Date: 7/12/2016 20:54:42
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 993303
Subject: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

By popular request:

Talking of First Dogs, I thought the graph here was quite interesting:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

The rate of increase is shown as 3.4 mm, but if you take the data from 2010, it is close to 5 mm/year.

(Also if you fit an exponential curve to the data since 2010, and extrapolate to 2116, you get a sea level rise of over 2 km, but that may be a little alarmist)

Reply Quote

Date: 7/12/2016 20:58:51
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 993305
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

Link from tauto:

http://theconversation.com/trump-or-nasa-whos-really-politicising-climate-science-69349

Reply Quote

Date: 7/12/2016 21:00:15
From: sibeen
ID: 993306
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

Look at the graph.

Jan 2010 – 56.4 mm
April 2010 – 51.4.

Feb 2016 – 88.6 mm
Now – 81.2

So between April 2010 and Feb 2016 the rise was 37.2; jaysus, over 5 mm a year.

Between Jan 2010 and now a rise of about the long term average of 3.4 mm/ year.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/12/2016 21:08:02
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 993308
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

sibeen said:


Look at the graph.

Jan 2010 – 56.4 mm
April 2010 – 51.4.

Feb 2016 – 88.6 mm
Now – 81.2

So between April 2010 and Feb 2016 the rise was 37.2; jaysus, over 5 mm a year.

Between Jan 2010 and now a rise of about the long term average of 3.4 mm/ year.

Yes, but if you fit a line to the data, rather than just picking two points you like, the rate is well above 3.4 mm/year since 2010. That doesn’t mean that the increased rate will necessarily continue, but it does mean that the data is consistent with an increased rate, which can be expected for other reasons.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/12/2016 21:08:04
From: tauto
ID: 993309
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

But nevertheless rising.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/12/2016 21:13:10
From: sibeen
ID: 993310
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

But fitting a line to data like that over a 5 or 6 year period is basically a waste of time.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/12/2016 21:15:25
From: tauto
ID: 993311
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

sibeen said:


But fitting a line to data like that over a 5 or 6 year period is basically a waste of time.

True, but fitting it over 100 years is real.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/12/2016 21:19:20
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 993314
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

sibeen said:


But fitting a line to data like that over a 5 or 6 year period is basically a waste of time.

Depends what you do with the results.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/12/2016 21:23:40
From: sibeen
ID: 993319
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

tauto said:


sibeen said:

But fitting a line to data like that over a 5 or 6 year period is basically a waste of time.

True, but fitting it over 100 years is real.

We can extrapolate 3.4 mm a year and that’s about it. We only have the data back to 1993. We can guess, but that’s it.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/12/2016 23:39:53
From: dv
ID: 993346
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

That data does not show any significant evidence of acceleration. It basically looks like linear plus short term cycles plus noise.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/12/2016 10:49:48
From: nut
ID: 993449
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

Are there details anywhere of the distribution of the rise?

Reply Quote

Date: 8/12/2016 10:52:38
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 993451
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

nut said:


Are there details anywhere of the distribution of the rise?

I’m sure there are.

Google would probably help you find them (or even Bing).

Reply Quote

Date: 8/12/2016 11:06:04
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 993459
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

dv said:


That data does not show any significant evidence of acceleration. It basically looks like linear plus short term cycles plus noise.

OK Sibeen, I get the message.

There’s a pretty good summary of future projections here:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm

A good comment (IMNVHO) is:

From all accounts London will cope w/1m, it’s the upside of uncertainty in projections that inspires consternation.

My point is not that the data is strong evidence for an increasing level of sea level rise, obviously it is also consistent with a flat or slightly decreasing rate of rise. The point is that it is consistent with upper bound predictions, which is not good news.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/12/2016 11:07:20
From: dv
ID: 993461
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

I mean hydrostasy limits the amount of variation there can be …

Reply Quote

Date: 8/12/2016 11:08:06
From: dv
ID: 993463
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

The Rev Dodgson said:


dv said:

That data does not show any significant evidence of acceleration. It basically looks like linear plus short term cycles plus noise.

OK Sibeen, I get the message.

There’s a pretty good summary of future projections here:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm

A good comment (IMNVHO) is:

From all accounts London will cope w/1m, it’s the upside of uncertainty in projections that inspires consternation.

My point is not that the data is strong evidence for an increasing level of sea level rise, obviously it is also consistent with a flat or slightly decreasing rate of rise. The point is that it is consistent with upper bound predictions, which is not good news.

yes

Reply Quote

Date: 8/12/2016 11:09:28
From: Peak Warming Man
ID: 993466
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

The Rev Dodgson said:


dv said:

That data does not show any significant evidence of acceleration. It basically looks like linear plus short term cycles plus noise.

OK Sibeen, I get the message.

There’s a pretty good summary of future projections here:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm

A good comment (IMNVHO) is:

From all accounts London will cope w/1m, it’s the upside of uncertainty in projections that inspires consternation.

My point is not that the data is strong evidence for an increasing level of sea level rise, obviously it is also consistent with a flat or slightly decreasing rate of rise. The point is that it is consistent with upper bound predictions, which is not good news.

Today’s Pepys diary entry.

Monday 7 December 1663
Up betimes, and, it being a frosty morning, walked on foot to White Hall, but not without some fear of my pain coming. At White Hall I hear and find that there was the last night the greatest tide that ever was remembered in England to have been in this river: all White Hall having been drowned, of which there was great discourse.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/12/2016 11:11:28
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 993469
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

Peak Warming Man said:


The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

That data does not show any significant evidence of acceleration. It basically looks like linear plus short term cycles plus noise.

OK Sibeen, I get the message.

There’s a pretty good summary of future projections here:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm

A good comment (IMNVHO) is:

From all accounts London will cope w/1m, it’s the upside of uncertainty in projections that inspires consternation.

My point is not that the data is strong evidence for an increasing level of sea level rise, obviously it is also consistent with a flat or slightly decreasing rate of rise. The point is that it is consistent with upper bound predictions, which is not good news.

Today’s Pepys diary entry.

Monday 7 December 1663
Up betimes, and, it being a frosty morning, walked on foot to White Hall, but not without some fear of my pain coming. At White Hall I hear and find that there was the last night the greatest tide that ever was remembered in England to have been in this river: all White Hall having been drowned, of which there was great discourse.

Lucky that me and me mates built a barrier and a Great Big Wall since then.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/12/2016 11:13:55
From: Tamb
ID: 993472
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

The Rev Dodgson said:


Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK Sibeen, I get the message.

There’s a pretty good summary of future projections here:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm

A good comment (IMNVHO) is:

From all accounts London will cope w/1m, it’s the upside of uncertainty in projections that inspires consternation.

My point is not that the data is strong evidence for an increasing level of sea level rise, obviously it is also consistent with a flat or slightly decreasing rate of rise. The point is that it is consistent with upper bound predictions, which is not good news.

Today’s Pepys diary entry.

Monday 7 December 1663
Up betimes, and, it being a frosty morning, walked on foot to White Hall, but not without some fear of my pain coming. At White Hall I hear and find that there was the last night the greatest tide that ever was remembered in England to have been in this river: all White Hall having been drowned, of which there was great discourse.

Lucky that me and me mates built a barrier and a Great Big Wall since then.


I live at about 900m altitude so if I go you will all be sleeping with the fishes.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/12/2016 11:15:56
From: dv
ID: 993475
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

I found it curious that in the movie Cinderella, Ella is reading from the works of Pepys, which sets this Kingdom very much in the real world sometime during or after the 17th century rather than in some magical invented fantasy world.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/12/2016 11:32:15
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 993500
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

Branching coral grows up to 10 cm per year.
Massive coral grows at up to 2 cm per year.
So for sustainability the sea level needs to rise about 2 cm per year.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/12/2016 11:34:32
From: Tamb
ID: 993502
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

mollwollfumble said:


Branching coral grows up to 10 cm per year.
Massive coral grows at up to 2 cm per year.
So for sustainability the sea level needs to rise about 2 cm per year.


As the seas warm wouldn’t coral move further away from the tropics?

Reply Quote

Date: 8/12/2016 11:49:06
From: The_observer
ID: 993524
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

The Rev Dodgson said:


Link from tauto:

http://theconversation.com/trump-or-nasa-whos-really-politicising-climate-science-69349

Trump Induced Panic Exposes Media Bias and Ignorance of Climate
December 6, 2016
Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

An article in the Huffington Post titled Crooked science finds a friend in Trump” is an attempt to counter the exposure of the global warming deception that will occur with the new President. All it does is expose the willful ignorance of the author and by association the publisher. It also reflects similar activities in the deliberate deception about global warming. The opening statement of the article is sufficient exposure -

….“From the same people who told you that cigarettes were perfectly healthy: Mercury in our food is just fine, too. Smog in the air? No problem. To top it off — we don’t need to do a thing about climate pollution, either. And let’s just get rid of NASA’s world class research on our own dear earth’s systems. Who needs it?”

It is not the same people who said tobacco was healthy. This is an apparent reference to the early attempt to link Fred Singer to the tobacco industry. Fred wrote a critical review of the terrible research in the original article claiming to link cancer to second-hand smoke. His review was later supported by others. Environmentalists used to claim Fred was paid by the tobacco companies and in favor of smoking. In fact, Fred has always actively and openly opposed smoking. The real story is that misuse of evidence or misrepresenting what was actually said is apparently acceptable in the campaign to silence global warming skeptics and latterly climate change deniers.

The mercury and smog references are similar and typical unsubstantiated references whose only purpose is to raise fears and distract from the truth. CO2 is not a pollutant but a necessary gas for the survival of plants and animals. The truth was always available, but deliberately suppressed. The author would avoid such misrepresentations with due diligence, but that was apparently overridden by a political bias. Now the complete story will be told by the Trump administration and the exploitation of climate for a political agenda will end. All the massive funding going to bureaucrats and environmental groups will cease. Their moral high ground will be gone and the ordinary people who looked right through the media and voted for Trump, will see the extent of the lying and deception. I know they had their suspicions because many told me after presentations, but now they will be confirmed. They will be very angry and my major concern is that they don’t totally reject the necessary concept of environmentalism. The lies and deceptions promulgated in the Huffington Post article and thousands like them over the last 40 years may result in self-proclaimed environmentalists destroying environmentalism.

The Huffington Post author’s attempt at sarcasm by the reference to NASA falls absolutely flat. It shows ignorance either because the author did not do proper research or chose to ignore the truth or both. NASA, the space agency, is being blamed for the actions of those who controlled the sub agency known as NASA GISS. This malfeasance and denigration of the space agency because of the political use of climate was so outrageous that 50 former NASA astronauts combined to bring the issue to public attention.

A short list of the of events explain why the astronauts took their unprecedented action. It also shows why the Huffington Post article is completely wrong to suggest NASA GISS ‘science’ is accurate, trustworthy, and adequate as the basis of draconian energy and environmental policy.

NASA GISS was set up as an agency to examine issues related to space exploration. The diversion to the political agenda of global warming began when Senator Timothy Wirth plucked James Hansen from a low level position at NASA GISS to appear before the 1988 hearing.

Wirth – … “I don’t remember exactly where the data came from, but we knew there was this scientist at NASA who had really identified the human impact before anybody else had done so and was very certain about it. So we called him up and asked him if he would testify. Now, this is a tough thing for a scientist to do when you’re going to make such an outspoken statement as this and you’re part of the federal bureaucracy. Jim Hansen has always been a very brave and outspoken individual.”

James Hansen became Director of NASA GISS, probably with the political influence of Wirth and Gore. He was politically active throughout his career in contradiction to the Hatch Act that limits such activity. For example he was arrested outside the White House for protesting coal plants. He flew to England to give testimony in a trial against six Greenpeace activists who bombed a power plant, but were found not guilty partly on his testimony?

Under Hansen and his successor Gavin Schmidt temperature records were altered, but always to accentuate warming. Director Gavin Schmidt was a significant part of the leaked email scandal from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and identified by Wegman in the section of his Report to Congress titled “SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS OF AUTHORSHIPS IN TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTION.”. This remarkable part of the Wegman Report took sociological research techniques to identify and explain the small coterie of people that were closely linked and isolated in producing the science to fill the political agenda of the IPCC.

NASA GISS under Hansen and Schmidt became central to the myth created by the IPCC that human CO2 was causing global warming. This occurred despite the fact their predictions were consistently wrong and they tried to make the data fit their political objective. The only place where a CO2 increase causes warming is in the computer models of the IPCC. Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts challenged this computer generated data that was presented as real data by the bureaucrats who created and promoted it. Roberts was, to my knowledge, the first politician to challenge those bureaucrats directly by demanding empirical evidence, that is real data with established and defined physical explanations.

NASA did marvelous things that inspired America and the World. They saw the auxiliary branch of NASA GISS hijacked for the global warming political agenda of Senator Wirth, Al Gore and others. Wirth knew what he was doing wasn’t science because Michael Fumento writing in Science Under Siege in 1993 quoted him saying, -

….“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Evidence is emerging mostly through the Internet that it is the wrong science deliberately created to push the wrong thing in terms of policy and environment is emerging. It is also clear that it survived because bureaucrats and the mainstream media, such as the Huffington Post, perpetuated the lies. This article, triggered by the panic created by a few politicians obtaining positions where they can end run them, exposes the extent to which they went to ignore, misrepresent, or misunderstand the truth. As Shakespeare had Lancelot say in the Merchant of Venice, “the truth will out”. The quote and story is more than appropriate because Lancelot chose, in a cruel trick to fool his blind father by telling him that his son was dead, was eventually exposed.

This parallels the cruel deception that Senator Wirth and the mainstream media created when they promoted science as accurate when he really believed it didn’t matter as long as it achieved the political objective. The deception was as willful as that demonstrated in the Huffington Post article.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/12/2016 11:52:03
From: Boris
ID: 993526
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball

Reply Quote

Date: 8/12/2016 12:10:31
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 993533
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

Boris said:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball

Anyway, it’s good to see that The_observer has now seen the light, and is posting articles clearly intended as satire aimed at the Pseudo-Sceptical Climate Change Doubter Alarmists.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/12/2016 12:21:02
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 993537
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

Tamb said:


mollwollfumble said:

Branching coral grows up to 10 cm per year.
Massive coral grows at up to 2 cm per year.
So for sustainability the sea level needs to rise about 2 cm per year.


As the seas warm wouldn’t coral move further away from the tropics?

Only in water less than two metres deep over solid rock. Coral can’t grow on sand.

The dominant cause of reef warming is lack of ocean currents in the thin layer between the reef top and the water surface. As the reef rises the temperature rises. As the sea surface rises the layer gets thicker allowing cooling currents. Sea level rise cools coral, provided it happens faster than the coral grows.
Reply Quote

Date: 8/12/2016 12:59:02
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 993557
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

Good article on Antarctic ice loss:

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/environment/climate-change/ice-sheets-and-sea-level-rise

Reply Quote

Date: 10/12/2016 07:27:45
From: The_observer
ID: 994189
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

The Rev Dodgson said:


Good article on Antarctic ice loss:

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/environment/climate-change/ice-sheets-and-sea-level-rise

_


-

Temperature trend Lower Troposphere, southern polar, 1979 to present… minus0.001 K/decade – RSS (Remote Sensing Systems)

_

NSIDC Antarctic Sea Ice trend, 1979 to Present – positive

_

_

Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice-shelf history. Nature 489: 10.1038/nature11391.
Mulvaney, R., Abram, N.J., Hindmarsh, R.C.A., Arrowsmith, C., Fleet, L., Triest, J., Sime, L.C., Alemany, O. and Foord, S. 2012.

“the Antarctic Peninsula experienced an early Holocene warm period followed by stable temperatures, from about 9200 to 2500 years ago, that were similar to modern-day levels”

“the high rate of warming over the past century is unusual but not unprecedented in the context of natural climate variability over the past two millennia.”

“rapid recent warming of the Antarctic Peninsula is highly unusual although not outside the bounds of natural variability in the pre-anthropogenic era.”

and

“repeating the temperature trend analysis using 50-year windows confirms the finding that the rapidity of recent Antarctic Peninsula warming is unusual but not unprecedented.”

Reply Quote

Date: 10/12/2016 07:44:01
From: PermeateFree
ID: 994197
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

The_observer said:


The Rev Dodgson said:

Good article on Antarctic ice loss:

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/environment/climate-change/ice-sheets-and-sea-level-rise

_


-

Temperature trend Lower Troposphere, southern polar, 1979 to present… minus0.001 K/decade – RSS (Remote Sensing Systems)

_

NSIDC Antarctic Sea Ice trend, 1979 to Present – positive

_

_

Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice-shelf history. Nature 489: 10.1038/nature11391.
Mulvaney, R., Abram, N.J., Hindmarsh, R.C.A., Arrowsmith, C., Fleet, L., Triest, J., Sime, L.C., Alemany, O. and Foord, S. 2012.

“the Antarctic Peninsula experienced an early Holocene warm period followed by stable temperatures, from about 9200 to 2500 years ago, that were similar to modern-day levels”

“the high rate of warming over the past century is unusual but not unprecedented in the context of natural climate variability over the past two millennia.”

“rapid recent warming of the Antarctic Peninsula is highly unusual although not outside the bounds of natural variability in the pre-anthropogenic era.”

and

“repeating the temperature trend analysis using 50-year windows confirms the finding that the rapidity of recent Antarctic Peninsula warming is unusual but not unprecedented.”

Reply Quote

Date: 11/12/2016 00:11:45
From: The_observer
ID: 994524
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

PermeateFree said:

Reply Quote

Date: 11/12/2016 00:56:21
From: The_observer
ID: 994529
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

The Rev Dodgson said:


By popular request:

Talking of First Dogs, I thought the graph here was quite interesting:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

The rate of increase is shown as 3.4 mm, but if you take the data from 2010, it is close to 5 mm/year.

(Also if you fit an exponential curve to the data since 2010, and extrapolate to 2116, you get a sea level rise of over 2 km, but that may be a little alarmist)

.

So, the NASA graph at the top of their page, for 1993 to present, states a sea level rise of 3.4mm/year.

Yet, the graph below, for the period 1870 to 2000, (130 years) that’s the one where NASA chose not to show the yearly average, shows a yearly average rise of only >>> 1.5mm/year.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Of course the lower graph represents tide guage data, & the top of page graph uses sat data.

A miraculous difference. Why?

Blatant fraud!

NOAA’s states on their data page, at the top paragraph – “sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year.” https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/globalregional.htm

So let’s look at how NASA’s 3.4mm/year is plain fraud. The first thing they did was to add in a 0.3 mm/year “Global Isostatic Adjustment” (GIA) to their satellite data. This is a completely fraudulent adjustment based on theoretical sea floor sinking – which should be used to calculate the sea floor height, not the sea surface height. Even if sea surface height rise was dead zero, the GIA adjustment would show sea surface height increasing by 0.3 mm/year. Mind-blowing malfeasance.

The next fraud was bait and switch. Until 1993, they use tide gauges (below), but after 1993 they switched to satellites.
This change in instrumentation to uncalibrated satellites produced an immediate doubling of sea level rise rates.

Tide gauges do not show any change after 1993. They are attempting to blame an instrumentation change on climate change. Once again, mind-blowing malfeasance.

But it gets much worse. Their tide gauge data is also fraudulent, and does not agree with any historical publications, or current NOAA tide gauge data.

Earlier studies (shown below) consistently showed half the rate of 1880 to 1980 sea level rise, as NASA shows now.

.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/12/2016 01:55:08
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 994550
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

That’s an exceedingly interesting recent post by the observer. In particular how the NASA sea level rise historical graph fails to match the graphs from previous publications.

Also the difference between tide gauge and satellite measurements. Satellite orbits decay with time, and even a tiny amount of orbit decay could have a significant influence on sea level height as measured by bouncing radar off the sea surface.

There is a significant (but not dominant) influence from changes in the height of the land as well, as you’ve pointed out. In some locations like Christmas Island, the change in land surface height is similar in magnitude to the change is sea surface height.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/12/2016 02:00:55
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 994551
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

mollwollfumble said:


That’s an exceedingly interesting recent post by the observer. In particular how the NASA sea level rise historical graph fails to match the graphs from previous publications.

Also the difference between tide gauge and satellite measurements. Satellite orbits decay with time, and even a tiny amount of orbit decay could have a significant influence on sea level height as measured by bouncing radar off the sea surface.

There is a significant (but not dominant) influence from changes in the height of the land as well, as you’ve pointed out. In some locations like Christmas Island, the change in land surface height is similar in magnitude to the change is sea surface height.

Interesting? Well only to the extent that it shows the level of the “observer”‘s level of pseudo-skepticism is in fact undiminished, which is not particularly interesting.

Some information showing recent data from independent sources, and a truly sceptical review of this data would be quite interesting, if you can find it.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/12/2016 02:03:02
From: ChrispenEvan
ID: 994552
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

Also the difference between tide gauge and satellite measurements. Satellite orbits decay with time, and even a tiny amount of orbit decay could have a significant influence on sea level height as measured by bouncing radar off the sea surface.

yeah because NASA wouldn’t be aware of something like this.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/12/2016 02:10:22
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 994554
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

ChrispenEvan said:


Also the difference between tide gauge and satellite measurements. Satellite orbits decay with time, and even a tiny amount of orbit decay could have a significant influence on sea level height as measured by bouncing radar off the sea surface.

yeah because NASA wouldn’t be aware of something like this.

Didn’t you read what the_“observer” told us?

Everything from NASA is fraudulent.

(Except for the increasing Antarctic ice mass, which must be accepted without question).

Reply Quote

Date: 11/12/2016 02:14:26
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 994555
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

ChrispenEvan said:


Also the difference between tide gauge and satellite measurements. Satellite orbits decay with time, and even a tiny amount of orbit decay could have a significant influence on sea level height as measured by bouncing radar off the sea surface.

yeah because NASA wouldn’t be aware of something like this.

NASA is aware of it. But it’s extremely difficult to calculate accurately because the rate of decay is dominated by the integral of the strength of the solar wind, which fluctuates wildly. Have you noticed for instance that GPS is much more accurate at positioning objects in a horizontal plane than in getting the correct altitude.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/12/2016 02:25:08
From: ChrispenEvan
ID: 994561
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

mollwollfumble said:


ChrispenEvan said:

Also the difference between tide gauge and satellite measurements. Satellite orbits decay with time, and even a tiny amount of orbit decay could have a significant influence on sea level height as measured by bouncing radar off the sea surface.

yeah because NASA wouldn’t be aware of something like this.

NASA is aware of it. But it’s extremely difficult to calculate accurately because the rate of decay is dominated by the integral of the strength of the solar wind, which fluctuates wildly. Have you noticed for instance that GPS is much more accurate at positioning objects in a horizontal plane than in getting the correct altitude.

so NASA is aware of it. I would imagine then that they take that into consideration. and GPS sta height position has nothing to do with solar wind or satellite altitude keeping.

http://www.pobonline.com/articles/84320-from-the-ground-up-accurate-elevations-from-gps

Reply Quote

Date: 11/12/2016 02:26:40
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 994563
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

> GPS sta height position has nothing to do with solar wind or satellite altitude keeping.

You’re completely right. Bad example.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/12/2016 02:28:05
From: ChrispenEvan
ID: 994565
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

The Rev Dodgson said:


ChrispenEvan said:

Also the difference between tide gauge and satellite measurements. Satellite orbits decay with time, and even a tiny amount of orbit decay could have a significant influence on sea level height as measured by bouncing radar off the sea surface.

yeah because NASA wouldn’t be aware of something like this.

Didn’t you read what the_“observer” told us?

Everything from NASA is fraudulent.

(Except for the increasing Antarctic ice mass, which must be accepted without question).

no I don’t read TO tripe.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/12/2016 02:28:11
From: Michael V
ID: 994566
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

mollwollfumble said:


ChrispenEvan said:

Also the difference between tide gauge and satellite measurements. Satellite orbits decay with time, and even a tiny amount of orbit decay could have a significant influence on sea level height as measured by bouncing radar off the sea surface.

yeah because NASA wouldn’t be aware of something like this.

NASA is aware of it. But it’s extremely difficult to calculate accurately because the rate of decay is dominated by the integral of the strength of the solar wind, which fluctuates wildly. Have you noticed for instance that GPS is much more accurate at positioning objects in a horizontal plane than in getting the correct altitude.

True for small, hand-held GPS instruments. Not true for more complicated systems. Even a simple surveyors DGPS (differential GPS) comprising one base station and one hand-held instrument has horizontal and vertical accuracy that is always well under 10 mm, and often sub-millimetre.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/12/2016 02:30:44
From: ChrispenEvan
ID: 994569
Subject: re: Seas Rising in spite of First Dog

Michael V said:


mollwollfumble said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Also the difference between tide gauge and satellite measurements. Satellite orbits decay with time, and even a tiny amount of orbit decay could have a significant influence on sea level height as measured by bouncing radar off the sea surface.

yeah because NASA wouldn’t be aware of something like this.

NASA is aware of it. But it’s extremely difficult to calculate accurately because the rate of decay is dominated by the integral of the strength of the solar wind, which fluctuates wildly. Have you noticed for instance that GPS is much more accurate at positioning objects in a horizontal plane than in getting the correct altitude.

True for small, hand-held GPS instruments. Not true for more complicated systems. Even a simple surveyors DGPS (differential GPS) comprising one base station and one hand-held instrument has horizontal and vertical accuracy that is always well under 10 mm, and often sub-millimetre.

that base station makes all the difference.

Reply Quote