• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hurricane Florence: Washington Post declares Trump is 'complicit' for dangerous storm

Surface Detail said:
What makes you think those two stations are representative of the global sea level?
Click to expand...
They are simply two representatives on the east cost of the US, where people are discussing if there will be a 39 inch sea level
rise in the next 82 years.
The national climate assessment said that,
Since 1992, the rate of global sea level rise measured by satellites has been roughly twice the rate observed over the last century,"
which is really silly, as we have no way to really compare the average of the global tide stations to what the satellites record.
Averaging a bunch of tide stations may or may not yield anything useful.
If the rate since 1992 is indeed roughly twice that of the last century, it should be really obvious,
yet the majority of the tide stations show a modest if any change in long term trend.
For example San Fransisco, CA.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=9414290
no noticeable change in trend.
Honolulu, Hawaii
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=1612340
same thing no noticeable trend.
Brest, France
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=190-091
Cochin, India
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=500-081
Cebu, Philippines
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=660-101
Simons Bay, South Africa
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=430-061
Fremantle, Australia
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=680-471
You would think that if the rate of global sea level rise doubled since 1992, that such a change
could be seen in some of the records around the globe?
 
Desert Storm said:
The eye of the storm collapsed. Is that a good thing or a bad thing??
Click to expand...
A good thing!
Something is breaking down the factors that were causing the organization of the storm.
Usually ether less energy, sheering winds, mountains, land, ect.
For the people and property in the way, weaker is better.
the only real downside to weaker, is sometimes it means slower, which means more rain.
100/speed of the storm in knots is roughly how many inches of rain to expect.
 
longview said:
They are simply two representatives on the east cost of the US, where people are discussing if there will be a 39 inch sea level
rise in the next 82 years.
The national climate assessment said that,
Since 1992, the rate of global sea level rise measured by satellites has been roughly twice the rate observed over the last century,"
which is really silly, as we have no way to really compare the average of the global tide stations to what the satellites record.
Averaging a bunch of tide stations may or may not yield anything useful.
If the rate since 1992 is indeed roughly twice that of the last century, it should be really obvious,
yet the majority of the tide stations show a modest if any change in long term trend.
For example San Fransisco, CA.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=9414290
no noticeable change in trend.
Honolulu, Hawaii
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=1612340
same thing no noticeable trend.
Brest, France
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=190-091
Cochin, India
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=500-081
Cebu, Philippines
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=660-101
Simons Bay, South Africa
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=430-061
Fremantle, Australia
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=680-471
You would think that if the rate of global sea level rise doubled since 1992, that such a change
could be seen in some of the records around the globe?
Click to expand...

NOAA's comments on their own data:

"The pace of global sea level rise nearly doubled from 1.7 mm/year throughout most of the twentieth century to 3.1 mm/year since 1993."

"Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or less than the global average due to local factors: subsidence, upstream flood control, erosion, regional ocean currents, and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers."

Climate Change: Global Sea Level

I think NOAA can probably do a better job of interpreting their data than you can by cherry-picking particular locations.
 
Surface Detail said:
NOAA's comments on their own data:

"The pace of global sea level rise nearly doubled from 1.7 mm/year throughout most of the twentieth century to 3.1 mm/year since 1993."

"Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or less than the global average due to local factors: subsidence, upstream flood control, erosion, regional ocean currents, and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers."

Climate Change: Global Sea Level

I think NOAA can probably do a better job of interpreting their data than you can by cherry-picking particular locations.
Click to expand...
Except that for the limited number of long period site available,
no such slope change is seen, are they hiding the good data?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom