REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
“Tidal variability is like 5 feet or so in this area,” said Jacqueline Austermann, an assistant professor at Columbia University who studies sea level change. “Depending on what time of the day this picture was taken, you could have tens of centimeters difference just because of tidal variability.”
We didn't have survey grade mm accuracy GPS 50 years ago. Maybe 20 years ago we did? The elevation is value is also less precise than the XY.
suddenly everyone is a geomorphology expert.
The weird part is that you can look at the data, acknowledge that sea levels have risen and still not have to accept global warming as the cause. Instead, they deny it’s happening at all.
to be fair, I’m not an expert.
yes, all of this is true.
so closer to an expert than anyone else here.
No, I'm simply quoting an anecdote just like the poster I quoted did
Uh, I worked in the GIS/GPS arena for several years, so I am familiar with that tech and where it was at in terms of accuracy at the time. So yes, I am allowed to comment.
I'm not denying it. What I'm calling into question is the proclaimed severity of it. I thought we were supposed to be underwater by now
So you’re telling us that harbormasters across the country have data that disproves sea levels have risen over the past 100 years or so?No, I'm simply quoting an anecdote just like the poster I quoted did
Uh, I worked in the GIS/GPS arena for several years, so I am familiar with that tech and where it was at in terms of accuracy at the time. So yes, I am allowed to comment.
And do you think that the F1A anecdote is more valid than 100s of harbor measurements in the exact same place that have been measured regularly for decades upon decades
You’re talking about predicting the future. I’m fine if you don’t trust the models. Models aren’t perfect.I'm not denying it. What I'm calling into question is the proclaimed severity of it. I thought we were supposed to be underwater by now
We clearly have a media and regulatory environment with a vested interest in the issue, and for that reason I'm skeptical. Especially when it comes to new legislation and taxation to "mitigate" it.
i can only say what I’ve seen with my own eyes according to a certain poster here….
No- it shows that sea level rise is far slower than the hyperbolic estimates. It also shows that in many parts of the globe there is a decrease in sea level.
Agreed. Using any one single data point is dumb, which is the point I am making with using an average of all the datapoints to control for variations in land subsidence and other geological activity.
The marine growth line is very telling when you compare the pictures more so than where the actual water is in the pictures. Obviously the water goes up and down with the tide. The marine growth line plainly visible in both pictures does not go up and down with the tide.
So I have nothing to worry about until I'm at least 130 years old. I hope we can reconvene on this topic here on this forum in the year 2100 to see if your source was right or wrong. I'll bet $1 the sea doesn't rise 3.5 feet.
