Remember me
▼ Content

Waste Heat



Page 1 of 212>
Waste Heat17-04-2017 21:02
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
If you watch this link you will see there is a lot of waste heat at night. This also contributes to climate change. Just trying to keep things on topic as to why our planet is warming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzMQza8xZCc
17-04-2017 23:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
[quote]James_ wrote:
If you watch this link you will see there is a lot of waste heat at night. This also contributes to climate change. Just trying to keep things on topic as to why our planet is warming.

How do you know our planet is warming?


The Parrot Killer
18-04-2017 00:21
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
If you watch this link you will see there is a lot of waste heat at night. This also contributes to climate change. Just trying to keep things on topic as to why our planet is warming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzMQza8xZCc


James_ - you are way off what is going on. You're making a rather simple mistake that many people make - you don't have a grasp of how BIG the Earth is including it's atmosphere.

Most of what you call "waste heat" is nothing more than the normal convection and conduction from people living. There are LARGE areas of the world that appear to dump equal amounts of heat that in fact use hardly any energy.

The greater part of what you seem to think is "dumping waste heat" is clouds formed from the emissions of the Sun.

"At the upper reaches of our atmosphere, the energy density of solar radiation is approximately 1,368 W/m2 (watts per square meter). At the Earth's surface, the energy density is reduced to approximately 1,000 W/m2 for a surface perpendicular to the Sun's rays at sea level on a clear day." We can make this a minimum estimation of how much heat is dumped into the Earth's tropopause.

Therefore the Earth is exposed to approximately 10 trillion watts per day.

Now this is often hidden in some complexity but "US Energy Information Administration (EIA), total primary energy consumption came to 493 quadrillion — that's 493,000,000,000,000,000 — BTUs in 2008"

So the Sun places upon the Earth some 820,000,000,000,000 btu's each 24 hour day.

If we take the probably WELL overestimated figure of the US Energy Department this would be some 2,700,000,000,000,000 per day or roughly .0015% of what the sun passes on to us.

The center of the Earth is a molten core and it probably passes more heat through the mantle and into the atmosphere every day than man generates.
Edited on 18-04-2017 00:26
18-04-2017 01:58
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
If you watch this link you will see there is a lot of waste heat at night. This also contributes to climate change. Just trying to keep things on topic as to why our planet is warming.

How do you know our planet is warming?


White whales leaving the waters around and adjacent to Greenland in 1920 because those waters suddenly warmed. They moved up to Baffin Bay where they could enjoy arctic type waters. This means they prefer waters closer to 28 F.
18-04-2017 02:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
If you watch this link you will see there is a lot of waste heat at night. This also contributes to climate change. Just trying to keep things on topic as to why our planet is warming.

How do you know our planet is warming?


White whales leaving the waters around and adjacent to Greenland in 1920 because those waters suddenly warmed.
White whales did not leave the waters around Greenland. They were hunted.
James_ wrote:
They moved up to Baffin Bay where they could enjoy arctic type waters. This means they prefer waters closer to 28 F.

These whales range all over the world.


The Parrot Killer
18-04-2017 16:20
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
James_ wrote: White whales leaving the waters around and adjacent to Greenland in 1920 because those waters suddenly warmed. They moved up to Baffin Bay where they could enjoy arctic type waters. This means they prefer waters closer to 28 F.

... *or* there was a shift in currents that had been building, causing their food to be elsewhere, showing that belugas prefer eating over starving.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
18-04-2017 21:09
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
If you read the distribution (http://www.npolar.no/en/species/white-whale.html), not even in the Greenland Sea which also warming.
18-04-2017 23:16
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
If you watch this link you will see there is a lot of waste heat at night. This also contributes to climate change. Just trying to keep things on topic as to why our planet is warming.

How do you know our planet is warming?


White whales leaving the waters around and adjacent to Greenland in 1920 because those waters suddenly warmed. They moved up to Baffin Bay where they could enjoy arctic type waters. This means they prefer waters closer to 28 F.


"White whales are found in most arctic and sub arctic waters, including the Arctic Ocean and its adjacent seas. However, their distribution is somewhat disjointed in that they are virtually nonexistent in the Greenland Sea. A small, southern population of white whales resides in the St Lawrence River in Canada. White whales exhibit highly variable movement patterns in different geographical areas of the Arctic (see below). In Svalbard, white whales exhibit a tightly coastal distribution, never leaving the near-shore waters of the Archipelago."
19-04-2017 19:47
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
If you watch this link you will see there is a lot of waste heat at night. This also contributes to climate change. Just trying to keep things on topic as to why our planet is warming.

How do you know our planet is warming?


White whales leaving the waters around and adjacent to Greenland in 1920 because those waters suddenly warmed. They moved up to Baffin Bay where they could enjoy arctic type waters. This means they prefer waters closer to 28 F.


"White whales are found in most arctic and sub arctic waters, including the Arctic Ocean and its adjacent seas. However, their distribution is somewhat disjointed in that they are virtually nonexistent in the Greenland Sea. A small, southern population of white whales resides in the St Lawrence River in Canada. White whales exhibit highly variable movement patterns in different geographical areas of the Arctic (see below). In Svalbard, white whales exhibit a tightly coastal distribution, never leaving the near-shore waters of the Archipelago."


With the Greenland Sea, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm
19-04-2017 20:09
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
James_ wrote:
If you watch this link you will see there is a lot of waste heat at night. This also contributes to climate change. Just trying to keep things on topic as to why our planet is warming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzMQza8xZCc


Unless that was an Infrared night camera, the picture was visible light. The big source of "waste" energy is infrared emissions from the earth and its inhabitants.
19-04-2017 21:21
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
If you watch this link you will see there is a lot of waste heat at night. This also contributes to climate change. Just trying to keep things on topic as to why our planet is warming.

How do you know our planet is warming?


White whales leaving the waters around and adjacent to Greenland in 1920 because those waters suddenly warmed. They moved up to Baffin Bay where they could enjoy arctic type waters. This means they prefer waters closer to 28 F.


"White whales are found in most arctic and sub arctic waters, including the Arctic Ocean and its adjacent seas. However, their distribution is somewhat disjointed in that they are virtually nonexistent in the Greenland Sea. A small, southern population of white whales resides in the St Lawrence River in Canada. White whales exhibit highly variable movement patterns in different geographical areas of the Arctic (see below). In Svalbard, white whales exhibit a tightly coastal distribution, never leaving the near-shore waters of the Archipelago."


With the Greenland Sea, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm



What is that supposed to mean? It appears to be warming from sub-oceanic volcanic sources. But using extreme scaling like that is doing nothing more than patently misrepresenting everything they are saying.
19-04-2017 21:27
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Frescomexico wrote:
James_ wrote:
If you watch this link you will see there is a lot of waste heat at night. This also contributes to climate change. Just trying to keep things on topic as to why our planet is warming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzMQza8xZCc


Unless that was an Infrared night camera, the picture was visible light. The big source of "waste" energy is infrared emissions from the earth and its inhabitants.


If you look at the scaling of all of these charts you can see that they are being scaled in order to make it look like they are related.

It is possible to scale the increases in atmospheric CO2 to appear that the increase in GNP of the USA per person is responsible for the increase in CO2 when the rest of the world contributes FAR more than the USA and they have been increasing their CO2 without any controls.

You can misrepresent by scaling the increase in world's population to appear to be the cause of global warming.

This is ALL unrelated and the true temperature increases are a not related to anything connected with man. In fact for the last 20 years now we have actually been in a cooling phase.

What we are seeing is nothing less than the actions of a cult religion whose God is the devil because he is out to destroy man. This is nothing less than the acts of Sodom.
19-04-2017 23:40
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
James_ wrote:
If you watch this link you will see there is a lot of waste heat at night. This also contributes to climate change. Just trying to keep things on topic as to why our planet is warming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzMQza8xZCc


Unless that was an Infrared night camera, the picture was visible light. The big source of "waste" energy is infrared emissions from the earth and its inhabitants.


If you look at the scaling of all of these charts you can see that they are being scaled in order to make it look like they are related.

It is possible to scale the increases in atmospheric CO2 to appear that the increase in GNP of the USA per person is responsible for the increase in CO2 when the rest of the world contributes FAR more than the USA and they have been increasing their CO2 without any controls.

You can misrepresent by scaling the increase in world's population to appear to be the cause of global warming.

This is ALL unrelated and the true temperature increases are a not related to anything connected with man. In fact for the last 20 years now we have actually been in a cooling phase.

What we are seeing is nothing less than the actions of a cult religion whose God is the devil because he is out to destroy man. This is nothing less than the acts of Sodom.


With 20 years of cooling, when will the glaciers start to descend ? But just in case it will take a while, I am busy installing four minisplit air conditioners in my house here in Mexico at 20 degrees North Latitude. Actually it has always been almost unbearable here in the summer (humidity), and with the "wall" and all, I am staying down here longer every year.
19-04-2017 23:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
James_ wrote:
If you watch this link you will see there is a lot of waste heat at night. This also contributes to climate change. Just trying to keep things on topic as to why our planet is warming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzMQza8xZCc


Unless that was an Infrared night camera, the picture was visible light. The big source of "waste" energy is infrared emissions from the earth and its inhabitants.


If you look at the scaling of all of these charts you can see that they are being scaled in order to make it look like they are related.

It is possible to scale the increases in atmospheric CO2 to appear that the increase in GNP of the USA per person is responsible for the increase in CO2 when the rest of the world contributes FAR more than the USA and they have been increasing their CO2 without any controls.

You can misrepresent by scaling the increase in world's population to appear to be the cause of global warming.

This is ALL unrelated and the true temperature increases are a not related to anything connected with man. In fact for the last 20 years now we have actually been in a cooling phase.

What we are seeing is nothing less than the actions of a cult religion whose God is the devil because he is out to destroy man. This is nothing less than the acts of Sodom.

Meanwhile, here in the real world, values of seafront properties are plummeting as flooding becomes increasingly common with rising sea levels.

When Rising Seas Transform Risk Into Certainty

If you really believe that the world is cooling, you'll also be expecting the sea level to fall as the ice caps grow. So why not fill your boots with some of those cheap seafront properties?
20-04-2017 00:57
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Was kind of hoping that some might like the view from the ISS.
With lights at night power plants are still running and asphalt is releasing heat.
And during the day temperatures around paved areas will be higher.
What often isn't mentioned is the sea floor and land from Greenland to Scandinavia is rising as glaciers melt.

Jim]
20-04-2017 01:00
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
James_ wrote:
If you watch this link you will see there is a lot of waste heat at night. This also contributes to climate change. Just trying to keep things on topic as to why our planet is warming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzMQza8xZCc


Unless that was an Infrared night camera, the picture was visible light. The big source of "waste" energy is infrared emissions from the earth and its inhabitants.


If you look at the scaling of all of these charts you can see that they are being scaled in order to make it look like they are related.

It is possible to scale the increases in atmospheric CO2 to appear that the increase in GNP of the USA per person is responsible for the increase in CO2 when the rest of the world contributes FAR more than the USA and they have been increasing their CO2 without any controls.

You can misrepresent by scaling the increase in world's population to appear to be the cause of global warming.

This is ALL unrelated and the true temperature increases are a not related to anything connected with man. In fact for the last 20 years now we have actually been in a cooling phase.

What we are seeing is nothing less than the actions of a cult religion whose God is the devil because he is out to destroy man. This is nothing less than the acts of Sodom.

Meanwhile, here in the real world, values of seafront properties are plummeting as flooding becomes increasingly common with rising sea levels.

When Rising Seas Transform Risk Into Certainty

If you really believe that the world is cooling, you'll also be expecting the sea level to fall as the ice caps grow. So why not fill your boots with some of those cheap seafront properties?


So now you've been demonstrating a total ignorance of glaciers as well as physics. Figures.
20-04-2017 01:08
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
Was kind of hoping that some might like the view from the ISS.
With lights at night power plants are still running and asphalt is releasing heat.
And during the day temperatures around paved areas will be higher.
What often isn't mentioned is the sea floor and land from Greenland to Scandinavia is rising as glaciers melt.

Jim]


The Earth is a REALLY big place. What is mistaken for a large rise in sea levels at one place only means 1. That the oceans take a VERY long time to stabilize and will be a great deal lower and 2. that there are FAR more cycles in the Earth's oceans than merely the tides of the moon. These same tides are so large that they have secondary and ternary and even higher levels of cycles that rotate around the Earth. These secondary tides are also effected by the orbits of Mars, Venus and Jupiter. But the morons on the left are completely unaware of simple science fact.

When you have stupid people you get stupid ideas.
20-04-2017 01:40
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
The Earth is a REALLY big place. What is mistaken for a large rise in sea levels at one place only means 1. That the oceans take a VERY long time to stabilize and will be a great deal lower and 2. that there are FAR more cycles in the Earth's oceans than merely the tides of the moon. These same tides are so large that they have secondary and ternary and even higher levels of cycles that rotate around the Earth. These secondary tides are also effected by the orbits of Mars, Venus and Jupiter. But the morons on the left are completely unaware of simple science fact.

When you have stupid people you get stupid ideas.

The global sea level isn't measured in one place. It's measured globally by satellite altimetry. In a few places, it is indeed falling, but in far more places, it is rising. So, on average, it is rising (currently by about 3.4 mm/year).

CU Sea Level Research Group
20-04-2017 01:44
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The Earth is a REALLY big place. What is mistaken for a large rise in sea levels at one place only means 1. That the oceans take a VERY long time to stabilize and will be a great deal lower and 2. that there are FAR more cycles in the Earth's oceans than merely the tides of the moon. These same tides are so large that they have secondary and ternary and even higher levels of cycles that rotate around the Earth. These secondary tides are also effected by the orbits of Mars, Venus and Jupiter. But the morons on the left are completely unaware of simple science fact.

When you have stupid people you get stupid ideas.

The global sea level isn't measured in one place. It's measured globally by satellite altimetry. In a few places, it is indeed falling, but in far more places, it is rising. So, on average, it is rising (currently by about 3.4 mm/year).

CU Sea Level Research Group


Good thing you are so educated in cyclic theory. Why don't you tell us all HOW the sea level could be raising in one spot and falling in another? Tell us the type of waveform that would require and how it would be generated.
Edited on 20-04-2017 01:47
20-04-2017 03:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The Earth is a REALLY big place. What is mistaken for a large rise in sea levels at one place only means 1. That the oceans take a VERY long time to stabilize and will be a great deal lower and 2. that there are FAR more cycles in the Earth's oceans than merely the tides of the moon. These same tides are so large that they have secondary and ternary and even higher levels of cycles that rotate around the Earth. These secondary tides are also effected by the orbits of Mars, Venus and Jupiter. But the morons on the left are completely unaware of simple science fact.

When you have stupid people you get stupid ideas.

The global sea level isn't measured in one place. It's measured globally by satellite altimetry. In a few places, it is indeed falling, but in far more places, it is rising. So, on average, it is rising (currently by about 3.4 mm/year).

CU Sea Level Research Group


Not possible. Satellites require a reference. Their orbits shift over time due to natural variations, so you can't use the orbit as a reference. This particular satellite system uses a reference beacon in Colorado. It has the same problem as using tidal stations.

Both references are mounted on tectonic plates that move. While we can measure horizontal movement very well, height changes are trickier since GPS uses the same kind of reference beacon as the sea level monitoring system.

The altitude of all these references are compared against the sea level...the thing you are trying to measure!

The result is that you have no reference of any useful degree of accuracy for measuring sea level rise due to 'global warming'. Such references are good to within a several feet, but not millimeters.

The sea level satellite system doesn't measure absolute sea level. It measures RELATIVE sea levels in different places due to things like barometric pressure, water temperatures, storm surges, tidal effects, etc. For this purpose it is extremely accurate. The reference is the relative differences of the sea itself. You can call either one 'zero'.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 20-04-2017 03:23
20-04-2017 21:42
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The Earth is a REALLY big place. What is mistaken for a large rise in sea levels at one place only means 1. That the oceans take a VERY long time to stabilize and will be a great deal lower and 2. that there are FAR more cycles in the Earth's oceans than merely the tides of the moon. These same tides are so large that they have secondary and ternary and even higher levels of cycles that rotate around the Earth. These secondary tides are also effected by the orbits of Mars, Venus and Jupiter. But the morons on the left are completely unaware of simple science fact.

When you have stupid people you get stupid ideas.

The global sea level isn't measured in one place. It's measured globally by satellite altimetry. In a few places, it is indeed falling, but in far more places, it is rising. So, on average, it is rising (currently by about 3.4 mm/year).

CU Sea Level Research Group


Not possible. Satellites require a reference. Their orbits shift over time due to natural variations, so you can't use the orbit as a reference. This particular satellite system uses a reference beacon in Colorado. It has the same problem as using tidal stations.

Both references are mounted on tectonic plates that move. While we can measure horizontal movement very well, height changes are trickier since GPS uses the same kind of reference beacon as the sea level monitoring system.

The altitude of all these references are compared against the sea level...the thing you are trying to measure!

The result is that you have no reference of any useful degree of accuracy for measuring sea level rise due to 'global warming'. Such references are good to within a several feet, but not millimeters.

The sea level satellite system doesn't measure absolute sea level. It measures RELATIVE sea levels in different places due to things like barometric pressure, water temperatures, storm surges, tidal effects, etc. For this purpose it is extremely accurate. The reference is the relative differences of the sea itself. You can call either one 'zero'.


I had that issue. That the satilites need some sort of referance point.

But no. Apparently they sort of mesh all their locations and work out a gravitational center of the planet. Can't say I'm that convinced. But so says my ex-British army survayor/mapper.
20-04-2017 22:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The Earth is a REALLY big place. What is mistaken for a large rise in sea levels at one place only means 1. That the oceans take a VERY long time to stabilize and will be a great deal lower and 2. that there are FAR more cycles in the Earth's oceans than merely the tides of the moon. These same tides are so large that they have secondary and ternary and even higher levels of cycles that rotate around the Earth. These secondary tides are also effected by the orbits of Mars, Venus and Jupiter. But the morons on the left are completely unaware of simple science fact.

When you have stupid people you get stupid ideas.

The global sea level isn't measured in one place. It's measured globally by satellite altimetry. In a few places, it is indeed falling, but in far more places, it is rising. So, on average, it is rising (currently by about 3.4 mm/year).

CU Sea Level Research Group


Not possible. Satellites require a reference. Their orbits shift over time due to natural variations, so you can't use the orbit as a reference. This particular satellite system uses a reference beacon in Colorado. It has the same problem as using tidal stations.

Both references are mounted on tectonic plates that move. While we can measure horizontal movement very well, height changes are trickier since GPS uses the same kind of reference beacon as the sea level monitoring system.

The altitude of all these references are compared against the sea level...the thing you are trying to measure!

The result is that you have no reference of any useful degree of accuracy for measuring sea level rise due to 'global warming'. Such references are good to within a several feet, but not millimeters.

The sea level satellite system doesn't measure absolute sea level. It measures RELATIVE sea levels in different places due to things like barometric pressure, water temperatures, storm surges, tidal effects, etc. For this purpose it is extremely accurate. The reference is the relative differences of the sea itself. You can call either one 'zero'.


I had that issue. That the satilites need some sort of referance point.

But no. Apparently they sort of mesh all their locations and work out a gravitational center of the planet. Can't say I'm that convinced. But so says my ex-British army survayor/mapper.


Won't work. The Earth is a composite of fluid and non-fluid materials. Stuff moves around. That means mass moves around. Where the satellite happens to be in orbit will be changed because of the variance of gravity as it passes over the surface. Things like GPS and the sea level monitoring system use reference beacons due to that very reason.

The reference beacon of GPS. in particular, contains a Lorentz compensated time signal from the WWV station in Boulder, CO. This is required because the GPS receiver must know where the satellite is when it listens for the Doppler beacon of the passing satellite. That receiver gets that information from a stored database updated by that time signal, which is also broadcast from the satellite.

If we know where the satellite is, we can calculate our XY position pretty accurately. Z position (altitude) is also calculable but not anymore accurate than a few dozen feet. Not good enough for much except navigating aircraft and hikers following terrain maps.


The Parrot Killer
20-04-2017 22:34
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The Earth is a REALLY big place. What is mistaken for a large rise in sea levels at one place only means 1. That the oceans take a VERY long time to stabilize and will be a great deal lower and 2. that there are FAR more cycles in the Earth's oceans than merely the tides of the moon. These same tides are so large that they have secondary and ternary and even higher levels of cycles that rotate around the Earth. These secondary tides are also effected by the orbits of Mars, Venus and Jupiter. But the morons on the left are completely unaware of simple science fact.

When you have stupid people you get stupid ideas.

The global sea level isn't measured in one place. It's measured globally by satellite altimetry. In a few places, it is indeed falling, but in far more places, it is rising. So, on average, it is rising (currently by about 3.4 mm/year).

CU Sea Level Research Group


Not possible. Satellites require a reference. Their orbits shift over time due to natural variations, so you can't use the orbit as a reference. This particular satellite system uses a reference beacon in Colorado. It has the same problem as using tidal stations.

Both references are mounted on tectonic plates that move. While we can measure horizontal movement very well, height changes are trickier since GPS uses the same kind of reference beacon as the sea level monitoring system.

The altitude of all these references are compared against the sea level...the thing you are trying to measure!

The result is that you have no reference of any useful degree of accuracy for measuring sea level rise due to 'global warming'. Such references are good to within a several feet, but not millimeters.

The sea level satellite system doesn't measure absolute sea level. It measures RELATIVE sea levels in different places due to things like barometric pressure, water temperatures, storm surges, tidal effects, etc. For this purpose it is extremely accurate. The reference is the relative differences of the sea itself. You can call either one 'zero'.


I had that issue. That the satilites need some sort of referance point.

But no. Apparently they sort of mesh all their locations and work out a gravitational center of the planet. Can't say I'm that convinced. But so says my ex-British army survayor/mapper.


Won't work. The Earth is a composite of fluid and non-fluid materials. Stuff moves around. That means mass moves around. Where the satellite happens to be in orbit will be changed because of the variance of gravity as it passes over the surface. Things like GPS and the sea level monitoring system use reference beacons due to that very reason.

The reference beacon of GPS. in particular, contains a Lorentz compensated time signal from the WWV station in Boulder, CO. This is required because the GPS receiver must know where the satellite is when it listens for the Doppler beacon of the passing satellite. That receiver gets that information from a stored database updated by that time signal, which is also broadcast from the satellite.

If we know where the satellite is, we can calculate our XY position pretty accurately. Z position (altitude) is also calculable but not anymore accurate than a few dozen feet. Not good enough for much except navigating aircraft and hikers following terrain maps.


Indeed the vertical reference of GPS is actually plus or minus 10 feet. The military satellites are more accurate simply by calculating the altitudes every day. They do not know WHY the references change, only that they do.
21-04-2017 00:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The Earth is a REALLY big place. What is mistaken for a large rise in sea levels at one place only means 1. That the oceans take a VERY long time to stabilize and will be a great deal lower and 2. that there are FAR more cycles in the Earth's oceans than merely the tides of the moon. These same tides are so large that they have secondary and ternary and even higher levels of cycles that rotate around the Earth. These secondary tides are also effected by the orbits of Mars, Venus and Jupiter. But the morons on the left are completely unaware of simple science fact.

When you have stupid people you get stupid ideas.

The global sea level isn't measured in one place. It's measured globally by satellite altimetry. In a few places, it is indeed falling, but in far more places, it is rising. So, on average, it is rising (currently by about 3.4 mm/year).

CU Sea Level Research Group


Not possible. Satellites require a reference. Their orbits shift over time due to natural variations, so you can't use the orbit as a reference. This particular satellite system uses a reference beacon in Colorado. It has the same problem as using tidal stations.

Both references are mounted on tectonic plates that move. While we can measure horizontal movement very well, height changes are trickier since GPS uses the same kind of reference beacon as the sea level monitoring system.

The altitude of all these references are compared against the sea level...the thing you are trying to measure!

The result is that you have no reference of any useful degree of accuracy for measuring sea level rise due to 'global warming'. Such references are good to within a several feet, but not millimeters.

The sea level satellite system doesn't measure absolute sea level. It measures RELATIVE sea levels in different places due to things like barometric pressure, water temperatures, storm surges, tidal effects, etc. For this purpose it is extremely accurate. The reference is the relative differences of the sea itself. You can call either one 'zero'.


I had that issue. That the satilites need some sort of referance point.

But no. Apparently they sort of mesh all their locations and work out a gravitational center of the planet. Can't say I'm that convinced. But so says my ex-British army survayor/mapper.


Won't work. The Earth is a composite of fluid and non-fluid materials. Stuff moves around. That means mass moves around. Where the satellite happens to be in orbit will be changed because of the variance of gravity as it passes over the surface. Things like GPS and the sea level monitoring system use reference beacons due to that very reason.

The reference beacon of GPS. in particular, contains a Lorentz compensated time signal from the WWV station in Boulder, CO. This is required because the GPS receiver must know where the satellite is when it listens for the Doppler beacon of the passing satellite. That receiver gets that information from a stored database updated by that time signal, which is also broadcast from the satellite.

If we know where the satellite is, we can calculate our XY position pretty accurately. Z position (altitude) is also calculable but not anymore accurate than a few dozen feet. Not good enough for much except navigating aircraft and hikers following terrain maps.


Indeed the vertical reference of GPS is actually plus or minus 10 feet. The military satellites are more accurate simply by calculating the altitudes every day. They do not know WHY the references change, only that they do.


They are the same satellites. Only the quality of the receiver changes. Most of that quality goes into the receiver's on board reference oscillator.


The Parrot Killer
21-04-2017 00:17
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The Earth is a REALLY big place. What is mistaken for a large rise in sea levels at one place only means 1. That the oceans take a VERY long time to stabilize and will be a great deal lower and 2. that there are FAR more cycles in the Earth's oceans than merely the tides of the moon. These same tides are so large that they have secondary and ternary and even higher levels of cycles that rotate around the Earth. These secondary tides are also effected by the orbits of Mars, Venus and Jupiter. But the morons on the left are completely unaware of simple science fact.

When you have stupid people you get stupid ideas.

The global sea level isn't measured in one place. It's measured globally by satellite altimetry. In a few places, it is indeed falling, but in far more places, it is rising. So, on average, it is rising (currently by about 3.4 mm/year).

CU Sea Level Research Group


Not possible. Satellites require a reference. Their orbits shift over time due to natural variations, so you can't use the orbit as a reference. This particular satellite system uses a reference beacon in Colorado. It has the same problem as using tidal stations.

Both references are mounted on tectonic plates that move. While we can measure horizontal movement very well, height changes are trickier since GPS uses the same kind of reference beacon as the sea level monitoring system.

The altitude of all these references are compared against the sea level...the thing you are trying to measure!

The result is that you have no reference of any useful degree of accuracy for measuring sea level rise due to 'global warming'. Such references are good to within a several feet, but not millimeters.

The sea level satellite system doesn't measure absolute sea level. It measures RELATIVE sea levels in different places due to things like barometric pressure, water temperatures, storm surges, tidal effects, etc. For this purpose it is extremely accurate. The reference is the relative differences of the sea itself. You can call either one 'zero'.


I had that issue. That the satilites need some sort of referance point.

But no. Apparently they sort of mesh all their locations and work out a gravitational center of the planet. Can't say I'm that convinced. But so says my ex-British army survayor/mapper.


Won't work. The Earth is a composite of fluid and non-fluid materials. Stuff moves around. That means mass moves around. Where the satellite happens to be in orbit will be changed because of the variance of gravity as it passes over the surface. Things like GPS and the sea level monitoring system use reference beacons due to that very reason.

The reference beacon of GPS. in particular, contains a Lorentz compensated time signal from the WWV station in Boulder, CO. This is required because the GPS receiver must know where the satellite is when it listens for the Doppler beacon of the passing satellite. That receiver gets that information from a stored database updated by that time signal, which is also broadcast from the satellite.

If we know where the satellite is, we can calculate our XY position pretty accurately. Z position (altitude) is also calculable but not anymore accurate than a few dozen feet. Not good enough for much except navigating aircraft and hikers following terrain maps.


Indeed the vertical reference of GPS is actually plus or minus 10 feet. The military satellites are more accurate simply by calculating the altitudes every day. They do not know WHY the references change, only that they do.


They are the same satellites. Only the quality of the receiver changes. Most of that quality goes into the receiver's on board reference oscillator.


By definition the reference oscillator is part of the circuitry and cannot be changed. Military use something like three times as many satellites and deal differently with the data.

When you have a GPS that shows altitude normally it isn't from the GPS reading. Normally they have a altimeter built into them that measures barometric pressure. Though they can reset to base so that changes in barometric pressure at any known location allows it to keep from fluctuating all over the place like barometers do.
21-04-2017 04:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The Earth is a REALLY big place. What is mistaken for a large rise in sea levels at one place only means 1. That the oceans take a VERY long time to stabilize and will be a great deal lower and 2. that there are FAR more cycles in the Earth's oceans than merely the tides of the moon. These same tides are so large that they have secondary and ternary and even higher levels of cycles that rotate around the Earth. These secondary tides are also effected by the orbits of Mars, Venus and Jupiter. But the morons on the left are completely unaware of simple science fact.

When you have stupid people you get stupid ideas.

The global sea level isn't measured in one place. It's measured globally by satellite altimetry. In a few places, it is indeed falling, but in far more places, it is rising. So, on average, it is rising (currently by about 3.4 mm/year).

CU Sea Level Research Group


Not possible. Satellites require a reference. Their orbits shift over time due to natural variations, so you can't use the orbit as a reference. This particular satellite system uses a reference beacon in Colorado. It has the same problem as using tidal stations.

Both references are mounted on tectonic plates that move. While we can measure horizontal movement very well, height changes are trickier since GPS uses the same kind of reference beacon as the sea level monitoring system.

The altitude of all these references are compared against the sea level...the thing you are trying to measure!

The result is that you have no reference of any useful degree of accuracy for measuring sea level rise due to 'global warming'. Such references are good to within a several feet, but not millimeters.

The sea level satellite system doesn't measure absolute sea level. It measures RELATIVE sea levels in different places due to things like barometric pressure, water temperatures, storm surges, tidal effects, etc. For this purpose it is extremely accurate. The reference is the relative differences of the sea itself. You can call either one 'zero'.


I had that issue. That the satilites need some sort of referance point.

But no. Apparently they sort of mesh all their locations and work out a gravitational center of the planet. Can't say I'm that convinced. But so says my ex-British army survayor/mapper.


Won't work. The Earth is a composite of fluid and non-fluid materials. Stuff moves around. That means mass moves around. Where the satellite happens to be in orbit will be changed because of the variance of gravity as it passes over the surface. Things like GPS and the sea level monitoring system use reference beacons due to that very reason.

The reference beacon of GPS. in particular, contains a Lorentz compensated time signal from the WWV station in Boulder, CO. This is required because the GPS receiver must know where the satellite is when it listens for the Doppler beacon of the passing satellite. That receiver gets that information from a stored database updated by that time signal, which is also broadcast from the satellite.

If we know where the satellite is, we can calculate our XY position pretty accurately. Z position (altitude) is also calculable but not anymore accurate than a few dozen feet. Not good enough for much except navigating aircraft and hikers following terrain maps.


Indeed the vertical reference of GPS is actually plus or minus 10 feet. The military satellites are more accurate simply by calculating the altitudes every day. They do not know WHY the references change, only that they do.


They are the same satellites. Only the quality of the receiver changes. Most of that quality goes into the receiver's on board reference oscillator.


By definition the reference oscillator is part of the circuitry and cannot be changed. Military use something like three times as many satellites and deal differently with the data.

When you have a GPS that shows altitude normally it isn't from the GPS reading. Normally they have a altimeter built into them that measures barometric pressure. Though they can reset to base so that changes in barometric pressure at any known location allows it to keep from fluctuating all over the place like barometers do.


This is just like compensated barometers in aircraft.

The reference oscillator is part of the design of the receiver. Not user changeable. The quality of that oscillator is the difference. Military grade stuff uses a much higher quality reference oscillator than the consumer stuff. All oscillators drift and jitter. Higher quality oscillators are less prone to this, but they tend to cost more. Odd how that works out!

Yes. The software in the receiver also makes a difference. It knows how to make use of the higher grade circuitry and contains the necessary keys to prevent intentional inaccuracy (currently not turned on).


The Parrot Killer
21-04-2017 19:25
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The Earth is a REALLY big place. What is mistaken for a large rise in sea levels at one place only means 1. That the oceans take a VERY long time to stabilize and will be a great deal lower and 2. that there are FAR more cycles in the Earth's oceans than merely the tides of the moon. These same tides are so large that they have secondary and ternary and even higher levels of cycles that rotate around the Earth. These secondary tides are also effected by the orbits of Mars, Venus and Jupiter. But the morons on the left are completely unaware of simple science fact.

When you have stupid people you get stupid ideas.

The global sea level isn't measured in one place. It's measured globally by satellite altimetry. In a few places, it is indeed falling, but in far more places, it is rising. So, on average, it is rising (currently by about 3.4 mm/year).

CU Sea Level Research Group


Not possible. Satellites require a reference. Their orbits shift over time due to natural variations, so you can't use the orbit as a reference. This particular satellite system uses a reference beacon in Colorado. It has the same problem as using tidal stations.

Both references are mounted on tectonic plates that move. While we can measure horizontal movement very well, height changes are trickier since GPS uses the same kind of reference beacon as the sea level monitoring system.

The altitude of all these references are compared against the sea level...the thing you are trying to measure!

The result is that you have no reference of any useful degree of accuracy for measuring sea level rise due to 'global warming'. Such references are good to within a several feet, but not millimeters.

The sea level satellite system doesn't measure absolute sea level. It measures RELATIVE sea levels in different places due to things like barometric pressure, water temperatures, storm surges, tidal effects, etc. For this purpose it is extremely accurate. The reference is the relative differences of the sea itself. You can call either one 'zero'.


I had that issue. That the satilites need some sort of referance point.

But no. Apparently they sort of mesh all their locations and work out a gravitational center of the planet. Can't say I'm that convinced. But so says my ex-British army survayor/mapper.


Won't work. The Earth is a composite of fluid and non-fluid materials. Stuff moves around. That means mass moves around. Where the satellite happens to be in orbit will be changed because of the variance of gravity as it passes over the surface. Things like GPS and the sea level monitoring system use reference beacons due to that very reason.

The reference beacon of GPS. in particular, contains a Lorentz compensated time signal from the WWV station in Boulder, CO. This is required because the GPS receiver must know where the satellite is when it listens for the Doppler beacon of the passing satellite. That receiver gets that information from a stored database updated by that time signal, which is also broadcast from the satellite.

If we know where the satellite is, we can calculate our XY position pretty accurately. Z position (altitude) is also calculable but not anymore accurate than a few dozen feet. Not good enough for much except navigating aircraft and hikers following terrain maps.


Indeed the vertical reference of GPS is actually plus or minus 10 feet. The military satellites are more accurate simply by calculating the altitudes every day. They do not know WHY the references change, only that they do.


They are the same satellites. Only the quality of the receiver changes. Most of that quality goes into the receiver's on board reference oscillator.


By definition the reference oscillator is part of the circuitry and cannot be changed. Military use something like three times as many satellites and deal differently with the data.

When you have a GPS that shows altitude normally it isn't from the GPS reading. Normally they have a altimeter built into them that measures barometric pressure. Though they can reset to base so that changes in barometric pressure at any known location allows it to keep from fluctuating all over the place like barometers do.


This is just like compensated barometers in aircraft.

The reference oscillator is part of the design of the receiver. Not user changeable. The quality of that oscillator is the difference. Military grade stuff uses a much higher quality reference oscillator than the consumer stuff. All oscillators drift and jitter. Higher quality oscillators are less prone to this, but they tend to cost more. Odd how that works out!

Yes. The software in the receiver also makes a difference. It knows how to make use of the higher grade circuitry and contains the necessary keys to prevent intentional inaccuracy (currently not turned on).


I am an EE. I know all about reference oscillators. All of the oscillators used in the GPS system operate at the same frequency. You can talk about the "quality" of an oscillator that is used but since these are in a satellite and are unserviceable we always use the best crystal oscillators. The ONLY way to stabilize the frequencies are by stabilizing the temperature of the crystal which is a great deal harder than saying it.

In any case you cannot tell much about sea levels because of things different from the accuracy of the GPS system which in any case isn't that accurate.
21-04-2017 21:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The Earth is a REALLY big place. What is mistaken for a large rise in sea levels at one place only means 1. That the oceans take a VERY long time to stabilize and will be a great deal lower and 2. that there are FAR more cycles in the Earth's oceans than merely the tides of the moon. These same tides are so large that they have secondary and ternary and even higher levels of cycles that rotate around the Earth. These secondary tides are also effected by the orbits of Mars, Venus and Jupiter. But the morons on the left are completely unaware of simple science fact.

When you have stupid people you get stupid ideas.

The global sea level isn't measured in one place. It's measured globally by satellite altimetry. In a few places, it is indeed falling, but in far more places, it is rising. So, on average, it is rising (currently by about 3.4 mm/year).

CU Sea Level Research Group


Not possible. Satellites require a reference. Their orbits shift over time due to natural variations, so you can't use the orbit as a reference. This particular satellite system uses a reference beacon in Colorado. It has the same problem as using tidal stations.

Both references are mounted on tectonic plates that move. While we can measure horizontal movement very well, height changes are trickier since GPS uses the same kind of reference beacon as the sea level monitoring system.

The altitude of all these references are compared against the sea level...the thing you are trying to measure!

The result is that you have no reference of any useful degree of accuracy for measuring sea level rise due to 'global warming'. Such references are good to within a several feet, but not millimeters.

The sea level satellite system doesn't measure absolute sea level. It measures RELATIVE sea levels in different places due to things like barometric pressure, water temperatures, storm surges, tidal effects, etc. For this purpose it is extremely accurate. The reference is the relative differences of the sea itself. You can call either one 'zero'.


I had that issue. That the satilites need some sort of referance point.

But no. Apparently they sort of mesh all their locations and work out a gravitational center of the planet. Can't say I'm that convinced. But so says my ex-British army survayor/mapper.


Won't work. The Earth is a composite of fluid and non-fluid materials. Stuff moves around. That means mass moves around. Where the satellite happens to be in orbit will be changed because of the variance of gravity as it passes over the surface. Things like GPS and the sea level monitoring system use reference beacons due to that very reason.

The reference beacon of GPS. in particular, contains a Lorentz compensated time signal from the WWV station in Boulder, CO. This is required because the GPS receiver must know where the satellite is when it listens for the Doppler beacon of the passing satellite. That receiver gets that information from a stored database updated by that time signal, which is also broadcast from the satellite.

If we know where the satellite is, we can calculate our XY position pretty accurately. Z position (altitude) is also calculable but not anymore accurate than a few dozen feet. Not good enough for much except navigating aircraft and hikers following terrain maps.


Indeed the vertical reference of GPS is actually plus or minus 10 feet. The military satellites are more accurate simply by calculating the altitudes every day. They do not know WHY the references change, only that they do.


They are the same satellites. Only the quality of the receiver changes. Most of that quality goes into the receiver's on board reference oscillator.


By definition the reference oscillator is part of the circuitry and cannot be changed. Military use something like three times as many satellites and deal differently with the data.

When you have a GPS that shows altitude normally it isn't from the GPS reading. Normally they have a altimeter built into them that measures barometric pressure. Though they can reset to base so that changes in barometric pressure at any known location allows it to keep from fluctuating all over the place like barometers do.


This is just like compensated barometers in aircraft.

The reference oscillator is part of the design of the receiver. Not user changeable. The quality of that oscillator is the difference. Military grade stuff uses a much higher quality reference oscillator than the consumer stuff. All oscillators drift and jitter. Higher quality oscillators are less prone to this, but they tend to cost more. Odd how that works out!

Yes. The software in the receiver also makes a difference. It knows how to make use of the higher grade circuitry and contains the necessary keys to prevent intentional inaccuracy (currently not turned on).


I am an EE. I know all about reference oscillators. All of the oscillators used in the GPS system operate at the same frequency. You can talk about the "quality" of an oscillator that is used but since these are in a satellite and are unserviceable we always use the best crystal oscillators. The ONLY way to stabilize the frequencies are by stabilizing the temperature of the crystal which is a great deal harder than saying it.

In any case you cannot tell much about sea levels because of things different from the accuracy of the GPS system which in any case isn't that accurate.

True.

The reference oscillator I am referring to is in the receiver, not the satellite. It is used as a comparison standard against the Doppler the receiver is hearing.

Nice to see someone who knows which end of a soldering to hold for once.


The Parrot Killer
21-04-2017 21:49
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
The global sea level isn't measured in one place. It's measured globally by satellite altimetry. In a few places, it is indeed falling, but in far more places, it is rising. So, on average, it is rising (currently by about 3.4 mm/year).

CU Sea Level Research Group


Not possible. Satellites require a reference. Their orbits shift over time due to natural variations, so you can't use the orbit as a reference. This particular satellite system uses a reference beacon in Colorado. It has the same problem as using tidal stations.

Both references are mounted on tectonic plates that move. While we can measure horizontal movement very well, height changes are trickier since GPS uses the same kind of reference beacon as the sea level monitoring system.

The altitude of all these references are compared against the sea level...the thing you are trying to measure!

The result is that you have no reference of any useful degree of accuracy for measuring sea level rise due to 'global warming'. Such references are good to within a several feet, but not millimeters.

The sea level satellite system doesn't measure absolute sea level. It measures RELATIVE sea levels in different places due to things like barometric pressure, water temperatures, storm surges, tidal effects, etc. For this purpose it is extremely accurate. The reference is the relative differences of the sea itself. You can call either one 'zero'.


I had that issue. That the satilites need some sort of referance point.

But no. Apparently they sort of mesh all their locations and work out a gravitational center of the planet. Can't say I'm that convinced. But so says my ex-British army survayor/mapper.


Won't work. The Earth is a composite of fluid and non-fluid materials. Stuff moves around. That means mass moves around. Where the satellite happens to be in orbit will be changed because of the variance of gravity as it passes over the surface. Things like GPS and the sea level monitoring system use reference beacons due to that very reason.

The reference beacon of GPS. in particular, contains a Lorentz compensated time signal from the WWV station in Boulder, CO. This is required because the GPS receiver must know where the satellite is when it listens for the Doppler beacon of the passing satellite. That receiver gets that information from a stored database updated by that time signal, which is also broadcast from the satellite.

If we know where the satellite is, we can calculate our XY position pretty accurately. Z position (altitude) is also calculable but not anymore accurate than a few dozen feet. Not good enough for much except navigating aircraft and hikers following terrain maps.


Indeed the vertical reference of GPS is actually plus or minus 10 feet. The military satellites are more accurate simply by calculating the altitudes every day. They do not know WHY the references change, only that they do.


They are the same satellites. Only the quality of the receiver changes. Most of that quality goes into the receiver's on board reference oscillator.


By definition the reference oscillator is part of the circuitry and cannot be changed. Military use something like three times as many satellites and deal differently with the data.

When you have a GPS that shows altitude normally it isn't from the GPS reading. Normally they have a altimeter built into them that measures barometric pressure. Though they can reset to base so that changes in barometric pressure at any known location allows it to keep from fluctuating all over the place like barometers do.


This is just like compensated barometers in aircraft.

The reference oscillator is part of the design of the receiver. Not user changeable. The quality of that oscillator is the difference. Military grade stuff uses a much higher quality reference oscillator than the consumer stuff. All oscillators drift and jitter. Higher quality oscillators are less prone to this, but they tend to cost more. Odd how that works out!

Yes. The software in the receiver also makes a difference. It knows how to make use of the higher grade circuitry and contains the necessary keys to prevent intentional inaccuracy (currently not turned on).


I am an EE. I know all about reference oscillators. All of the oscillators used in the GPS system operate at the same frequency. You can talk about the "quality" of an oscillator that is used but since these are in a satellite and are unserviceable we always use the best crystal oscillators. The ONLY way to stabilize the frequencies are by stabilizing the temperature of the crystal which is a great deal harder than saying it.

In any case you cannot tell much about sea levels because of things different from the accuracy of the GPS system which in any case isn't that accurate.

True.

The reference oscillator I am referring to is in the receiver, not the satellite. It is used as a comparison standard against the Doppler the receiver is hearing.

Nice to see someone who knows which end of a soldering to hold for once.

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
21-04-2017 22:45
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The Earth is a REALLY big place. What is mistaken for a large rise in sea levels at one place only means 1. That the oceans take a VERY long time to stabilize and will be a great deal lower and 2. that there are FAR more cycles in the Earth's oceans than merely the tides of the moon. These same tides are so large that they have secondary and ternary and even higher levels of cycles that rotate around the Earth. These secondary tides are also effected by the orbits of Mars, Venus and Jupiter. But the morons on the left are completely unaware of simple science fact.

When you have stupid people you get stupid ideas.

The global sea level isn't measured in one place. It's measured globally by satellite altimetry. In a few places, it is indeed falling, but in far more places, it is rising. So, on average, it is rising (currently by about 3.4 mm/year).

CU Sea Level Research Group


Not possible. Satellites require a reference. Their orbits shift over time due to natural variations, so you can't use the orbit as a reference. This particular satellite system uses a reference beacon in Colorado. It has the same problem as using tidal stations.

Both references are mounted on tectonic plates that move. While we can measure horizontal movement very well, height changes are trickier since GPS uses the same kind of reference beacon as the sea level monitoring system.

The altitude of all these references are compared against the sea level...the thing you are trying to measure!

The result is that you have no reference of any useful degree of accuracy for measuring sea level rise due to 'global warming'. Such references are good to within a several feet, but not millimeters.

The sea level satellite system doesn't measure absolute sea level. It measures RELATIVE sea levels in different places due to things like barometric pressure, water temperatures, storm surges, tidal effects, etc. For this purpose it is extremely accurate. The reference is the relative differences of the sea itself. You can call either one 'zero'.


I had that issue. That the satilites need some sort of referance point.

But no. Apparently they sort of mesh all their locations and work out a gravitational center of the planet. Can't say I'm that convinced. But so says my ex-British army survayor/mapper.


Won't work. The Earth is a composite of fluid and non-fluid materials. Stuff moves around. That means mass moves around. Where the satellite happens to be in orbit will be changed because of the variance of gravity as it passes over the surface. Things like GPS and the sea level monitoring system use reference beacons due to that very reason.

The reference beacon of GPS. in particular, contains a Lorentz compensated time signal from the WWV station in Boulder, CO. This is required because the GPS receiver must know where the satellite is when it listens for the Doppler beacon of the passing satellite. That receiver gets that information from a stored database updated by that time signal, which is also broadcast from the satellite.

If we know where the satellite is, we can calculate our XY position pretty accurately. Z position (altitude) is also calculable but not anymore accurate than a few dozen feet. Not good enough for much except navigating aircraft and hikers following terrain maps.


Indeed the vertical reference of GPS is actually plus or minus 10 feet. The military satellites are more accurate simply by calculating the altitudes every day. They do not know WHY the references change, only that they do.


They are the same satellites. Only the quality of the receiver changes. Most of that quality goes into the receiver's on board reference oscillator.


By definition the reference oscillator is part of the circuitry and cannot be changed. Military use something like three times as many satellites and deal differently with the data.

When you have a GPS that shows altitude normally it isn't from the GPS reading. Normally they have a altimeter built into them that measures barometric pressure. Though they can reset to base so that changes in barometric pressure at any known location allows it to keep from fluctuating all over the place like barometers do.


This is just like compensated barometers in aircraft.

The reference oscillator is part of the design of the receiver. Not user changeable. The quality of that oscillator is the difference. Military grade stuff uses a much higher quality reference oscillator than the consumer stuff. All oscillators drift and jitter. Higher quality oscillators are less prone to this, but they tend to cost more. Odd how that works out!

Yes. The software in the receiver also makes a difference. It knows how to make use of the higher grade circuitry and contains the necessary keys to prevent intentional inaccuracy (currently not turned on).


I am an EE. I know all about reference oscillators. All of the oscillators used in the GPS system operate at the same frequency. You can talk about the "quality" of an oscillator that is used but since these are in a satellite and are unserviceable we always use the best crystal oscillators. The ONLY way to stabilize the frequencies are by stabilizing the temperature of the crystal which is a great deal harder than saying it.

In any case you cannot tell much about sea levels because of things different from the accuracy of the GPS system which in any case isn't that accurate.

True.

The reference oscillator I am referring to is in the receiver, not the satellite. It is used as a comparison standard against the Doppler the receiver is hearing.

Nice to see someone who knows which end of a soldering to hold for once.


Doppler? You'll have to explain that to me. There is no doppler effect since there's nothing to correct for. (From memory which ain't that hot anymore)

The altitudes reported by GPS are nothing more than triangulation. This makes the accuracy reliant on the ground measured position and the exact time. By knowing the latitude and longitude of the ground station, the reported position of the GPS satellite and the calculated actual position of the satellite using multiple ground stations they can reset the actual position of the GPS satellites which is changing due to atmospheric anomalies. And the satellite clock which like all clocks will vary slightly from the inaccuracies of the oscillator due to the physical cut and perfection of the crystal itself and the temperature stability.

For absolute accuracy we would put the crystal in an "oven" that maintained a stable temperature slightly above the highest temperature that would be expected in the satellite. With change in temperatures you could regulate the current flow and so the added heat from the "oven".

The actual time arrived at by the ground stations is extremely accurate.

There needn't be any special accuracy of the GPS signal since it only reports it's latitude, longitude and time. Then by triangulation with at least three but usually four (or more) you can approximate your position as per the accuracy of YOUR clock. This triangulation also can work to approximate altitude but this is very dodgy.

The military can shut ALL GPS down in cases of military emergency so that the enemy cannot use it for accurate aiming of weapons such as missiles. This shut down requires less than a second.

The military also has MUCH better position fixes because while the longitude and latitude positions are the same the time that they have is three or four orders of magnitude better.

Programming GPS receivers is a little tricky because everything is dependent upon time and you have to actually count each assembly language command in order to know how long the program operates between calculations so that you can correct for each one of them. I can do this sort of thing almost with my eyes closed but most programmers aren't even aware of the effects of digital delay.

Plus consider - The satellite horizon is around a little over 12,000 miles away. They have a 12 hour orbit so the speed that they are going is something like 8,700 mph or some 33 mile per second. The GPS receiver MUST correct for this among all of the other sources of error. In the course of a single cycle of a 10 mhz oscillator the satellite moves a fraction of an inch and in the course of the complex equation it can move feet. All of this has to be corrected for.

Anyone that thinks that you can get accurate altitude from a GPS hasn't any idea what they are talking about. This stuff is my game.
21-04-2017 23:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The Earth is a REALLY big place. What is mistaken for a large rise in sea levels at one place only means 1. That the oceans take a VERY long time to stabilize and will be a great deal lower and 2. that there are FAR more cycles in the Earth's oceans than merely the tides of the moon. These same tides are so large that they have secondary and ternary and even higher levels of cycles that rotate around the Earth. These secondary tides are also effected by the orbits of Mars, Venus and Jupiter. But the morons on the left are completely unaware of simple science fact.

When you have stupid people you get stupid ideas.

The global sea level isn't measured in one place. It's measured globally by satellite altimetry. In a few places, it is indeed falling, but in far more places, it is rising. So, on average, it is rising (currently by about 3.4 mm/year).

CU Sea Level Research Group


Not possible. Satellites require a reference. Their orbits shift over time due to natural variations, so you can't use the orbit as a reference. This particular satellite system uses a reference beacon in Colorado. It has the same problem as using tidal stations.

Both references are mounted on tectonic plates that move. While we can measure horizontal movement very well, height changes are trickier since GPS uses the same kind of reference beacon as the sea level monitoring system.

The altitude of all these references are compared against the sea level...the thing you are trying to measure!

The result is that you have no reference of any useful degree of accuracy for measuring sea level rise due to 'global warming'. Such references are good to within a several feet, but not millimeters.

The sea level satellite system doesn't measure absolute sea level. It measures RELATIVE sea levels in different places due to things like barometric pressure, water temperatures, storm surges, tidal effects, etc. For this purpose it is extremely accurate. The reference is the relative differences of the sea itself. You can call either one 'zero'.


I had that issue. That the satilites need some sort of referance point.

But no. Apparently they sort of mesh all their locations and work out a gravitational center of the planet. Can't say I'm that convinced. But so says my ex-British army survayor/mapper.


Won't work. The Earth is a composite of fluid and non-fluid materials. Stuff moves around. That means mass moves around. Where the satellite happens to be in orbit will be changed because of the variance of gravity as it passes over the surface. Things like GPS and the sea level monitoring system use reference beacons due to that very reason.

The reference beacon of GPS. in particular, contains a Lorentz compensated time signal from the WWV station in Boulder, CO. This is required because the GPS receiver must know where the satellite is when it listens for the Doppler beacon of the passing satellite. That receiver gets that information from a stored database updated by that time signal, which is also broadcast from the satellite.

If we know where the satellite is, we can calculate our XY position pretty accurately. Z position (altitude) is also calculable but not anymore accurate than a few dozen feet. Not good enough for much except navigating aircraft and hikers following terrain maps.


Indeed the vertical reference of GPS is actually plus or minus 10 feet. The military satellites are more accurate simply by calculating the altitudes every day. They do not know WHY the references change, only that they do.


They are the same satellites. Only the quality of the receiver changes. Most of that quality goes into the receiver's on board reference oscillator.


By definition the reference oscillator is part of the circuitry and cannot be changed. Military use something like three times as many satellites and deal differently with the data.

When you have a GPS that shows altitude normally it isn't from the GPS reading. Normally they have a altimeter built into them that measures barometric pressure. Though they can reset to base so that changes in barometric pressure at any known location allows it to keep from fluctuating all over the place like barometers do.


This is just like compensated barometers in aircraft.

The reference oscillator is part of the design of the receiver. Not user changeable. The quality of that oscillator is the difference. Military grade stuff uses a much higher quality reference oscillator than the consumer stuff. All oscillators drift and jitter. Higher quality oscillators are less prone to this, but they tend to cost more. Odd how that works out!

Yes. The software in the receiver also makes a difference. It knows how to make use of the higher grade circuitry and contains the necessary keys to prevent intentional inaccuracy (currently not turned on).


I am an EE. I know all about reference oscillators. All of the oscillators used in the GPS system operate at the same frequency. You can talk about the "quality" of an oscillator that is used but since these are in a satellite and are unserviceable we always use the best crystal oscillators. The ONLY way to stabilize the frequencies are by stabilizing the temperature of the crystal which is a great deal harder than saying it.

In any case you cannot tell much about sea levels because of things different from the accuracy of the GPS system which in any case isn't that accurate.

True.

The reference oscillator I am referring to is in the receiver, not the satellite. It is used as a comparison standard against the Doppler the receiver is hearing.

Nice to see someone who knows which end of a soldering to hold for once.


Doppler? You'll have to explain that to me. There is no doppler effect since there's nothing to correct for. (From memory which ain't that hot anymore)

The altitudes reported by GPS are nothing more than triangulation. This makes the accuracy reliant on the ground measured position and the exact time. By knowing the latitude and longitude of the ground station, the reported position of the GPS satellite and the calculated actual position of the satellite using multiple ground stations they can reset the actual position of the GPS satellites which is changing due to atmospheric anomalies. And the satellite clock which like all clocks will vary slightly from the inaccuracies of the oscillator due to the physical cut and perfection of the crystal itself and the temperature stability.

For absolute accuracy we would put the crystal in an "oven" that maintained a stable temperature slightly above the highest temperature that would be expected in the satellite. With change in temperatures you could regulate the current flow and so the added heat from the "oven".

The actual time arrived at by the ground stations is extremely accurate.

There needn't be any special accuracy of the GPS signal since it only reports it's latitude, longitude and time. Then by triangulation with at least three but usually four (or more) you can approximate your position as per the accuracy of YOUR clock. This triangulation also can work to approximate altitude but this is very dodgy.

The military can shut ALL GPS down in cases of military emergency so that the enemy cannot use it for accurate aiming of weapons such as missiles. This shut down requires less than a second.

The military also has MUCH better position fixes because while the longitude and latitude positions are the same the time that they have is three or four orders of magnitude better.

Programming GPS receivers is a little tricky because everything is dependent upon time and you have to actually count each assembly language command in order to know how long the program operates between calculations so that you can correct for each one of them. I can do this sort of thing almost with my eyes closed but most programmers aren't even aware of the effects of digital delay.

Plus consider - The satellite horizon is around a little over 12,000 miles away. They have a 12 hour orbit so the speed that they are going is something like 8,700 mph or some 33 mile per second. The GPS receiver MUST correct for this among all of the other sources of error. In the course of a single cycle of a 10 mhz oscillator the satellite moves a fraction of an inch and in the course of the complex equation it can move feet. All of this has to be corrected for.

Anyone that thinks that you can get accurate altitude from a GPS hasn't any idea what they are talking about. This stuff is my game.

To perform that triangulation, you have to know either a distance or a direction from each reference point. In GPS that reference point is moving (the satellite). Both distance and direction are determined by listening the Doppler as the satellite moves. That Doppler is produced by the on board oscillator of the satellite running on an accurate frequency.

Your receiver has another oscillator on board to compare against the satellite. They are the same frequency. In this way, the difference produces a beat note that can be easily converted into digital form. Then it's up to the code.

To make all this work, you have to know where the satellites are. That is done through a time base sent from WWV. The time base must be compensated for repeater delay through the satellite and propagation time.


The Parrot Killer
22-04-2017 00:08
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Anyone that thinks that you can get accurate altitude from a GPS hasn't any idea what they are talking about. This stuff is my game.

Which, presumably, is why the Jason-2 satellite that measures sea level uses a system called Doppler Orbitography and Radio-positioning Integrated by Satellite (DORIS) for accurate positioning, rather than GPS.
Edited on 22-04-2017 00:08
22-04-2017 00:28
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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.
22-04-2017 00:50
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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:
22-04-2017 01:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
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.


The Parrot Killer
22-04-2017 01:21
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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:


to·pog·ra·phy təˈpäɡrəfē/
noun
the arrangement of the natural and artificial physical features of an area.
"the topography of the island"

a detailed description or representation on a map of the natural and artificial features of an area.

As has been noted you as usual don't have a clue:

The mission:

Near-real-time altimetry data of currents, eddies and winds are used by sailors and many offshore industries to improve safety and efficiency.

Satellite altimeter data are now routinely used to forecast the number and strength of hurricanes expected in a given season

satellite altimetry data have been used in NOAA's operational El Nino-Southern
Oscillation analysis and forecast system

Fisheries management, Marine mammal research, Coral reef research and other things like Ocean debris tracking.

Because there is very little information on ocean level changes and magnitudes because of long term tidal changes due to the orbital effects of the other planets your ignorance about showing "ocean level changes" mean absolutely nothing.

How would the sea levels be changing by 3.4mm per year when the Antarctic ice pack is growing at record levels and most of the mid-latitude northern hemisphere glaciers have receded as much as they're going to?

Nothing rings a bell with you does it? Did you write that article about there being a crack in the Arctic Ice Pack and hence we were going to all drown from a sea level change?

Over the last year the Earth has been slowing creeping to an orbital conjunction with both Jupiter and Venus has been approaching conjunction with the Earth. The effects of these can set up effects in the ocean that are completely unknown. Orbital resonances are known to occur but the details of them on the scale of the Earth and other planets is not known.

But as is becoming normal for you - you are throwing your ignorance out before the world to see and laugh at.
Edited on 22-04-2017 01:35
22-04-2017 01:36
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
22-04-2017 01:57
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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.


No you can't. Or is this your belief in "consensus"?

But you can continue on making a fool of yourself. It is growing comical.
22-04-2017 02:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
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.


The Parrot Killer
22-04-2017 03:11
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Waste Heat:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
How does radiation heat CO2615-08-2019 05:38
Holding in heat1704-06-2019 19:08
What makes IPCC thinks CO2 is better than O2 at trapping heat?028-04-2019 15:40
Heat7119-04-2019 23:53
Ocean heat sources419-04-2019 23:21
▲ 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