• 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!

How Did Climate Predictions of 10-40 Years Ago Pan Out? Spectacularly Wrong.

longview said:
Are you talking about events of the past, or predicting the future?
We have had plenty of massive flood events in the past, but predicting
the types of sea level rises thrown about. like 4 feet int he next 81 years, is simply silly.
It requires too many unlikely variables to all line up.
The actual papers say this, but that gets glossed over by the alarmist.
Click to expand...

I'm pointing out the sad fact that college educated scientists are so easily fooled by erroneous interpretations of data primarily promoted by scientist propagandists with impure motivations to disbelieve the truth.
 
longview said:
I think the graph is from the Church and White study, that was VERY selective on which stations were sampled.
If you look at the data for yourself, you will see that it is difficult to find much acceleration.
Here is a large table from stations around the world.
Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides & Currents
Consider your high end of 90 mm in 40 years, is 2.25 mm/year, less than the battery park trend of over a century,
but quite a bit more than the other side of the Atlantic,
Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides & Currents
Averaging the two stations would tell you almost nothing, and any trend acceleration/deceleration between the two,
could easily be an artifact of averaging unrelated trends.
Click to expand...

NASA is lying about the data?
 
marke said:
I'm pointing out the sad fact that college educated scientists are so easily fooled by erroneous interpretations of data primarily promoted by scientist propagandists with impure motivations to disbelieve the truth.
Click to expand...

Some don't trust science and education
 
Jack Hays said:
Because it doesn't. The distortions and false information come from the AGW advocates with whom you are aligned.
Click to expand...

That is a statement that has been proven false.
 
Stuartbirdman said:
NASA is lying about the data?
Click to expand...
Not at all, but the satellites do have a very large limit of accuracy.
Consider the claim of raise of 3.3 mm/year superimposed on the satellites stated accuracy,
Jason-2: Using Satellite Altimetry to Monitor the Ocean: Print Version
Sea surface height accuracy is currently 3.4 centimetres, with 2.5 expected in the future.
Click to expand...
So the satellite needs to record levels for 10 years to see a single minimum unit change!
They do see sea level changes with satellites, but those changes are meaningless to actual geographic locations.
A satellite cannot sample the sea level for example between Dover and Calais.
The tide error alone would be greater than the measurements, without the 34 mm accuracy limitation.
 
Jack Hays said:
Home / 2019 / January / 18 / PIK Scientist Rahmstorf Goes After Hebrew University’s Nir Shaviv …But Gets Caught Fudging Inconvenient Data
[h=1]PIK Scientist Rahmstorf Goes After Hebrew University’s Nir Shaviv …But Gets Caught Fudging Inconvenient Data[/h]By P Gosselin on 18. January 2019
[h=3]Stefan Rahmstorf caught redhanded manipulating temperature charts[/h]
Click to expand...

Let's go vet your sources. The site is run by Peter Gosselin. His area of expertise is being a software engineer .i.e. a code pusher. Not a scientist.

The other is a german blog/

Really fantastic sources there. Conspiracy level lies.
 
longview said:
Actually it looks the sea level did fall at battery park, but that is not significant, what is significant,
is that the tide gauge at battery park has show a very steady rate of rise for 160 years, unaffected by recent temperature changes.
While the claims are that AGW will cause massive increases in sea level, the sea level appears to have not gotten the memo.
There is a lot of sea level data out there,
Data at PSMSL
Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides & Currents
The NOAA page allows export to CSV, so you can parse the data yourself in a spreadsheet,
but mostly what it shows is that sea level is all over the place, and really only relevant to the coast of where it is measured.
Satellites are incapable of measuring a local sea level at all, so the gauges are the real data.
Click to expand...
Why do you think satellites are incapable of measuring sea level?

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk
 
longview said:
Not at all, but the satellites do have a very large limit of accuracy.
Consider the claim of raise of 3.3 mm/year superimposed on the satellites stated accuracy,
Jason-2: Using Satellite Altimetry to Monitor the Ocean: Print Version

So the satellite needs to record levels for 10 years to see a single minimum unit change!
They do see sea level changes with satellites, but those changes are meaningless to actual geographic locations.
A satellite cannot sample the sea level for example between Dover and Calais.
The tide error alone would be greater than the measurements, without the 34 mm accuracy limitation.
Click to expand...

So NASA is not lying
 
longview said:
Not at all, but the satellites do have a very large limit of accuracy.
Consider the claim of raise of 3.3 mm/year superimposed on the satellites stated accuracy,
Jason-2: Using Satellite Altimetry to Monitor the Ocean: Print Version

So the satellite needs to record levels for 10 years to see a single minimum unit change!
They do see sea level changes with satellites, but those changes are meaningless to actual geographic locations.
A satellite cannot sample the sea level for example between Dover and Calais.
The tide error alone would be greater than the measurements, without the 34 mm accuracy limitation.
Click to expand...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
 
longview said:
Not at all, but the satellites do have a very large limit of accuracy.
Consider the claim of raise of 3.3 mm/year superimposed on the satellites stated accuracy,
Jason-2: Using Satellite Altimetry to Monitor the Ocean: Print Version

So the satellite needs to record levels for 10 years to see a single minimum unit change!
They do see sea level changes with satellites, but those changes are meaningless to actual geographic locations.
A satellite cannot sample the sea level for example between Dover and Calais.
The tide error alone would be greater than the measurements, without the 34 mm accuracy limitation.
Click to expand...

Is NASA incompetent?
 
longview said:
Not at all, but the satellites do have a very large limit of accuracy.
Consider the claim of raise of 3.3 mm/year superimposed on the satellites stated accuracy,
Jason-2: Using Satellite Altimetry to Monitor the Ocean: Print Version

So the satellite needs to record levels for 10 years to see a single minimum unit change!
They do see sea level changes with satellites, but those changes are meaningless to actual geographic locations.
A satellite cannot sample the sea level for example between Dover and Calais.
The tide error alone would be greater than the measurements, without the 34 mm accuracy limitation.
Click to expand...

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
 
longview said:
Not at all, but the satellites do have a very large limit of accuracy.
Consider the claim of raise of 3.3 mm/year superimposed on the satellites stated accuracy,
Jason-2: Using Satellite Altimetry to Monitor the Ocean: Print Version

So the satellite needs to record levels for 10 years to see a single minimum unit change!
They do see sea level changes with satellites, but those changes are meaningless to actual geographic locations.
A satellite cannot sample the sea level for example between Dover and Calais.
The tide error alone would be greater than the measurements, without the 34 mm accuracy limitation.
Click to expand...

Causes | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
 
longview said:
Not at all, but the satellites do have a very large limit of accuracy.
Consider the claim of raise of 3.3 mm/year superimposed on the satellites stated accuracy,
Jason-2: Using Satellite Altimetry to Monitor the Ocean: Print Version

So the satellite needs to record levels for 10 years to see a single minimum unit change!
They do see sea level changes with satellites, but those changes are meaningless to actual geographic locations.
A satellite cannot sample the sea level for example between Dover and Calais.
The tide error alone would be greater than the measurements, without the 34 mm accuracy limitation.
Click to expand...

Carbon Dioxide | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
 
longview said:
Not at all, but the satellites do have a very large limit of accuracy.
Consider the claim of raise of 3.3 mm/year superimposed on the satellites stated accuracy,
Jason-2: Using Satellite Altimetry to Monitor the Ocean: Print Version

So the satellite needs to record levels for 10 years to see a single minimum unit change!
They do see sea level changes with satellites, but those changes are meaningless to actual geographic locations.
A satellite cannot sample the sea level for example between Dover and Calais.
The tide error alone would be greater than the measurements, without the 34 mm accuracy limitation.
Click to expand...

Altimetry satellites determine the height of the ocean surface with respect to a reference such as the average global sea level (known as the Earth’s “geoid”). Orbiting altimeters make very precise measurements of the ocean’s surface topography to derive the speed and direction of ocean currents and eddies, and to observe tides and other features.

Altimetry satellites determine the distance from the satellite to the Earth’s surface by measuring the time it takes a radar pulse to travel from the satellite to the surface and back.
 
RAMOSS said:
Let's go vet your sources. The site is run by Peter Gosselin. His area of expertise is being a software engineer .i.e. a code pusher. Not a scientist.

The other is a german blog/

Really fantastic sources there. Conspiracy level lies.
Click to expand...

Your Education and, Authority Fallacies are boring and fails to address the science based statements in his site which are commonly based on actual published science papers.

Do better.
 
Sunsettommy said:
Your Education and, Authority Fallacies are boring and fails to address the science based statements in his site which are commonly based on actual published science papers.

Do better.
Click to expand...

That has been addressed, with the point that those sites do what is known as 'quote mining' to give a false impression about the conclusions of the original papers.
 
RAMOSS said:
That has been addressed, with the point that those sites do what is known as 'quote mining' to give a false impression about the conclusions of the original papers.
Click to expand...

No all you post are fallacies, no actual science based counterpoints against skeptic blogs you dislike.

This means you are still in your driveway.
 
RAMOSS said:
Let's go vet your sources. The site is run by Peter Gosselin. His area of expertise is being a software engineer .i.e. a code pusher. Not a scientist.

The other is a german blog/

Really fantastic sources there. Conspiracy level lies.
Click to expand...

And yet the facts remain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom