ajbram

SCIENCE!

Recommended Posts

On 10/14/2017 at 12:01 AM, allene222 said:

All of you anti-american Trump haters should leave America ASAP. This man is YOUR president whether you LIKE IT OR NOT. So get behind him and support him! This is the problem with this country, you whine and whine about him, when he's out there representing our Country. God bless America and Trump. He is a SHINING example of what someone with severe Alzheimer's can do.

And go grab some pussy.  But if it's my daughter, wife, mother, sister, friend, neighbor...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2017 at 5:01 PM, allene222 said:

All of you anti-american Trump haters should leave America ASAP. This man is YOUR president whether you LIKE IT OR NOT. So get behind him and support him! This is the problem with this country, you whine and whine about him, when he's out there representing our Country. God bless America and Trump. He is a SHINING example of what someone with severe Alzheimer's can do.

I realise that you are just trying to max out the sarcasm feature, and doing it badly, but I can only assume you have never dealt with Alzheimer's on a personal scale. I also hope you never have to. Comments like this should be reserved for the cesspit of PA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, monsoon said:

I'm sure you'll be very happy in the Pit of Ignorance.

they are all richer than you....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sailabout said:

they are all richer than you....

Saddam Hussein was also richer than all the ordinary Iraqis he had milked out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

Saddam Hussein was also richer than all the ordinary Iraqis he had milked out. 

All true, and you have your Bernard Tapie and his best friend Christine Lagarde to help milk the French taxpayer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EPA Abruptly Blocks 3 Agency Scientists From Giving Talks On Climate Change
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/epa-scientists-talks_us_59ed4d37e4b00f08619f953c

Quote

The Environmental Protection Agency has reportedly barred three agency scientists from giving talks about climate change at a conference in Rhode Island days before they were scheduled to speak.

The researchers were booked to appear Monday in Providence at the State of the Narragansett Bay and Watershed workshop, an event highlighting the health of New England’s largest estuary, where temperatures have risen 3 degrees Fahrenheit and water has risen up to seven inches over the past century.  

[...]

The move comes days after the EPA scrubbed dozens of links from its website to materials that helped local governments deal with the effects of climate change. Administrator Scott Pruitt has said he does not believe greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels cause climate change, and has scrapped or proposed eliminating numerous regulations to reduce emissions. Two weeks ago, he proposed repealing the Clean Power Plan, the federal government’s primary policy for slashing utilities’ output of planet-warming gases. 

The liars are in charge now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, ProaSailor said:

EPA Abruptly Blocks 3 Agency Scientists From Giving Talks On Climate Change
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/epa-scientists-talks_us_59ed4d37e4b00f08619f953c

The liars are in charge now.

If I were running a power company, I would treat these changes in regulations as temporary knowing they will be reversed when responsible government returns.  Corruption runs very deep in this administration and those who cannot see it, cannot see.  It is anti science and it is political.

My apologies for the alzheimer's joke.  The President obviously does not have alzheimer's, it was just a joke and I personally thought it hilarious. Not because of the reference to what is clearly a very serious condition but because the author had me completely sucked in believing he was one of those right wing nut jobs until almost the last word.  That is one of the marks  a good joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's one direction in which you can follow the money. These guys might not have an academic axe to grind, but they do have 285 billion reasons to treat climate change with more than a cursory glance.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/caisse-targets-climate-change-with-new-investment-plan/article36642583/?ref=https://www.theglobeandmail.com&

The fund aims to reduce carbon footprint holdings by %25 by 2025. Importantly, the article mentions the fund not wanting to be left with stranded assets in a rapidly evolving climate affected by global warming. Could it be that 'green' assets might gradually become more desirable holdings than 'carbon' assets?

And yes, I realize this is a very broad brush stroke.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, fufkin said:

Here's one direction in which you can follow the money. These guys might not have an academic axe to grind, but they do have 285 billion reasons to treat climate change with more than a cursory glance.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/caisse-targets-climate-change-with-new-investment-plan/article36642583/?ref=https://www.theglobeandmail.com&

The fund aims to reduce carbon footprint holdings by %25 by 2025. Importantly, the article mentions the fund not wanting to be left with stranded assets in a rapidly evolving climate affected by global warming. Could it be that 'green' assets might gradually become more desirable holdings than 'carbon' assets?

And yes, I realize this is a very broad brush stroke.

 

Reminds me of decades ago when I was buying municipal bonds.  My instructions to my broker were no bonds in nuclear power.  He thought I was nuts, letting politics interfere with my investments.  Whoops, turned out to be a good strategy.  Remember, the truth has a liberal bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sailabout said:

All true, and you have your Bernard Tapie and his best friend Christine Lagarde to help milk the French taxpayer

Precisely why I don't want a club of rich men to rule me or do science for me. You can't trust them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do want to say that most places that can see sea level increases are infact the land going down.

Ask any Surveyor or Geologist

All that very easy to measure since GPS has been used

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 inches of seal level rise since 1880.  That is measurable.  That is also .05 inches per year.  That is not measurable.  Your observation proves nothing except some places are having the land going down.  So what.

11 minutes ago, Sailabout said:

I do want to say that most places that can see sea level increases are infact the land going down.

Ask any Surveyor or Geologist

All that very easy to measure since GPS has been used

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, allene222 said:

8 inches of seal level rise since 1880.  That is measurable.  That is also .05 inches per year.  That is not measurable.  Your observation proves nothing except some places are having the land going down.  So what.

 

how can they measure the sea going up since 1880?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, allene222 said:

I have no idea.  Look it up.

fake news, they just say it is rising.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.484.1630&rep=rep1&type=pdf

it did rise significantly from 19,000 years ago to 8,000 as lots of the major frozen seas melted compared to rock and coral formations that have been assumed not to have sunk that far.

Mount Everest is going up at the same rate so we wont drown any time soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sailabout said:

fake news,.....

Mount Everest is going up at the same rate so we wont drown any time soon

Don't see how that's relevant to me as I don't have property there.

Mt. Everest is being pushed up because of plate tectonics; that's not something that will work for the city I live in...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where could you possibly be on the planet where you booked a fixed plate?

The are all moving, up down sideways and or tilting constantly. Some more than others.

That seems to be science "the sea water level is rising" gang dont know about

https://qz.com/790486/australia-has-moved-4-9-feet-thanks-to-shifting-tectonic-plates/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sailabout said:

Where could you possibly be on the planet where you booked a fixed plate?

The are all moving, up down sideways and or tilting constantly. Some more than others.

That seems to be science "the sea water level is rising" gang dont know about

https://qz.com/790486/australia-has-moved-4-9-feet-thanks-to-shifting-tectonic-plates/

 

did you even read or comprehend your link

it is about lateral movement [north] and rotation or X-Y movement

NOT change in elevation or Z movement

YOU FAIL AT LINKING AND SCIENCE, MR muckabout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, nota said:

did you even read or comprehend your link

it is about lateral movement [north] and rotation or X-Y movement

NOT change in elevation or Z movement

YOU FAIL AT LINKING AND SCIENCE, MR muckabout

sorry all the plates on the planet have agreed to only move only laterally.

I thought I would just start it simple for you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Sailabout said:

how can they measure the sea going up since 1880?

land surveyor here

by level runs between known bench marks [and now GPS]

0.00 is avg tide mean low water

and as sea level changes over time it is adjusted

US coast and geodetic branch of the army corps of engineers does the work here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nota said:

land surveyor here

by level runs between known bench marks [and now GPS]

0.00 is avg tide mean low water

and as sea level changes over time it is adjusted

US coast and geodetic branch of the army corps of engineers does the work here

OK, so is the panhandle sinking as well as rising water levels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pan handle of what where ?

yes land can move up or down mostly it averages out some places up some down with most places not really moving much

the points with a lot of movement are on plate edges near rifts or subduction zones

most areas show little Z axis movement unless there is a local feature driving it

unlike X-Y movements that your link was about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sailabout said:

OK, so is the panhandle sinking as well as rising water levels?

The number I quoted was an average over the earth.  I have a hard time believing all the land is going down. I guess you would argue that all the coastline is going down as the mountains all go up. Anything to avoid believing what you don't want to believe.

If you define sea level as relative to land than it doesn't really matter if the ocean went up or the land went down, both cause sea level rise so therefore there was sea level rise.  If you want to know if it was the water going up or the land going down, you need to look at the glaciers on land and see if there are more or less of them as that is the only source of water that could raise sea levels.  Apparently land ice is decreasing.  Inconvenient if you want to say sea level is rising due to land going down.  Now you need to calculate the amount of water that was in the melted glaciers and compare it to the increase in sea level.  That is an exercise I will leave to the experts and they say sea level rise is due to the earth getting hotter and melting the glaciers.  I don't expect you to believe it any more than I would expect Napoleon in the isolation ward to realize he is not Napoleon.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hotter water expands

as temps go up the water level rises a bit

while less of an effect then ice melting and running off the land into the water

it is also a factor in sea level rising

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sailabout said:

I do want to say that most places that can see sea level increases are infact the land going down.

Ask any Surveyor or Geologist

All that very easy to measure since GPS has been used

 

2 hours ago, nota said:

land surveyor here

by level runs between known bench marks [and now GPS]

0.00 is avg tide mean low water

and as sea level changes over time it is adjusted

US coast and geodetic branch of the army corps of engineers does the work here

 

2 hours ago, nota said:

pan handle of what where ?

yes land can move up or down mostly it averages out some places up some down with most places not really moving much

the points with a lot of movement are on plate edges near rifts or subduction zones

most areas show little Z axis movement unless there is a local feature driving it

unlike X-Y movements that your link was about

Here we go, this is a typical FUD tactic from the anti science gang. Start from something that is somehow true (some places move down), make it a generality (that's false) and then go "Told you there is scientific evidence against xxx"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of land reclamation in Asia, taking sand from the sea and putting on the land.

I think sea water levels going down in Asia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, nota said:

land surveyor here

by level runs between known bench marks [and now GPS]

0.00 is avg tide mean low water

and as sea level changes over time it is adjusted

US coast and geodetic branch of the army corps of engineers does the work here

If both heights are moving then there was no datum until GPS was in use?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sticking block to the Paris climate accord 2015/16 was India... who have a lot of coal and want to burn it....

Their argument was 1st world countries have been doing it for 150 years (burning fossil fuels for energy).... and with hundereds of millions of their peeps still lacking electric power... they simply can't afford a clean alternative...

Its touched on by Leo's doc...

Luckily for them the the Golden Golem of Greatness and his appointed advisors has turned his back on all the options that would help limit the increasing planetary damage...

Burn.... baby.... burn.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, random said:

2016-13_p15.png

So according to this data set less than 10" in 137 years then. I guess LA is safe for another few centuries. Interesting there was no acceleration during the massive post war industrialization period where presumably we were spewing gobs of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this also may be a stupid question, but what reference are we measuring sea-level rise against?  What reference does a Satellite use when determining its altitude?  GPS is notoriously bad at measuring altitude by itself, and its measurements are based on data from Satellites that use what for their reference?

Not arguing that sea level isn't rising.  Only wondering what the "absolute" reference is that we are measuring everything from.  Also, how do we know if that reference is actually remaining stationary/consistent.

I ask because I am very familiar with the challenges altitude presents in precision targeting with GPS guided weapons...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Crash said:

So this also may be a stupid question, but what reference are we measuring sea-level rise against?  What reference does a Satellite use when determining its altitude?  GPS is notoriously bad at measuring altitude by itself, and its measurements are based on data from Satellites that use what for their reference?

Not arguing that sea level isn't rising.  Only wondering what the "absolute" reference is that we are measuring everything from.  Also, how do we know if that reference is actually remaining stationary/consistent.

I ask because I am very familiar with the challenges altitude presents in precision targeting with GPS guided weapons...

I don't know the answer but I do know that there is a world of difference in measurement accuracy if you average over a year compared with trying to find the altitude of something going 1000MPH. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allene,

I agree totally.  But we still have to be measuring against something (a reference) right?

We determine GPS Satellite positions by measuring (with radar) from the earth and providing updated positional data to the satellites.  So they are "referenced" to earth...so how do you measure if sea level rising in this case, when your reference points (radar tracking stations) are also (very slowly) moving?  And likely each tracking site at a different rate...

http://www.trimble.com/gps_tutorial/howgps-positions.aspx

I suspect as you say, there is lots of averaging over long periods of time going on...but I'm still struggling to figure out what the "absolute" reference is...and is that absolute reference also moving?

Crash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Crash said:

Allene,

I agree totally.  But we still have to be measuring against something (a reference) right?

Again I don't know the answer but if I were doing it I would use the center of the earth as the reference.  In other words, I would measure the diameter of the ocean sphere.

The subtleties of GPS are a bit beyond me. I used to work for one of the principal designers of GPS and discussions with him about why relativity was important in keeping track of time just went over my head. Something about the fact of going in a circle is an acceleration.  The thing that was interesting was that it doesn't matter how fast something goes, just the fact it goes around the earth changes time.  So if he could figure that out, I would trust him to figure out how high the tide is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Crash said:

Allene,

I agree totally.  But we still have to be measuring against something (a reference) right?

We determine GPS Satellite positions by measuring (with radar) from the earth and providing updated positional data to the satellites.  So they are "referenced" to earth...so how do you measure if sea level rising in this case, when your reference points (radar tracking stations) are also (very slowly) moving?  And likely each tracking site at a different rate...

http://www.trimble.com/gps_tutorial/howgps-positions.aspx

I suspect as you say, there is lots of averaging over long periods of time going on...but I'm still struggling to figure out what the "absolute" reference is...and is that absolute reference also moving?

Crash

in the USA USC&G sets the standard

when I was a working surveyor we used 1929 data

that was revised in 1987 but the 1929 numbers were used up past 2000

most have moved to the 1987 data set now for major projects

but some ares may use the 1929 set still

so the reference data is years out of date but still used

and is not up dated very often as that is a lot of work, years worth

the above is for land survey but the tide gauges use the same standard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sailabout said:

GPS can measure altitude very accurately, once you have a local differential station set up.

https://construction.trimble.com/products-and-solutions/site-positioning-systems

 

if you consider 0.1 of a foot good I do not

GPS is corrected to 0.03 for X Y  but Z is 0.1 for survey

a level run by old style instrument can be out no more then 0.03 for Z or it is rerun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except the bonus with GPS is its relative to the centre of the earth ( wgs84) so if the land goes up you know.

How was that possible before GPS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Individual satellite sea surface height measurements are accurate to about 3 cm relative to the center of the earth (or actually to a reference spheroid b/c the earth is not a sphere).  But by taking an average of thousands of measurements sea level can be measured to within a couple of millimeters. 

Prior to satellite measurements sea level was measured against a refernce datum, which varied from country to country.  In the US and Canada it was the National Geodetic Vertical Datum, first of 1929 and then 1988. Height of an individual station relative to the datum was determined the old fashioned way - surveying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that account for uncertainty in center of reference centriod, which is believed to be within 2cm?  Or in addition to that?  More on WGS-84 (from Wiki, so take it for what its worth):

The coordinate origin of WGS 84 is meant to be located at the Earth's center of mass; the error is believed to be less than 2 cm.[2]

The WGS 84 meridian of zero longitude is the IERS Reference Meridian,[3] 5.3 arc seconds or 102 metres (335 ft) east of the Greenwich meridian at the latitude of the Royal Observatory.[4][5]

The WGS 84 datum surface is an oblate spheroid (ellipsoid) with major (equatorial) radius a = 6378137 m at the equator and flattening f = 1/298.257223563.[6] The polar semi-minor axis b then equals a × (1 − f) = 6356752.3142 m.[6]

Currently, WGS 84 uses the EGM96 (Earth Gravitational Model 1996) geoid, revised in 2004. This geoid defines the nominal sea level surface by means of a spherical harmonics series of degree 360 (which provides about 100 km latitudinal resolution near the Equator).[7] The deviations of the EGM96 geoid from the WGS 84 reference ellipsoid range from about −105 m to about +85 m.[8] EGM96 differs from the original WGS 84 geoid, referred to as EGM84.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2017 at 4:42 PM, Sailabout said:

Lots of land reclamation in Asia, taking sand from the sea and putting on the land.

I think sea water levels going down in Asia

Tell that to the people in Bangla Desh,...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, green03 said:

Tell that to the people in Bangla Desh,...

Simple, you tell them "you may feel water around your ankles, but actually that's fake news"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, green03 said:

Tell that to the people in Bangla Desh,...

I think they already know as it has been happening to them for a long long time. Could have something to do with living on a river delta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Crash said:

Does that account for uncertainty in center of reference centriod, which is believed to be within 2cm?  Or in addition to that?  More on WGS-84 (from Wiki, so take it for what its worth):

The coordinate origin of WGS 84 is meant to be located at the Earth's center of mass; the error is believed to be less than 2 cm.[2]

The WGS 84 meridian of zero longitude is the IERS Reference Meridian,[3] 5.3 arc seconds or 102 metres (335 ft) east of the Greenwich meridian at the latitude of the Royal Observatory.[4][5]

The WGS 84 datum surface is an oblate spheroid (ellipsoid) with major (equatorial) radius a = 6378137 m at the equator and flattening f = 1/298.257223563.[6] The polar semi-minor axis b then equals a × (1 − f) = 6356752.3142 m.[6]

Currently, WGS 84 uses the EGM96 (Earth Gravitational Model 1996) geoid, revised in 2004. This geoid defines the nominal sea level surface by means of a spherical harmonics series of degree 360 (which provides about 100 km latitudinal resolution near the Equator).[7] The deviations of the EGM96 geoid from the WGS 84 reference ellipsoid range from about −105 m to about +85 m.[8] EGM96 differs from the original WGS 84 geoid, referred to as EGM84.

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

No Because wgs84 was just a location that everybody agreed on, as the earth is not round it doesnt work for survey work.

The gps datum is a circle around the earth measured from space so once you measure using it you can know if you are going up or down.

There are probably 75+ datums to cover the earth, large countries have several like the USA.

I use them in oil gas GPS positioning on DP vessels, we never use wgs84 as all offshore measurements are based on a local land based datum so accurate for local work. ( the USA doesnt appear to have Federally based rules so in the Gulf of Mexico its measured in feet, US survey feet and metric, depending on which state surveyed it and when)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎26‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 8:03 AM, Sailabout said:

Except the bonus with GPS is its relative to the centre of the earth ( wgs84) so if the land goes up you know.

How was that possible before GPS?

I don't think that it was possible to be accurate apart from measuring relative movements between 2 points not too far away, nevertheless (at least in France, the UK and Belgium, I don't know for other countries), water height was measured against local references that were materialised physically and are mostly still there nowadays. So presumably they have been able to work back the "real" altitude of these points using modern geodesic systems as a reference and use the old data. Land may move up and down at different rates in various places, but in most places it is by a small amount and at a steady pace so I imagine that scientists have been able to estimate this fairly accurately.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to know that there are people out there who do know what they are doing on sea levels.

2016-13_p15.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now