Remember me
▼ Content

sea levels



Page 3 of 3<123
30-11-2020 10:53
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(874)
I love you Harvey and wish to bear your child.Could I have possibly seen the Tmiddles off for a second time by using logic and observation.can someone give me a hooyah
02-12-2020 21:40
James___
★★★★★
(3701)
IBdaMann wrote:
tgoebbles wrote:it is not my theory or a theory a subscribe to. My first topic here called BS on it.

Yes, it is your theory. You insist it is true. Watch ...

tgoebbles wrote: It's pointless to debate it because empirical evidence, as in real measurements, aren't useful over the short term since the changes are so minute.

You insist that you know that there are, in fact, changes, and that they are minute, and that they are measured. You also refuse to produce any sort of valid measurement set that somehow "shows" these minute changes which you insist are measured.

tgoebbles wrote: Could be Al Gore's predictions are true but you cannot refute or establish that empirically right now.

The word is "unfalsifiable." Your religious faith is unfalsifiable. What you preach is unfalsifiable.

tgoebbles wrote:Discussing the [religion] behind it could be interesting but no one currently on this board is interested in doing that.

You absolutely are interested ... so discuss it. I, for my part, am happy to discuss all the physics it violates in the name of being your "thettled thienth."

tgoebbles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:...I do not find it credible that NASA can measure sea level rise....My fixation with sea levels is that is the big drama with the AGW/CC claim all the other bits do not matter....
Nope. Straw man Duncan.

Great point Duncan. Stay on it.

tgoebbles wrote:you are pretending it's the lynchpin of the AGW case.

Prove that it is somehow NOT the lynchpin of AGW. For all anyone knows, it's as good a lynchpin as any, AGW being completely undefined as it is.

Duncan, stay on it.

NASA has been taken over by Marxists who have hijacked the agency and force it to stand in solidarity with WACKY leftists. Ergo, NASA officially claims an annual sea level rise of 3.3mm.

.



Now if you just did the maths, you'd see that sea level rise isn't the issue. It's all that hot air coming out of your pie hole.


It gets boring recovery from medical care.
Attached image:


Edited on 02-12-2020 21:41
03-12-2020 19:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(14484)
keepit wrote:
It seems to me that several on this website are operating on someone else's agenda.

You are. You are operating on a socialist agenda.


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
03-12-2020 20:01
keepit
★★★★☆
(1860)
ITN,
You're full of sh-t.
03-12-2020 20:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(14484)
duncan61 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
How in the hell can the global sea level be measured, down to a milometer resolution? ...
Did anyone say it could be?

A pointless discussion....


NASA claim their altimetry satellites can measure to a millimetre its what all the fuss is about.

Quote Satellite altimeter
Satellite altimetry measures the time taken for a radar pulse to travel from the satellite to the sea surface and back to the satellite. Radar altimeters map the topography of the ocean surface with unprecedented accuracy.

I will make clear my position at 800am 30/11/2020
I do not find it credible that NASA can measure sea level rise.What they have done is gather the tide data and build a program to make the Satellite data coincide then monitor the changes.
The program has not run long enough to do squat
NASA built it they have to say it works
Nils axel Morner is on the ground doing outside research in real time
Just South of Perth is Rockingham and it is open to the ocean but very sheltered.There is next to no tide movement and there has been no observed sea level change since 1967.My lifetime I fished of the jetty with my dad
My fixation with sea levels is that is the big drama with the AGW/CC claim
all the other bits do not matter.The plants animal migration is an example.There are lions in South Africa and in Eygpt across that vast expanse.Where they going to go next.Every country has a big cat of some sort.Jaguars in South America.Snow leopards in Asia.Australia had no cats but we do now and the Feral cats get big.You have mountan lions in good ole USA.You get the picture.Its a big scare campagn to stop people having stuff.A county in UK has stopped allowing meat products at council events because we all have to go vegan and walk to work Last comment.The insults are starting its not a good look for the debate team


Quite right. Satellites do not know their own altitude anywhere near that accurately. Satellites will speed up and slow down in their orbits slightly due to variations in Earth's gravity that they are passing over at the time Gravity is not constant across the surface of Earth, due to the varying density of materials. The differences are slight, but they are there.

Satellites, including GPS satellites reference their position to a ground station in Boulder, CO. Like any other reference point sitting on land, it moves with the land. It is no better than a tidal station as a reference point.

GPS is pretty good up to +-30 feet horizontal (can't get closer than this due to orbit variations) and +-100 feet vertical (can't get close than this because of the problems with using a ground reference at Boulder, and due to orbit variance.

So measuring an absolute global sea level to anywhere near the degree of accuracy in NASA's 'data' is not possible.

Tidal station data averages are just as meaningless. There are more tidal stations on the southern coast of the United States by far than along the northern coasts in the arctic. The North American plate, which both coasts sit on, is settling in the south and rising in the north. The end of of this average is an indication of 'rising oceans'. It's senseless.

Too many people here the word 'satellite' and expect literally miracles from the things. It's like a satellite is magick just because it's a satellite.

Satellites can be useful for monitoring relative ocean levels due to storms and the like. There is no one single ocean level, and averaging relative sea levels only gives you a zero. There is no base to measure an absolute sea level.

Satellites that measure surface temperatures have the same problem. They make use of measuring infrared light, just like your little hand camera. The problem, of course, is that the emissivity of Earth is unknown. Even the hand cameras (commonly seen to take someone's temperature these days) is subject to the problems of an unknown emissivity. It's a decent device for measuring relative temperatures, but not an absolute temperature. It's the same problem as the altimeters on these satellites.


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
03-12-2020 20:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(14484)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Sea level rise interests me, because I live in the middle of Florida. I've got ocean, less than an hour drive, east or west. Florida was already predicted to be submerged by now. Of course, there hasn't been alarms raised locally. Yet, the global warming crowd keeps insisting that Florida is sinking.


Florida itself is not part of the North American plate, though it now sits upon it. The North American plate is tilting, towards the south. The numerous tidal stations all along the coast as a result have been seeing a slight 'sea level rise'.

Yes, in Florida too.

Don't worry about the ocean invading your town anytime soon. The biggest threat in Florida (besides it's lunatic and blind drivers!) is simply rain from storms and hurricanes.


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
03-12-2020 20:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8056)
keepit wrote: ITN, You're full of sh-t.

keepit, you are 50lbs of bulslhit in a 5lbs bag. You are also a moron. You also don't know anything. You're also greatly confused about your own religion.

You are the first person to offer STaaS ... Stupidity as a Service.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
03-12-2020 20:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(14484)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
You're full of sh-t.


No, that would be YOU. Inversion fallacy.


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
04-12-2020 00:36
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(874)
Your explanation of the Majick Satellite is spot on.I actualy worked with a rocket scientist who explained to me exactly the same thing about gravity.If the device is over 30,000 Km out its not a biggy but under 10,000 Km they need boosting to maintain orbit in certain places.We were making scones for devonshire tea for a bus load of tourists at the time
04-12-2020 02:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(14484)
duncan61 wrote:
Your explanation of the Majick Satellite is spot on.I actualy worked with a rocket scientist who explained to me exactly the same thing about gravity.If the device is over 30,000 Km out its not a biggy but under 10,000 Km they need boosting to maintain orbit in certain places.We were making scones for devonshire tea for a bus load of tourists at the time


Glad you got confirmation from another rocket scientist. Yes...I'm a rocket scientist too, though my rockets don't go into orbit. I have put instrumentation on satellites though.


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
Edited on 04-12-2020 02:59
06-12-2020 02:34
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(874)
Until I can see evidence to the contrary I am going to go with NASA for what ever reason are making it up about knowing the sea levels.Could they possibly be fabricating data about other topics?
06-12-2020 03:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(14484)
duncan61 wrote:
Until I can see evidence to the contrary I am going to go with NASA for what ever reason are making it up about knowing the sea levels.Could they possibly be fabricating data about other topics?


Yes. Global temperature, global atmospheric carbon dioxide content, source of CO2, total snow and ice on Earth, and total precipitation on Earth. NASA and NOAA are just copying each other's 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
06-12-2020 04:02
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(874)
You can measure rainfall in an area.We have just had a very wet cold November.This Global crisis movement will run out of steam soon as none of the predictions come true
06-12-2020 07:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8056)
duncan61 wrote:You can measure rainfall in an area.We have just had a very wet cold November.This Global crisis movement will run out of steam soon as none of the predictions come true

Duncan, neither of the two specific predictions have come true: 1) The Arctic was not ice-free by 2012 and the polar bears did not go exinct.

Otherwise there are no other clear, verifiable predictions. There is only vague hype that we must fear and panic into handing all of our cash over to the nearest government.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
06-12-2020 13:25
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2919)
I can understand that there are limitations to what we can measure, and how precise. We've always just used the tools available, and called it close enough for the purpose we needed to measure for. Where it gets confused, is when those measurements are taken out of context, re purposed to illustrated something never intended. The IPCC plays data and studies that way a lot. The like to take studies that are far from complete, and use them as established facts. Even though, they are mostly observations, and guessing what it all means.

Sea levels can never be known, since the water never stays in the same place, or the same state, long enough to be measured. It freezes, it melts, evaporates, precipitates. Water gets absorbed in the ground, underground water. Living things all have water content. Rivers all eventually dump in the oceans, and not just water either. Mountains erode, silt carried away by water.
06-12-2020 19:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(14484)
duncan61 wrote:
You can measure rainfall in an area.We have just had a very wet cold November.This Global crisis movement will run out of steam soon as none of the predictions come true

You can measure rainfall at the rain gauge. That doesn't measure rainfall anywhere else.

Rainfall can vary widely in just 1/4 mile.


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
06-12-2020 19:36
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2919)
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
You can measure rainfall in an area.We have just had a very wet cold November.This Global crisis movement will run out of steam soon as none of the predictions come true

You can measure rainfall at the rain gauge. That doesn't measure rainfall anywhere else.

Rainfall can vary widely in just 1/4 mile.


Not in Florida... I've gotten just a light sprinkle on my side of the street, and it was clearly coming down kind of heavy across the street.
06-12-2020 19:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(14484)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I can understand that there are limitations to what we can measure, and how precise. We've always just used the tools available, and called it close enough for the purpose we needed to measure for. Where it gets confused, is when those measurements are taken out of context, re purposed to illustrated something never intended. The IPCC plays data and studies that way a lot. The like to take studies that are far from complete, and use them as established facts. Even though, they are mostly observations, and guessing what it all means.

Sea levels can never be known, since the water never stays in the same place, or the same state, long enough to be measured. It freezes, it melts, evaporates, precipitates. Water gets absorbed in the ground, underground water. Living things all have water content. Rivers all eventually dump in the oceans, and not just water either. Mountains erode, silt carried away by water.


There is no temperature of the Earth with a margin of error anything less than +- the total range of temperatures ever measured on Earth, such as the highest and lowest temperatures ever measured.

We simply don't have enough thermometers. There are nowhere near enough thermometers.

Trying to measure the temperature of the Earth by using statistical math is not going to work.

It is the same with sea level, global atmospheric CO2 content, total ice and snow on Earth, totals for how much water is in the ocean, how much water is in the clouds, how much water is water vapor in the atmosphere, how much water is in the world's rivers, or how much water is in snow and ice, and how much is precipitating out of clouds.

The same is true for how many of any species of animal are wandering around, how many of each species is on Earth, etc.

Yes, you can measure something like the temperature of a glass of water, the temperature at a particular point in an engine cooling system, the temperature or some part of the human body, or the temperature of the outside air at a weather station. These are not global values.

In any statistical analysis, variance must be declared, defined, and justified. The margin of error must be calculated and accompany the summary. Only raw data may be used. Cooking the data is only making numbers up. 'Interpolating' something like temperature between stations is only making numbers up.

Random numbers are not data. Only raw data may be used. That raw data must be publicly available. It must be show who collected it and when and for what purpose. The method of collecting it must be publicly known, including the tolerance and calibration of any instrumentation used.

Anyone can make up numbers and call it 'data'. It's a national pass time! It's also a global pass time! It's also what the Church of Global Warming depends upon doing.


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
06-12-2020 19:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(14484)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
You can measure rainfall in an area.We have just had a very wet cold November.This Global crisis movement will run out of steam soon as none of the predictions come true

You can measure rainfall at the rain gauge. That doesn't measure rainfall anywhere else.

Rainfall can vary widely in just 1/4 mile.


Not in Florida... I've gotten just a light sprinkle on my side of the street, and it was clearly coming down kind of heavy across the street.


That's varying widely within a 1/4 mile, isn't it? I've seen the same kind of variance in rain in the desert, in Hawaii, and in Washington (where we commonly get lots of stratus clouds).


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
06-12-2020 20:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8056)
HarveyH55 wrote: I can understand that there are limitations to what we can measure, and how precise. We've always just used the tools available, and called it close enough for the purpose we needed to measure for.

Exactly. You are using more colloquial (common) wording for my explanation of the process from a technical perspective.

For any application, one must first establish a target margin of error. In your wording, we say that we're happy with whatever margin of error we incur from our gauges and from convenient measurements because we're just measuring something small with the gauges that we have and that's good enough. It's not a life-or-death situation and we're not trying to convince people that they need to be taxed up the wazoo in order to save the planet.

However, if we *do* have an application where it is imperative that we get an accurate measure, naturally we have to specify that level of accuracy (margin of error that we declare as acceptable) up front. tgoebbles denies this for some reason.

Once we have determined the needed margin of error, we gather up the specific gauges we have available (and their specific engineering tolerances) and we break out the statistical math to help us figure out what data collection we will need to achieve that margin of error. We then use that information to create our data collection plan ... which we then follow.

We then take the raw dataset we gather per our plan and present it. We know that it will be convincing because when our audience analyzes the data, we know that they will realize our established margin of error and won't have room to dispute.

Of course, if we are not trying to convince anyone but ourselves then we just take whatever measurements we want until we are satisfied with what we have. Done.

There is no church, e.g. IPCC, that feels obligated to present any data to support what they expect you to believe.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
14-12-2020 02:04
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(874)
Fun Fact.In 1998 the president of the Island nation of Tuvalu started seeking international aid to help his people relocate because the South Pacific atolls and islands would be underwater by 2020.I just looked outside.Its 2020 and the bulk of the islands are now 400mm further out the water as the land is going up and the sea has not risen at all in the South Pacific.Does anyone care or wonder about this reality
14-12-2020 02:56
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2919)
duncan61 wrote:
Fun Fact.In 1998 the president of the Island nation of Tuvalu started seeking international aid to help his people relocate because the South Pacific atolls and islands would be underwater by 2020.I just looked outside.Its 2020 and the bulk of the islands are now 400mm further out the water as the land is going up and the sea has not risen at all in the South Pacific.Does anyone care or wonder about this reality


It's proof the money was well spent... Spending money fixes any problem, virtually, real, or imagined. Florida was suppose to be under water too, but we didn't get any aid money to prevent it. Then again, we are in the South Atlantic. Wonder what they did with all that water...
14-12-2020 15:57
James___
★★★★★
(3701)
duncan61 wrote:
Fun Fact.In 1998 the president of the Island nation of Tuvalu started seeking international aid to help his people relocate because the South Pacific atolls and islands would be underwater by 2020.I just looked outside.Its 2020 and the bulk of the islands are now 400mm further out the water as the land is going up and the sea has not risen at all in the South Pacific.Does anyone care or wonder about this reality



It's known that some islands will increase in elevation if sediment is deposited by waves washing over the island. As you can see in the picture, some islands do not benefit from storms. It's possible the island in this storm just had it's surface elevation lowered because waves passing over it removed sediment from it's surface instead.
This article explains that both sea levels are rising while many of Tuvalus islands are growing. After the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean that it was found out that at least one island became larger because of it. That is what changed the thinking of how storms (tidal surge, waves) and elevation in an island can have different outcomes.
The issue might become that a barrier around an island can form like the levees New Orleans uses if the entire island's elevation isn't raised. And some islands do have barriers which once past them, you are out in the ocean.

https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2018/02/09/Tuvalu-is-growing-not-shrinking-new-research-shows/6891518188968/:~:text=At%20least%2073%20of%20Tuvalu's%20101%20islands%20have,has%20grown%20significantly%20over%20the%20last%20four%20decades.
Attached image:


Edited on 14-12-2020 16:04
14-12-2020 18:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8056)
James___ wrote: It's known that some islands will increase in elevation if sediment is deposited by waves washing over the island.

Nope.

There is only erosion. What you are describing is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and is not possible.

Islands can only increase in elevation due to geological activity.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
14-12-2020 23:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(14484)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: I can understand that there are limitations to what we can measure, and how precise. We've always just used the tools available, and called it close enough for the purpose we needed to measure for.

Exactly. You are using more colloquial (common) wording for my explanation of the process from a technical perspective.

For any application, one must first establish a target margin of error.

No. This is called allowable tolerance. Measurements are made to an accepted allowable tolerance. You will see this same notation on blueprints.
IBdaMann wrote:
In your wording, we say that we're happy with whatever margin of error we incur from our gauges and from convenient measurements because we're just measuring something small with the gauges that we have and that's good enough.

Depends on the measurement. Measuring out a garage is measuring something made with a natural material: wood. That material has warps, checks, pitch pockets, curl, twist, knots, and different grain cuts, producing different strengths.

Most lumber for home building (and garage building) is horizontal cut, with a certain allowance tolerated for the number and size of knots, pitch pockets, checks, etc. and their placement in the cut and planed piece. Stud material, for example, is pretty tolerant of such stuff. Supporting beams and large headers require better material or laminates of less material.

Wood for aircraft construction has the highest grade requirements of all. All pieces used in the main spar must be individually inspected and very free of knots and pitch pockets. No checks are allows. No wanes are allowed. Warp, curl, and twist requirements are very stringent. Anything that doesn't meet this high standard must be rejected for use in aircraft.

These are all measurements. The quality of the wood, it's current moisture content, it's dimensional size, and the tolerance of each joint (allowable gap or inconsistency of the joint).

Houses we just sort of bang together. Wood aircraft construction is a slow and tedious process, and all joints must be glued (no nails!). Gussets are used for many joints for reinforcement and they also must be glued. Small tack brads are allowed there only to hold the glue joint.

Constructing a truss for buildings has a higher requirement for lumber and tolerance of joints as well, but they can be joined using mending plates as long as the mending plates are properly seated (not easy for onsite construction, which is why it is not allowed except for non-critical outbuildings like sheds).

However, it is possible to construct a stick built roof on site. It's tolerances are greater.

Measurements are about tolerances and the allowed tolerances for the measurement. There is no statistical math involved here at all.

IBdaMann wrote:
It's not a life-or-death situation

Construction that does not meet allowable tolerances is a life-or-death situation. The building could collapse on you. An airplane can come apart in midair. A boat hull that fails at sea is certainly a life-or-death situation. Even an improperly built shelf unit could potentially kill someone.

IBdaMann wrote:
and we're not trying to convince people that they need to be taxed up the wazoo in order to save the planet.

Quite true. Construction techniques and measurements have nothing to do with saving the planet. Taking a temperature at a weather station has nothing to do with saving the planet.
IBdaMann wrote:
However, if we *do* have an application where it is imperative that we get an accurate measure, naturally we have to specify that level of accuracy (margin of error that we declare as acceptable) up front. tgoebbles denies this for some reason.

Temperature measurements, length measurements of a piece of wood or metal, weight measurements including weight distribution of aircraft in flight, are all about tolerance and allowable tolerance. Margin of error is not used here. There is no statistical math in any measurement.
IBdaMann wrote:
Once we have determined the needed margin of error, we gather up the specific gauges we have available (and their specific engineering tolerances) and we break out the statistical math to help us figure out what data collection we will need to achieve that margin of error. We then use that information to create our data collection plan ... which we then follow.

You are failing to take into account the requirement to declare and justify variance. It is this value that is used to calculate the margin of error value. You don't choose it. It is calculated. It is not calculated from the data, but from the possible variance over the data, such as how far temperature might change per mile, or how far allowable height of basketball players is allowed before they are allowed on a basketball team. Only from this kind of value can you calculate a margin of error, which must accompany the summary.
IBdaMann wrote:
We then take the raw dataset we gather per our plan and present it. We know that it will be convincing because when our audience analyzes the data, we know that they will realize our established margin of error and won't have room to dispute.

The raw data must also be available. It must be published. It must be from an acceptable source. This includes, of course, that the reason for collecting the data is known, when it was collected, how it was collected (including knowing the measurement method including the tolerance of the equipment and the allowable tolerance of each measurement), and, of course, it must be raw data free of biasing influences. You can't cook such data, because the summary hasn't been run yet, and because statistical math does not have the power of prediction. One summary has nothing to do with any other summary.

IBdaMann wrote:
Of course, if we are not trying to convince anyone but ourselves then we just take whatever measurements we want until we are satisfied with what we have. Done.

That satisfaction is our own internal call one what we are going to accept as allowable tolerance, and balance that with the tolerance of the measuring equipment (whether it's a tape measure, scale, temperature, or any other measurement.
IBdaMann wrote:
There is no church, e.g. IPCC, that feels obligated to present any data to support what they expect you to believe.

Quite right. NASA does not have the temperature of the Earth in any of it's claimed data. It is not possible to measure it. Not because of tolerances or allowable tolerances, but because of margin of error problems and because the raw data is not free of biasing influences and it's method of collection is not published.

NOAA has the same problem.

Both agencies failed to declare and justify the variance used to calculate the margin of error. Both agencies are not publishing a margin of error. Both agencies are using nebulous and vague sources of raw data. Both agencies are using biased sources of data in their claimed data.

A statistical summary run from biased data is completely meaningless. A summary run without publishing the margin of error is completely meaningless. Variance MUST be declared and justified. Raw data free of biasing influences MUST be used and publicly available.

Then, and only then, does any kind of statistical summary have any value.

An election is no different. It is a statistical summary. Variance in an election is simply the number of choices including write-ins, on the ballot. That part is easy. As in any statistical summary, selection of data by randN is required. The data must be unbiased. It's method of collection must be known.

By blocking observers, the method of collection is NOT known. Neither is the verification that data is sampled by randN. By inserting fake ballots, data that is biased is being used, thus nullifying the entire summary. Changing the method of collection or using inconsistent methods in the same State is also failure to use unbiased data and failure to select by randN.

This is why the election has faulted. The summary is invalid.

According to the constitution, Article II, the State legislatures, and ONLY the State legislatures can choose their electors for that State. If they do not choose in time, they abstain. It's as simple as that. Abstaining means they lose their electoral votes entirely.

Elections are advisory votes to choose the electors. The method of conducting that election is also chosen by the legislatures of that State, not a governor, nor a secretary of State, not an election canvasser, NO ONE ELSE. In the States of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia, governors, secretaries of State, and election officials themselves have changed election law outside the authority of the legislature. This is the essence of the Texas lawsuit (and soon to be filed Trump lawsuits against each of these States. The lawsuits are not trying to overturn an election. They are not trying to change election law. They are trying to get these States to follow their own law and to conform to the law set forth in the Constitution of the United States.

This is a federal issue, involving State against State. Texas had legal standing to file the lawsuit. The Supreme Court once again ignored the Constitution and sought to create law. The Supreme Court DOES have possible courses of action. They can require these States to follow their own election laws and choose their electors (only the legislatures can do that) by a certain date or abstain (the State loses it's electors completely).

In my opinion, this controversy is such that the alternative specified in the 12th amendment will need to be used. In this case, Trump wins.

Normally, Dec 14th is when States must choose their electors. They may even try to do so. A court, however, can nullify that choice if it can be demonstrated that the choice is made based on violating law. The legislatures can choose their own electors freely, but it MUST conform to their own State laws as specified by that same legislature, or the legislature must change the law (even for that one instance where they simply choose the electors themselves without a vote of the people).

Will they have the guts to do it? Maybe, maybe not. If they fail to act, it must be concluded that they abstain.


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
14-12-2020 23:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(14484)
duncan61 wrote:
Fun Fact.In 1998 the president of the Island nation of Tuvalu started seeking international aid to help his people relocate because the South Pacific atolls and islands would be underwater by 2020.I just looked outside.Its 2020 and the bulk of the islands are now 400mm further out the water as the land is going up and the sea has not risen at all in the South Pacific.Does anyone care or wonder about this reality


Method of measurement? Where is the raw data? What instrumentation was used to determine this measurement? What is it's tolerance? What is the allowable acceptable tolerance of the measurement? Over what time period were these measurements made?

Until I know these things, I must consider the 400mm 'measurement' to be no more than a random number of type randU.


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
14-12-2020 23:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(14484)
HarveyH55 wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Fun Fact.In 1998 the president of the Island nation of Tuvalu started seeking international aid to help his people relocate because the South Pacific atolls and islands would be underwater by 2020.I just looked outside.Its 2020 and the bulk of the islands are now 400mm further out the water as the land is going up and the sea has not risen at all in the South Pacific.Does anyone care or wonder about this reality


It's proof the money was well spent... Spending money fixes any problem, virtually, real, or imagined. Florida was suppose to be under water too, but we didn't get any aid money to prevent it. Then again, we are in the South Atlantic. Wonder what they did with all that water...


Heh. If spending money solved problems, why are there so many problems in the federal government??


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
15-12-2020 00:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(14484)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: It's known that some islands will increase in elevation if sediment is deposited by waves washing over the island.

Nope.

There is only erosion. What you are describing is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and is not possible.

Islands can only increase in elevation due to geological activity.

.


Quite right. James is confusing erosion with building the height of a mountain (or island).

Even sand bars, which can form due to erosion, are just temporary things. It is a temporary spot for material that used by be above water to sit at beneath the sea. Once the island itself is gone, the sandbars go with it.

Of course, geological activity can create new land. Coral can and does reduce the effects of erosion as well, at least as far as the dissipation of sand bars is concerned.

Even a sand bar that manages to grow above the water level is lower than the island it came from.


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
15-12-2020 01:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8056)
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Fun Fact.In 1998 the president of the Island nation of Tuvalu started seeking international aid to help his people relocate because the South Pacific atolls and islands would be underwater by 2020.I just looked outside.Its 2020 and the bulk of the islands are now 400mm further out the water as the land is going up and the sea has not risen at all in the South Pacific.Does anyone care or wonder about this reality


Method of measurement? Where is the raw data? What instrumentation was used to determine this measurement? What is it's tolerance? What is the allowable acceptable tolerance of the measurement? Over what time period were these measurements made?

Until I know these things, I must consider the 400mm 'measurement' to be no more than a random number of type randU.


Tuvalu was just one of the many developing countries who helped the Marxist forces of Europe push the Global Warming agenda of global wealth redistribution ... from the US to the rest of the globe. The idea was that Global Warming would be legitimized if there were a sufficient number of countries screaming for aid ... and sternly accusing the US of causing all of their disastrous Climate Change. The IPCC told each and every such country exactly what to say and what to do to give the appearance of impending doom for their countries while establishing the US' obligation to "fix" the problems the US imposed. The only way to "fix" the earth's damaged Climate was for the US to issue unprecedented levels of cash directly to foreign leaders.

Everything claimed by Tuvalu and others had all the credibility of the IPCC, which is why there is still no danger to said countries and no discernable change to the sea level.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
15-12-2020 16:39
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(874)
Just watched Neil deGrasse Tyson banging on about how its too late and we are past the tipping point and all cities will have to move 20 km inland because of the rising sea level.He really should go down the beach and have a look.It worked for me
15-12-2020 18:32
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1586)
duncan61 wrote:
Just watched Neil deGrasse Tyson banging on about how its too late and we are past the tipping point and all cities will have to move 20 km inland because of the rising sea level.He really should go down the beach and have a look.It worked for me

Yup, he's a Grade A moron, ain't he?


He, like Bill Lie the Psyops Guy, denies science.
18-12-2020 06:42
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(874)
At the end of the interveiw he plugs his new book which explains it all
18-12-2020 07:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8056)
duncan61 wrote:At the end of the interveiw he plugs his new book which explains it all



He's a lunatic moron.

https://youtu.be/5BqK7WZQBxk

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
19-12-2020 02:03
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(874)
He sits there and claims if all the ice melts the water will be up to the Statue of libertys elbow.How can any rational person fall for this and of course the reason its true is the science says so
19-12-2020 04:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8056)
duncan61 wrote: He sits there and claims if all the ice melts the water will be up to the Statue of libertys elbow.How can any rational person fall for this and of course the reason its true is the science says so

If enough ice to cover the area of both Greenland and Antarctica combined and 30 meters thick, were to melt instantly and dump into our oceans, we could expect the ocean to rise just under one meter. Aren't the lowest structures (on land that isn't itself below sea level) above 2 meters elevation?

Now, can we expect any large quantity of ice to melt without a commensurate amount of ice forming elsewhere? I don't see how.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
Page 3 of 3<123





Join the debate sea levels:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
https://www.waclimate.net/perth-sea-levels.html627-11-2020 01:24
Desalination and evaporation of sea water at both poles1019-11-2020 23:57
Rising sea levels attacking Florida coast, happening now!2519-10-2020 10:58
The Perfect Solution To Remove Conflict Problems In The South China East Asia Sea316-09-2020 05:00
sea ice717-08-2020 09:22
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact