Slashdot Mirror
NASA Scientists Suggest We've Been Underestimating Sea Level Rise (vice.com)
Our current estimate about the global sea level is "way off" according to a new study. The study published in Geophysical Research Letters this month suggests that our historial sea level records have been off by an underestimation of five to 28 percent. From a report on Motherboard: Global sea level, the paper concluded, rose no less than 5.5 inches over the last century, and likely saw an increase of 6.7 inches. The reason for this discrepancy was uncovered by earth scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of Hawai'i at Manoa. By comparing newer climate models with older sea level measurements, the team discovered that readings from coastal tide gauges may not have been as indicative as we thought. These gauges, located at more than a dozen sites across the Northern Hemisphere, have been a primary data source for estimating sea level changes during the last several decades. "It's not that there's something wrong with the instruments or the data, but for a variety of reasons, sea level does not change at the same pace everywhere at the same time," said Philip Thompson, the study's lead author and associate director of the University of Hawa'i Sea Level Center, in a statement. "As it turns out, our best historical sea level records tend to be located where past sea level rise was most likely less than the true global average."
Yeah, it is sad that scientists need to fight for funding when we have tax payer dollars going to anyone who waltzes across the border as a hard luck case or bombing another nation in an attempt to wag the dog. But, hey, let's just keep voting Democrat and Republican and see how much more they can keep pointing fingers until they break under the stress of a mismanaged nation... why not?
NASA is once again figuring out how to doctor data to make you panic.
A university study has analyzed data to result in a very minor change (about a 6% correction) in average rate of sea level rise and the media has figured out how to make you panic. By the way, if you look at the "funded by" part of the abstract, the study was funded by NOAA.
NOAA has other thoughts.
Nice link, but I'm not sure why you say that this is "other thoughts"-- that's a link to the raw data. The University of Manoa/Old Dominion University/Caltech study takes these readings as input data to calculate the average.
What a shame that NASA, an organization once devoted to science, has fallen so far to become essentially the national enquirer of climate. sea level rise is the new Bat Boy...
What a shame that even very minor reanalysis papers get politicized. This wasn't even primarily a NASA study: the first author is funded by the University of Hawaii Sea Level Center, which is a NOAA program.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
And if it were science, you wouldn't label skeptics as heretics, err, deniers.
Why? Scientists like to use precise, descriptive language.
doubter: a person who doubts
skeptic: someone who demands evidence in order to be convinced
denier: a person who refuses to accept the existence, truth, or validity of something despite evidence or general support for it
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Just do what I'm doing, grab a bag of popcorn and enjoy the fight.
It's amazing. And much like the evolution vs. creationism battle. Nowhere but in the US this battle could take place, 'cause everyone else in the real world has already chosen his side. So please, don't take away our international amusement park, we need a vacation from reality from time to time and enjoy that there are actually people who are allowed to live in a make believe world while we have to face hard reality.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Deniers and skeptics are different people.
You can tell a denier from a skeptic from the fact that a skeptic would be equally critical of both sides of a question. Deniers, on the other hand, already have the opinion that they are advocating: they are saying the science is wrong regardless of the facts; in fact, they aren't even interested in the facts.
Deniers aren't skeptics-- they are, in fact, the exact opposite of skeptics. They are completely credulous: they repeat any argument saying that the science is wrong, no matter how silly, with no trace of skepticism or analysis.
In a real sense, deniers are the enemies of skeptics, since by continuously attacking the science regardless of whether the attacks have even a trace of merit, they end up discrediting any analysis that might have actual merit by burying it under garbage.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Got to love the folk who attempt to make the case against science and scientific methods... by typing on the modern day equivalent of a super-computer that sends their rants at near the speed of light to another super-computer complex located halfway across the continent.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
I did use Google, and it did not yield any links with the GGP's alleged quote.
I looked at your link. It does not contain the quote either. An indirect remark that Romney's view is "dated" does not cut it.
So, Clinton did not say that Romney was an "out-of-touch idiot." Thanks for debunking GGP's claim.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.