Remember me
▼ Content

Waste Heat



Page 2 of 2<12
22-04-2017 09:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
That's all very well, but if either of you could be bothered to do any research at all on the topic, you'd have discovered that the Jason 1 and 2 satellites that measure sea level use a system called Doppler Orbitography and Radio-positioning Integrated by Satellite (DORIS) for accurate positioning rather than GPS.

Ocean Surface Topography Mission/ Jason 2 Launch


Now if you only had the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

This mission ran for 4-5 years - even if it ran successfully from launch the total amount of sea level growth which now is in doubt would have been 3/4". And that could not be determined in that time since it was the tiniest part of a wave pattern in good weather let alone a storm. The normal weather pattern in the oceans is 10' waves and since we are seeing gross weather patterns making sea levels everywhere dramatically different from location to location this program was made to research OCEAN HEAT PATTERNS.

You have to show how much you don't know.

As is usually the case, you appear to be the one without a clue. Jason-2 has been operating since 2008 and continues to operate today. Its main purpose is to measure the height of the ocean surface. The clue is in the name of its main mission: "Ocean Surface Topography Mission". You do know what "topography" means, don't you?

Jason-2 provided the green dots for this graph of global sea level:


Neither Jason-1 nor Jason-2's mission is to measure absolute sea level. Neither can they. It is to measure topography of sea level.

Your plot is manufactured data.

It's not my plot, its from the University of Colorado.

Measuring the topography of the sea surface means measuring its height. In addition to giving information about ocean currents, you can also take the global average of this height to determine changes in global sea level, as the folks of the University of Colorado have done.

You are using it as your argument. It's your plot. Perhaps some remedial English might help you.

You cannot create an average without a valid reference. Again, you show your total illiteracy when it comes to statistical math. You are doing what is known as a base rate fallacy. It is a math error in statistics and probability.

Stay outta 'Vegas. They will eat you alive with your bad math.

Perhaps you should pay a visit to the University of Colorado and explain where they're going wrong.


I might do that next time I'm in the area...not that it will make any difference.

Why do you worship the University of Colorado? Just because a university puts out a chart that doesn't make it correct or even a sensible statement.

Do you worship NASA too?


The Parrot Killer
22-04-2017 23:18
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
That's all very well, but if either of you could be bothered to do any research at all on the topic, you'd have discovered that the Jason 1 and 2 satellites that measure sea level use a system called Doppler Orbitography and Radio-positioning Integrated by Satellite (DORIS) for accurate positioning rather than GPS.

Ocean Surface Topography Mission/ Jason 2 Launch


Now if you only had the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

This mission ran for 4-5 years - even if it ran successfully from launch the total amount of sea level growth which now is in doubt would have been 3/4". And that could not be determined in that time since it was the tiniest part of a wave pattern in good weather let alone a storm. The normal weather pattern in the oceans is 10' waves and since we are seeing gross weather patterns making sea levels everywhere dramatically different from location to location this program was made to research OCEAN HEAT PATTERNS.

You have to show how much you don't know.

As is usually the case, you appear to be the one without a clue. Jason-2 has been operating since 2008 and continues to operate today. Its main purpose is to measure the height of the ocean surface. The clue is in the name of its main mission: "Ocean Surface Topography Mission". You do know what "topography" means, don't you?

Jason-2 provided the green dots for this graph of global sea level:


Neither Jason-1 nor Jason-2's mission is to measure absolute sea level. Neither can they. It is to measure topography of sea level.

Your plot is manufactured data.

It's not my plot, its from the University of Colorado.

Measuring the topography of the sea surface means measuring its height. In addition to giving information about ocean currents, you can also take the global average of this height to determine changes in global sea level, as the folks of the University of Colorado have done.

You are using it as your argument. It's your plot. Perhaps some remedial English might help you.

You cannot create an average without a valid reference. Again, you show your total illiteracy when it comes to statistical math. You are doing what is known as a base rate fallacy. It is a math error in statistics and probability.

Stay outta 'Vegas. They will eat you alive with your bad math.

Perhaps you should pay a visit to the University of Colorado and explain where they're going wrong.


And perhaps you should actually learn to tell the difference between a chart showing a slowing rising level in one place and that it means little to nothing.
19-05-2017 01:47
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote: Perhaps you should pay a visit to the University of Colorado and explain where they're going wrong.


To revisit this now that perhaps tempers have cooled off.

Wave patterns are NOT regular and they are not on a single direction. The average height in the open ocean is about 10 feet. Also on top of this there is the tide levels. As an average range the tide varies by about 2 feet. But this is an average and it CAN vary from almost 0 feet to almost 40 feet.

Now add to this the triangulation difference from a moving satellite. What we normally do is pass off data as simply and rapidly as possible because of the transient time of the satellite.

You are presenting a chart that is measuring mm (0.039 inches). That is about 1/32nd of an inch. With the multiple crossing wave patterns that can be as high as 25 or 30 feet, a tide level that is generally unknown and a transit time that can change the actual measurement by several feet you are actually thinking that with an average error of about 20 feet you can tell 1/64th of an inch.

This would be an accuracy of 0.3% on ONE single calculation and the next one would be totally different.

So hopefully you understand that charts from satellite data on sea level are wild guesses at the very best.

They are deriving a chart like this from millions and millions of measurements and assembling them using averaging. It doesn't take but the slightest error in their calculations to give completely inaccurate information.

And since satellite orbits vary quite a bit that would be the logical source of error.

Using radar ranging to give you perfect satellite altitude and orbital data? How do you know that the land upon which the radar ranging is based isn't moving? Remember that these satellites are still inside of the Earth's very tenuous atmosphere and all it takes is to hit a somewhat denser area to throw everything off.

On something like this I would think that between 2 and 5% would be acceptable errors. Though I have lost several jobs by correcting the errors of PhD's.
21-05-2017 01:07
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote: Perhaps you should pay a visit to the University of Colorado and explain where they're going wrong.


SD - while looking at the information on those satellites I realized the mistake you're making. Topography of the oceans doesn't mean sea levels. It means the DIFFERENCE in sea levels in difference places.

And this has to do with the mass changes in the Earth which effects gravity in difference areas of the Earth.

The Earth's core and it's mantle rotate at difference rates and these cause rather substantial changes in the gravity around the world. It is shown by the shifting of the magnetic poles and there can be a rather abrupt reversal of the magnetic poles though I don't think that is well understood.

So while you believe that chart is showing the rather preposterous "rise in sea levels" of over 3 mm per year it is actually showing one of the long term cycles I was talking about - it is a world wide change in the high and low spots: the topography of the oceans.

And I for one would really question their ability to achieve accuracy of those levels from satellite data. I do have knowledge of the errors that have to be adjusted for and just how difficult they are to correct.

I think that it behooves all of us to try to stop getting angry and calling names instead of trying to understand what is being said by all parties.
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Waste Heat:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Heat Goes On1405-06-2020 19:24
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N252624-01-2020 06:17
Definition of heat and heat pump4021-01-2020 18:21
Max Planck and Pierre Prevost on Net Thermal Radiation and Net Heat3227-09-2019 02:43
How does radiation heat CO2615-08-2019 05:38
▲ 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