22-04-2017 09:22 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (22456) |
Surface Detail wrote:Into the Night wrote:Surface Detail wrote:Into the Night wrote:Surface Detail wrote:Wake wrote:Surface Detail wrote: 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 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 |
22-04-2017 23:18 | |
Wake★★★★★ (4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:Into the Night wrote:Surface Detail wrote:Into the Night wrote:Surface Detail wrote:Wake wrote:Surface Detail wrote: 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★★★★★ (4034) |
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★★★★★ (4034) |
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. |
Threads | Replies | Last post |
Some can take the heat, and | 2 | 14-10-2023 13:26 |
Illegal Chinese-linked biolab filled with mice, medical waste discovered in California | 0 | 02-08-2023 01:57 |
Linux is dead on the desktop, so do not even waste your time considering it | 26 | 30-07-2023 03:21 |
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2 | 533 | 30-01-2023 07:22 |
caest iron heat stoerage | 8 | 04-08-2021 06:52 |