion too much, eh? I'm not talking about any religion but yours. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 13-08-2022 05:52
13-08-2022 20:47
IBdaMann★★★★★ (12963)	Roj475 wrote:All well and good, but the position I am arguing is ... Correction: The position you are NOT arguing, but nonetheless hold, is that the ocean is rising. You are not attempting to defend your position because you well understand that no rational adult should believe that the ocean has risen discernibly during the lifetime of anyone alive today. Basically, you are ashamed of your beliefs because they were handed to you by your clergy at your indoctrination, and you were ordered to believe them without question lest you face reprisals from others within your congregation. You well understand that any rational, independently thinking adult who is not a member of your WACKY cult would have no reason for disregarding observations and photographic evidence just to join you in your misery of forced self-delusion. Your problems are compounded by your requirement to believe that this "sea level rise" is caused by "human activity" which you have been forced to embrace despite not being able to define it. You are put in a very difficult position to explain why you believe that human activity is the cause of something that isn't even happening. You are wise to not risk advertising this bizarre set of beliefs that you hold. You would only invite ridicule. Along these lines, do you believe in "ocean acidification" as well? [I know, I know, you don't want to go there and have the schytt mocked out of you for that as well] .
13-08-2022 21:54
IBdaMann★★★★★ (12963)	duncan61 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James_ wrote:Research on Australia's sea level rise. James__, look at the photographs. There's no discernible rise. Go with the photographs. Go with Victoria Quay. Go with Gan Airport (still six feet above sea level, just as in the 1940s). Go with the Santa Monica lifeguard stations. I am sure that building is the passenger terminal.If you do a 180 you can see the open ocean duncan, thank you kindly for the correction/specification. The best I can do for the quay is to offer this view from Google Maps: Victoria Quay https://www.google.com/maps/@-32.051419,115.7389017,1610m/data=!3m1!1e3
14-08-2022 02:44
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2003)	Thats the one.Has its moments as a fishing platform
14-08-2022 06:56
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2608)	Roj475 wrote: Into the Night wrote: No link necessary. That's attempting to prove a negative. That's a fallacy, dude. A poster has claimed data.... Another poster refers to the previous poster's position and adds a negative position, but the whole time... The data was never in existence. Without a link, it is a fabricated position on here and being reworded in each reply until you all have your agreed statement to justify your position whilst passing it off as someone else's unjustified data. OK, then fair for me to request a link for this fabricated position of yours? Roj475 wrote: Additional plant food is good, but only if there are sufficient plants to feed on it. https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-daily-sermon-d6-e4128.php#post_88435 Computer science made this page possible, whether you do not believe in science or not.- Swan Edited on 14-08-2022 06:58
15-08-2022 03:06
IBdaMann★★★★★ (12963)	James_ wrote: You guys really need to be mindful that I accept that ice ages have happens and that it is warming and that CO2 is helping the ozone layer recover from ODSs. Please don't try to convert me to your religion. James__, what happens when the sky is falling ... but it's specifically the ozone hole that is crashing down because of the Norwegian jet stream? Doesn't that solve our ozone hole problem? Attached image:
15-08-2022 10:00
Roj475 ★☆☆☆☆ (69)	IBdaMann wrote: Roj475 wrote:All well and good, but the position I am arguing is ... Correction: The position you are NOT arguing, but nonetheless hold, is that the ocean is rising. I do not have a position until I see the story specific to NASA that the poster claimed... I appreciate perhaps this information does not exist and this site is purely, make up something, correct the false information and spread... Alternatively, where is the NASA information so I can make a position on it?
15-08-2022 10:04
Roj475 ★☆☆☆☆ (69)	Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: The next one is a pretty graph. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. Swan says it is rising and turning desert green... Swan wrote: Not possible because in reality the rise in CO2 is causing greening of desert area's as we speak. You guys need to get your story straight on which one will be more believable in your world.
15-08-2022 13:57
IBdaMann★★★★★ (12963)	Roj475 wrote: Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: The next one is a pretty graph. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. Swan says it is rising and turning desert green... Swan wrote: Not possible because in reality the rise in CO2 is causing greening of desert area's as we speak. You guys need to get your story straight on which one will be more believable in your world. You are intolerant of any differing views/opinions. Ask me how I know. You lump all differing views together as the same view. Ask me how I know. You are a gullible moron. Ask me how I know.
15-08-2022 20:52
Into the Night★★★★★ (19753)	Roj475 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Roj475 wrote:All well and good, but the position I am arguing is ... Correction: The position you are NOT arguing, but nonetheless hold, is that the ocean is rising. I do not have a position until I see the story specific to NASA that the poster claimed... I appreciate perhaps this information does not exist and this site is purely, make up something, correct the false information and spread... Alternatively, where is the NASA information so I can make a position on it? NASA is incapable of measuring global sea level. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 1 of 2

Join the debate Satellite Measurements-- Sea Level Rise:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Rip current in the Caspian Sea	0	24-08-2022 11:59
Biogeochemical GRID-LEVEL ENERGY STORAGE	53	11-04-2022 17:19
Arctic sea ice cover	19	09-04-2022 08:29
Impactful individual-level solutions towards carbon footprint reduction	31	19-10-2021 22:25
sea levels	3	06-08-2021 05:02