It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA tells us this May was second hottest on record

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: eightfold




The wind-on-mars one is a corker.

So you've went thru my posts and found one where I was looking for answers? I relied upon some of the members here to fill me in on something I did not at first understand, how is that indicative of anything but a willingness to learn? It's what ATS is here for. I'm not a know it all and will not claim to know what I've not studied... Now, about those three sea level questions I posted to you... You just gonna ignore them? Thats telling.




posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 03:12 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Keep up D8, I've answered them. Your ad hominem replies are priceless, but at least you're helping me pass the time on a very busy train.

Shall we talk about me some more?


edit on 19/6/17 by eightfold because: Speeling erorz



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 03:16 AM
link   
a reply to: eightfold
Can you tell me what the difference between Global Mean Sea Level and Relative Sea Level is?
Can you tell me why some areas the GMSL is higher than other areas?
Can you tell me why relative sea level is not rising the same globally?
Can you tell me why in some places RSL is falling?



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 03:17 AM
link   
a reply to: eightfold

Everybody googles. None of the questions I've asked you I'd have to google. You're the one claiming to be some kinda sea level guy, but wait that's changed to a rainfall guy.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 03:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly

You have a financial stake in your models being correct ???

Wow...I commend you for being open about it...the cancer of science laid bare.



Well, yep, of course I do. We're trying to do something practical with the (frankly, scarily huge) amount of data that's floating* around. It's not a cancer, and I'm not a climate scientist, and to be fair, we're not *really* model building.

We do machine learning with a focus on flooding prediction and mitigation. i.e. we're building a system that learns on it's own based on a huge amount of data (way more than a human could usefully analyse in multiple lifetimes), to make practical, relatively short-term (demonstrably accurate) predictions about "local" flooding. We're a bit like Forecast.io/Dark Sky/other local/short terms weather prediction apps, but way more advanced.

We use "baseline behavioral profiles" to test the networks predictions against 'known' reality. For example.... we feed it data about rainfall, river and sea levels, etc etc etc etc etc up to 2014, then check what it predicts about 2015. Given we know what happened in 2015, we can then refine the AI/network/machine learning algorithms so that their output converges closer to the baseline. We don't build models, although you could argue that Steve (the AI) builds internal models (that we'll frankly, never understand) to produce the system output.

The idea that I have a vested interest in promoting climate change is crazy. From a professional point of view, it's irrelevant. Our work would probably exist with or without it, although I came to it because I'm a technologist that wanted to do something and useful with available climate data. If it wasn't flooding, it'd be something else. Bluntly, the subject is irrelevant, my interest lies in AI and machine learning.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 03:36 AM
link   



edit on 19-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 03:36 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Are you even reading the replies in your own thread? I've answered your questions.....

Keep up D8Tee
edit on 19/6/17 by eightfold because: link error



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 03:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: eightfold

You're the one claiming to be some kinda sea level guy, but wait that's changed to a rainfall guy.


If you read my replies, you'll see I've been pretty consistent about what "I" am. The fact you're more interested in talking about and quizzing me is frankly, a bit bizarre.

Have you read the links I posted, which answer your questions about the NOAA/NASA groups, and their methodologies? Isn't that why we're here? I only told you what I do for a living to demonstrate that I have an above average knowledge about this stuff.

I've never claimed to be 'a sea level guy' or a 'rainfall guy' - I'm a technologist. CTO stands for Chief Technical Officer. I'm not a climate scientist and I've never claimed to be.
edit on 19/6/17 by eightfold because: Grammar



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 03:43 AM
link   
a reply to: eightfold




My (tbh, slightly frightening) ever improving AI pulls in data from pretty much all the public datasets (and a pile that we pay to access - mostly sat based data from private companies), and the idea that sea levels aren't rising is borderline insane from where I'm sitting.

What datasets would those be?

Can you tell me what the difference between Global Mean Sea Level and Relative Sea Level is?
Can you tell me why some areas the GMSL is higher than other areas?
Can you tell me why relative sea level is not rising the same globally?
Can you tell me why in some places RSL is falling?

edit on 19-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 03:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
What datasets would those be?


You could check out Planet Labs - www.planet.com...

Everything beyond that is commercially sensitive information and I'm not going to explain further. We use a mixture of public and private data, and do our own internal processing on some of them, and we use other's 'raw' - there's no way in a million years I'm listing specific datasets for some random (frankly, pretty irritating) guy on a conspiracy forum. I've already shared too much.

If I haven't demonstrated I know WTF I'm on about then, frankly, tuff luck. You could probably identify us (and me personally) given what I've said here.

*Shall we get back on topic?*

*Have you read the methodology I linked in the first post?*

This is becoming a bit tedious.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 03:56 AM
link   
a reply to: eightfold
Can you tell me what the difference between Global Mean Sea Level and Relative Sea Level is?
Can you tell me why some areas the GMSL is higher than other areas?
Can you tell me why relative sea level is not rising the same globally?
Can you tell me why in some places RSL is falling?



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 03:59 AM
link   
And *seriously* - stop editing your posts to significantly change the content. 🙄

As I've said, I've answered your questions, and I've explained *I'm not a climatologist* This thread isn't about my lack of knowledge on the subject, it's about yours, and I was trying to help you answer your original questions.

Asking me questions you know the answer to (and surely, by now, you realise I do too) is totally pointless. I'm not here to satisfy your need to play quizmaster, I was genuinely trying to help.

*Shall we get back on topic?*

*Have you read the methodology I linked in the first post?*

*Has it answered your initial, not-about-eightfold questions?*

edit on 19/6/17 by eightfold because: grammar



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 04:09 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee
That post would be way more impressive if you threw in a few hyperlinks to the data you are referencing.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 04:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Barliman
He appears to be basing his entire hypothesis (that sea level rise isn't accelerating in line with CO2 emissions, and that NASA and the NOAA are somehow involved in a giant conspiracy to 'fake' climate change) based on one paper, and a paper that's entirely based on tide-gauge readings at that.

It's bizarre.




posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: eightfold




that sea level rise isn't accelerating in line with CO2 emissions


Well..it isnt. Two things...sea level is not rising...everywhere on Earth...and second...look up submerged cities on google...and tell me...hasnt the earth been doing this...throughout known history ?

You do realize that massive pieces of land...were once completely under water at one point in Earth history. Even in recent human history...which is relatively young...we have seen massive lands being swallowed and also...waters retract and expose the land again that was once deep under water.



NASA and the NOAA are somehow involved in a giant conspiracy to 'fake' climate change


there has been ample cases of data fudging and various shenanigans...to at least cast a doubt to any sane thinking person.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 05:42 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Yes the earth has experienced periods of warming and cooling and flooding and flood recession.


But the thing is, this current period is caused by man made emissions, and seriously threatens our civilisation.


It will be little comfort when half the world runs out of food, that we can sit here and say oh well, the earth has experienced difficult climactic events before.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 05:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly

Two things...sea level is not rising...everywhere on Earth...and second...look up submerged cities on google...and tell me...hasnt the earth been doing this...throughout known history ?

You do realize that massive pieces of land...were once completely under water at one point in Earth history. Even in recent human history...which is relatively young...we have seen massive lands being swallowed and also...waters retract and expose the land again that was once deep under water.



I'm not entirely sure what your point is or how relevant submerged cities are, but I agree that sea levels have changed throughout history.

The issue now is the *rate* that climate change is happening, and the practical, very real threats that creates. So far as we can tell, the current rate of change is unprecedented when compared to our many and varied ways of inferring and/or measuring what's happened in the past.



there has been ample cases of data fudging and various shenanigans...to at least cast a doubt to any sane thinking person.


I'm a (mostly) sane person, and while I've seen statistical adjustments to data to compensate for various technical measurement issues (seriously, measuring sea level is a complex problem), I've never seen real evidence of an agenda-led manipulation, nor am I really sure how it would be possible.

You'd need the cooperation of thousands (potentially 10's of 1000's) of highly trained scientists, all of whom would be compromising their principles in the process. It doesn't pass the smell test, and I know enough about the data collection systems to say, for sure, it'd be nigh on impossible to mess with them in the way people here often suggest.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: eightfold

The rate of change as compared to how far in the past? How unprecedented is it given a larger timescale, and accounting for the inaccuracies of older technology that has been used to collect data over the past 100 years? Also, do you happen to work for the JBA group, they seem to have a financial stake in unprecedented climate change?



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: eightfold
a reply to: D8Tee

The "disclaimer" is in the methodology of the project, which is top of the related links list at the bottom of the article i.e exactly where you'd expect a reference to be on every pop-sci article, ever.

As is always the case with complex scientific issues, you've got to dig a little deeper to understand what you're being presented with. It's not "dirty tricks" at play, it's ignorance on the part of ATS users.

The page you posted is a pop-sci, New Scientist-esque explanation of their data analysis. It irritates me that, as is so often the case on ATS, the easily found details are ignored, and flawed assumptions are made and espoused as fact.

It's an educated estimate. Seriously, go read their methodology.


I know I'm going back a few pages here, but I just had to refer back to this. As you said, it's not a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, it's a pop-sci article. Probably half the people reading it are laymen with no scientific background and lots of other # to do. This isn't their life or their job. They're just going to read the article, they're not gonna do any further research. So yes, the responsible thing to do really would be to put some disclaimers in the article that all of this is just their educated guess. Otherwise it's misleading to a lot of readers, they think it's all 100% verified fact. Rule #1 in writing is know your audience.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
As you said, it's not a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, it's a pop-sci article. Probably half the people reading it are laymen with no scientific background and lots of other # to do. This isn't their life or their job. They're just going to read the article, they're not gonna do any further research. So yes, the responsible thing to do really would be to put some disclaimers in the article that all of this is just their educated guess. Otherwise it's misleading to a lot of readers, they think it's all 100% verified fact. Rule #1 in writing is know your audience.


Nope, the responsibility is on the reader to educate themselves. And, like I said, they have references linked at the end, the same as every other pop-sci article in the world.

We're getting into the territory of "this cup may be hot" labels being stuck on coffee - people need to take *everything* they read with a pinch salt, and if they want to understand more they need to make a minor bit of effort and apply some common sense.

It took me all of 5 minutes to answer his questions in the initial post. It's not difficult, people are just lazy, or, in this case, are using their ignorance to promote an agenda.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join