Jump to content

The Analysis of Sea Levels.


mikegarrison
 Share

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

That data actually *is* altered. You have to actually dig for the unaltered records because they only show the altered version.

 But if you want to try something fun, try looking for this same data set for each year over the past decade. You will notice the past getting cooler and cooler every year. 

These are very definite and specific claims relating to your concrete knowledge which would be very easy to demonstrate with minimal effort on your part.

Please provide some evidence for your claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sevenperforce,

 Thanks, but no thanks. I have told you I don't know how many times and different ways now that I'm not trying to convince you of anything. More importantly, I'm very keenly interested in not fighting with you about it, since you're clearly emotionally invested in your belief.

 If you want to go digging down that particular rabbit hole, then you will. If you don't you won't. At the very least, you may be able to find somebody willing to show you... but it won't be me and it won't be on this forum.

Best,

-Slashy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

Sorry, but you are the one who's mistaken. That data actually *is* altered. You have to actually dig for the unaltered records because they only show the altered version.

 But if you want to try something fun, try looking for this same data set for each year over the past decade. You will notice the past getting cooler and cooler every year. 

 You know what... There's no point in us arguing about this. It's much easier to fool someone than it is to convince him that he's been fooled. 

Carry on.

-Slashy

 

I'm interested in the data you have - and don't have the science background to know how to search for it. 

Will you share some of the source material you reference? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

sevenperforce,

 Thanks, but no thanks. I have told you I don't know how many times and different ways now that I'm not trying to convince you of anything. More importantly, I'm very keenly interested in not fighting with you about it, since you're clearly emotionally invested in your belief.

 If you want to go digging down that particular rabbit hole, then you will. If you don't you won't. At the very least, you may be able to find somebody willing to show you... but it won't be me and it won't be on this forum.

Best,

-Slashy

you've triggered "someone is wrong on the internet" and you're not backing down, despite overwelming evidence.

But you are clearly invested in your "the moon landings climate records were faked" delusion, and we arnt going to convince you otherwise. So we should all drop the subject, and return to the topic of... sea level rise. (and the moons wobble affecting it)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JoeSchmuckatelli The only place you can get the raw data is here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/faq

 It's a PITA to work with and a big project if you dig into it. Any summary you look at (even from the official sources) is altered, so you have to do the averaging yourself.

AFA the yearly summaries showing the data tampering, it's almost a meme at this point.

giss_us_1999-2016.gif?w=863&h=606&resize

giss2001_2015.gif

Note: These images were grabbed directly from NOAA. I do it myself every year just for lulz.

Best,

-Slashy

5 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

you've triggered "someone is wrong on the internet" and you're not backing down, despite overwelming evidence.

But you are clearly invested in your "the moon landings climate records were faked" delusion, and we arnt going to convince you otherwise. So we should all drop the subject, and return to the topic of... sea level rise. (and the moons wobble affecting it)

 

Love the non- biased language. The only term you're missing is 'tin-foil hat' :D

 And you're wrong, by the way. I'm *totally* backing down. I have zero investment in this discussion. You folks are smart, you'll figure it out eventually. ;)

 Best,

-Slashy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks at graphs that show increasing average global temperatures with corresponding snapshots from 2001 and 2016/2016 that correctly correlate.

Maybe the red circles are suppose to correlate "fudged data" because it would appear that they move "further apart", in which they do, but they aren't fudged. The `y` axis of both graphs changes to account for increased deviation in more recent years due to rising temperatures. Hence the 2 points in time "move further apart" with newer data relative to previous renderings of the graph. 

I'd say this is just reading the data wrong and not taking into account newer data in how the graph is rendered. The data is the same, just newer data sets change the graph... to show things are getting worse. 

Maybe there is another source that doesn't succumb to graph interpretation issues?

edit after staring at the 2nd graph some more I noticed the biggest deviation is the left red circle, which does completely change and does look "fudged". This goes into where the 2 image sources are coming from beyond "NASA 2001". Because as far as I know, it could just be made up to look fudged, or its totally legit. The right side of the graph still looks extremely worrisome. 

Hopefully someone with graph skills can verify the same dataset from "NASA 2001". 

Edited by MKI
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[snip]

 

17 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

Show your "evidence" and the skeptical will tear it apart. but plant a seed and walk away, and only the gulible will follow and see what you wanted them to see, without understanding what it really is.

OOhhhh. Not much can be done with that, plenty other places to get that confirmation bias going that aren't a space-game forum. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I'm used to it. *shrug* People feel passionate about a subject and get triggered, start feeling justified in chucking around ad-homs.

 The fact remains: Unless they've looked into the data *personally* (which I have), they don't really know if their belief is true or false. All they actually 'know' is that they believe what they've been told. The fact also remains that their 'experts' have consistently failed to make any correct predictions in my entire life and their methods flaunt the basic precepts of scientific method. There's only so many times that brat can falsely cry "wolf" before people will stop taking him seriously.

 So y'all go ahead and believe whatever you want, I'm not here to change your mind. But as for me *personally*, I'll believe it when I see it.

Peace out!

-Slashy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

The fact remains: Unless they've looked into the data *personally* (which I have), they don't really know if their belief is true or false. All they actually 'know' is that they believe what they've been told.

Weird, I found a site promoting such views that has the exact same gif, which is was posted back in 2015/16. (which is why the data just stops at those years, even though its 5+years old as of right now) Such a site is hosted by a known climate change denier and conspiracy theory promoter, who doesn't have a background in climate science. Who also posted the site and information under a confirmed pseudo name and has been promoting the same views for the last 

So much for personally using NCDC data!

If your going to lie, do a better job than copy-pasting an image from another site, claiming you "personally" looked into it, as I consider it personally insulting you'd think we wouldn't notice. :/

 

PS I wont provide the directly link/reference, as to protect those who might "fall into it". It wasn't hard to figure out/background check the reference though. 

 

Edited by MKI
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Case in point. Now I'm a 'liar' because I googled animated gifs to show you how much of a meme it is. I actually did look into it personally, and spent a lot of time and effort on it. But oh well. Guess I'm just a "liar" then. 

This sort of behavior is why we can't have nice things. More to the point, this sort of behavior is why I keep trying so hard to not talk about this subject here.

 By the way, did you check the way back machine/ internet archive to see if those images actually appeared on NOAA's climate page, or did you just look for a reason to declare the images false because some climate change denier used them?

 You know what? Nevermind, don't care.

Again, Peace Out

-Slashy

 

Edited by GoSlash27
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

^ Case in point. Now I'm a 'liar' because I googled animated gifs to show you how much of a meme it is. I actually did look into it personally, and spent a lot of time and effort on it. But oh well. Guess I'm just a "liar" then. 

This sort of behavior is why we can't have nice things.

 By the way, did you check the way back machine/ internet archive to see if those images actually appeared on NOAA's climate page, or did you just look for a reason to declare the images false because some climate change denier used them?

-Slashy

I'm sure you looked into it personally, as you are personally invested otherwise you wouldn't of come back to defend your original claim by now claiming I am making a straw man argument. [snip] does not automatically dismiss your original claim, but it doesn't exactly support it either. I'm a skeptic, and I still do not dismiss your original claim, but I also am still waiting for verifiable evidence to support it.

If your only supporting evidence is from a known biased source, which doesn't have credentials on the topic, or referrals, or even an academic background, its akin to referencing "some guy on the internet", which might be as flimsy of a source as you can get. A WordPress site isn't exactly a reliable source, which I'm sure at some level you realize, hence why you didn't link to the providing article(s). 

So we are more or less back to square one, with the same claims, just with some extra questionable reference provided, which are now dismissed as biased. 

Your welcome to provide another more verifiable, solid source to support your original claim. As the previous one didn't support even the weakest of scrutiny (misleading/cherry-picking/bad-reference). Or move on to believe "your objective truth" as you see fit. As many have already said, its not like anyone changes their mind on the internet. I for one would love to learn something different, and have you "blow my mind", but so far I haven't seen anything to make me believe. 

 

16 hours ago, Souptime said:

oh boy what have i done

Somehow led into Pandoras box! I blame the moon phases!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[snip]

20 years ago if anyone questioned or failed to show absolute dedication and faith to the existence of Dark Matter they were shouted down and shamed off of similar science boards... And yet these days researchers find some data that Dark Matter is not as doctrinal and settled science as those posters would like to have everyone believe back then. 

40 years ago there was talk about global cooling and nuclear winter. 

So if someone has data that can be used to support a claim - we should be willing to at least look at it, rather than cast aspersions because they are heretical or non orthodox.  

Poke holes in the data and interpretations all day long - but let's not dump dissenters in with the loonies 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, someone apparently doesn't understand what a running average is, or at least doesn't understand why it's not especially valid right on the end of the line. When you get more data it changes the running average at the end of the previous line, because that's what a running average does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Well, no. NOAA is certainly not the only agency working on this.

CSIRO in Australia, for instance, is one of the major clearinghouses for data.

No, NOAA is *literally* the only place to get it. the raw data is unavailable from the other agencies.

Best,

-Slashy

 

5 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Unnecessary.  Especially here. 

20 years ago if anyone questioned or failed to show absolute dedication and faith to the existence of Dark Matter they were shouted down and shamed off of similar science boards... And yet these days researchers find some data that Dark Matter is not as doctrinal and settled science as those posters would like to have everyone believe back then. 

40 years ago there was talk about global cooling and nuclear winter. 

So if someone has data that can be used to support a claim - we should be willing to at least look at it, rather than cast aspersions because they are heretical or non orthodox.  

Poke holes in the data and interpretations all day long - but let's not dump dissenters in with the loonies 

It's the same old thing; "somebody is thinking heretical thoughts. This cannot be tolerated". Pay it no mind. I'm not aggravated by it anymore, I just find it tiresome and have better/ less annoying things to do with my time.

Best,

-Slashy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mikegarrison said:

Yup. And if you download it, you will find that it has been pre- adjusted. "For your convenience", of course. I suppose if you know which model was last applied to each datapoint, you could strip it back off. But better to have the original unedited values. NOAA has that, none of the others do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

Yup. And if you download it, you will find that it has been pre- adjusted. "For your convenience", of course. I suppose if you know which model was last applied to each datapoint, you could strip it back off. But better to have the original unedited values. NOAA has that, none of the others do.

This is nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it's "literally" referred to as 'bias correction'. I don't think it counts as a 'conspiracy theory' if they openly admit to doing it.

 Also, a conspiracy theory is more correctly defined as a strongly held belief that is constructed in such a way as to be impossible to disprove. This isn't the case here.

 Finally, I'm really not interested in discussing this on the 'little green space frog' forum. I'm not like some ardent crusader on this subject and I'll happily agree to disagree. If we could all just drop the snarky one liners and personal attacks, that'd be great. :)

Best,

-Slashy

Edited by GoSlash27
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:
7 hours ago, sevenperforce said:
8 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

That data actually *is* altered. You have to actually dig for the unaltered records because they only show the altered version.

These are very definite and specific claims relating to your concrete knowledge which would be very easy to demonstrate with minimal effort on your part.

Please provide some evidence for your claims.

Thanks, but no thanks. I have told you I don't know how many times and different ways now that I'm not trying to convince you of anything

 If you want to go digging down that particular rabbit hole, then you will.

This is the drive-by fallacy, a subset of argumentum ad ignorantium. Drive by, firing bold claims haphazardly out the window at pedestrians, then speed off before anyone thinks to ask you to provide any evidence. Perhaps, the driver thinks, some of the shots will find fertile ground in the torsos of innocent onlookers.

It is a fallacy because it appeals to the common human intuition that claims are not made unless there is evidence for them, and thus the claim seems to have grounding specifically because it was made without citing evidence. Of course, claims are often made without any evidence at all, but humans forget about that.

And we know this is not a good-faith argument, because if you weren't trying to convince anyone of anything, you wouldn't be speeding by with a spray of rapid-fire claims.

5 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I'm interested in the data you have - and don't have the science background to know how to search for it. 

Will you share some of the source material you reference? 

I don't agree with you on everything but I always appreciate your inquisitiveness and desire to find the truth.

Unfortunately, @GoSlash27 doesn't have any data or source material; he's repeating an argument he found convincing even though he hasn't seen any evidence for it. I don't say that as a personal attack; it's just a fact. I grew up creationist and I am very, very familiar with science denial. I am, in fact, a recognized and published expert in the area of science denial. And this is just a repetition of science denial.

5 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

AFA the yearly summaries showing the data tampering, it's almost a meme at this point.

giss_us_1999-2016.gif?w=863&h=606&resize

Do you know what Temperature Anomaly is?

Simple answer. Yes or no. 

Because those graphs show the exact same data.

4 hours ago, MKI said:

Maybe the red circles are suppose to correlate "fudged data" because it would appear that they move "further apart", in which they do, but they aren't fudged. The `y` axis of both graphs changes to account for increased deviation in more recent years due to rising temperatures.

Correct. If you change the size of the Y-axis in a graph, you end up with vertical distortion. It's the exact same graph, though. The difference in the scale of the Y-axis is partly due to the size of the graph and partly due to the fact that the graph is measuring Temperature Anomaly, not temperature alone.

4 hours ago, MKI said:

edit after staring at the 2nd graph some more I noticed the biggest deviation is the left red circle, which does completely change and does look "fudged".

It looks like that, but it's not -- the left red circle is in the exact same location relative to the mean temperature anomaly, but the averaging line in the 2001 version is truncated at around t=1885 while the averaging line in the 2015 version goes all the way back to 1880. Also, the averaging line is a moving average, which is going to be in part an artifact of the size of the graph. As @mikegarrison explained upthread, "When you get more data it changes the running average at the end of the previous line, because that's what a running average does."

3 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

And yet these days researchers find some data that Dark Matter is not as doctrinal and settled science as those posters would like to have everyone believe back then. 

I will note that I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever of this.

3 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

40 years ago there was talk about global cooling

Fifty years ago, not forty. And even then, no. There was one Science article in 1971 suggesting global cooling as a result of aerosols which was corrected by its own author in 1975. Some media outlets in the early 1970s chattered about it, leading to a handful of headlines. But the science on anthropogenic, warming-dominated climate change was already well-established.

3 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

and nuclear winter

Well, nuclear winter was definitely a possible issue. It is still a possible issue. But it has nothing to do with the current trend of anthropogenic climate change.

3 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

So if someone has data that can be used to support a claim - we should be willing to at least look at it

And that is why I asked @GoSlash27 to show me his data. I always, always ask for the data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

Actually, it's "literally" referred to as 'bias correction'. I don't think it counts as a 'conspiracy theory' if they openly admit to doing it.

No, bias correction is a term used in statistical analysis in reference to model adjustment. Bias correction is not applied to historical data. The fact that you use the term "bias correction" in reference to supposed "adjustments" to historical data shows that you do not know what bias correction is. 

Historical data are not subject to bias correction. 

Historical data can be subject to renormalization.

For example, let us suppose that I am counting up the number of traffic fatalities in my city over the past few years. The set of fatal car accidents from 2015 to 2019 in my city looks like this:

  • 2015: 19
  • 2016: 17
  • 2017: 22
  • 2018: 20
  • 2019: 23

The average across these five years is 20.2 traffic fatalities per year. Thus, the normalized difference from the average is as follows:

  • 2015: -5.9%
  • 2016: -15.8%
  • 2017: +8.91%
  • 2018: -1.0%
  • 2019: +13.9%

A year passes, and I find out that in 2020, there were 14 traffic fatalities. This means that the average is now 19.3 traffic fatalities per year, and so the renormalized difference from the average becomes:

  • 2015: -1.6%
  • 2016: -11.9%
  • 2017: +14.0%
  • 2018: +3.6%
  • 2019: +19.2%
  • 2020: -27.5%

OMG THE NUMBERS CHANGED WHAT HAPPENED!!!!111!!!1!!11!!!

It's just math, y'all.

Edited by sevenperforce
bias correction, of course
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:
4 minutes ago, Souptime said:

i just wanted to comment on the wobbly moon how did it end up like this :(

On another note, how would the wobbly moon effect lunar missions, like artemis and the sort?

It won't.  The 'wobble' is measured in decades.  It's part of a cycle that we've been aware of for a looong time.  

Most people don't think in terms of decades. 

For the last decade (approximately) the rise in sea levels caused by anthropogenic climate change has been "hidden" by a cycle of decreasing lunar tides. If the average sea level is rising, but the average high tide is dropping, then it looks like the total sea level isn't getting much higher at all.

But for the next decade (approximately) the cycle of lunar tides will be increasing. And so not only will the last decade's worth of sea level rise show up, but we're also going to be seeing the next decade's worth of sea level rise, AND we're going to get higher average high tides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...