Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Plot Sea Levels Using GPS Satellites (engadget.com)
A team from the UK's National Oceanography Centre (NOC), University of Michigan and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory have discovered a new way to accurately measure the sea level. The technique is called GNSS-R, and involves bouncing low-powered signals from GPS satellites off of the ocean's surface and measuring the reflected signal with a GNSS-R receiver. The team used a research satellite launched last year as a GNSS-R receiver, but it will be able to tap a new constellation of receivers that NASA is launching this year as part of CYGNSS. That mission will make accurate measurements of surface winds using GPS satellites, but NOC scientists will be able to use them to measure ocean levels, too, yielding a thirty-fold increase in such data.
... when these measurements corroborate the existing (and already very convincing) evidence for sea level rise, the wingnuts will come up with yet another obscure rationalization explaining why they should be discarded or ignored.
Alas, with deniers, it's like playing whack-a-mole: when you point to any specific piece of evidence, then out come the excuses for why that one thing is not relevant. When you point out the totality of evidence, out come the irrelevant details.
for a party that will pass unconstitutional laws requiring ID to vote on the mere thought that someone MIGHT commit voter fraud despite a lack of any evidence...it's sort of amusing to see the cries of there isn't enough data to prove AGW is happening so we shouldn't bother with it.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
The question is, what will happen if the satellite data disagrees with the terrestrial data?
Then scientists will do what they always do in such situations: try to find out what causes the discrepancy.
The vast majority of times, such a discrepancy is caused by a faulty measuring technique or device. If that's ruled out, then you look more closely at the observations you're comparing to, for signs of error there. And if the discrepancy still persists (i.e., you have strong confidence in both sets of observations, even though they disagree) then you start to look for explanations, including possible modifications to theories, that would fit with the observations.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.