How does this really work? NASA's website says we can bounce radar off the ocean from a satellite and this shows that the sea level has been rising a couple millimeters per year. But google says the average wave height in the middle of the ocean is anywhere from 1 to 10 meters. Wouldn't the margin of error be like 5000 times the observation? And waves aren't seasonally periodic so how could you even keep measuring the same cycle of a wave at the same part of the ocean? Something doesn't add up
Sea level isn't rising, it sinking. Tropical islands in the Pacific are growing, there isn't anywhere on the planet that sea levels have swamped the land, sea level is dropping dramatically in higher latitudes too. There is no evidence of sea level rising anywhere.
>>16823230https://science.nasa.gov/kids/earth/how-do-we-measure-sea-level/This has a decent explanationOr perhaps thishttps://earth.gov/sealevel/about-sea-level-change/how-we-measure/dive-deeper/You should be able to solve your conundrum with these.>>16823248That's glacial rebound. Stop spamming.
>>16823259>https://science.nasa.gov/kids/earth/how-do-we-measure-sea-level/This is the NASA website I already looked at. It doesn't talk about what assumptions are used to resolve amplitude of the waves. The other website you linked doesn't either.>>16823248Even if that's true how would you know? The global level not level around some island.
>>16823279The key word is average. Try to think what happens to the waves when you measure the same spot dozens of times over months and then dozens of months over years. Also the beams aren't accurate enough to focus on a single wave anyhow, it's all about averages.
>>16823279NASA isn't a legitimate scientific organization, they're a far left government propaganda agency that exists for the purpose of shilling far left narratives like global warming, feminism, 1488 genders, DEI, etc.
Nobody knows exactly what will happen in 10 years and if they claim otherwise I would be skeptical.
I have to pay higher home owners insurance rates because scientists keep on lying about "the world is coming to an end because of cow farts"
>>16823369>1488?Do you even know what you're talking about?
>>16823369That's just people doing the current thing. But the scientists must have a model they use to convert the ocean bounce data to something more precise.>>16823315I'm sure it is but I'm also sure it can't be as simple as add and divide. If it is, that's disqualifying.
https://www.earth.com/news/lasers-confirm-earth-global-mean-sea-level-rise-gmsl-faster-than-believed/
>>16824218
>>16824191their model is "global warming is 100% definitely real, therefore our data will 100% definitely show sea level rise" and if the data doesn't show that they will adjust it with "correction factors" until it does. what do you think the scandal over "mike's nature trick" was all about? it was the same people getting caught doing the same thing 20 years ago.
>>16823825The last 4 digits of 2^(x == 159 (mod 500)) are always 1488. Great pick up line btw, all the bar sluts love it.
