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."
and it's very likely the civilization, ocean traders, and ports just so happened to be important enough that that's where the few sea gauges that exist were put precisely there. saves money. allows for flood warnings for millions. why dump an expensive gauge where nobody is and nobody will be?
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
The headline is quite misleading. What the story actually says is that the previous estimate was 1.6 cm per decade, and the new number is 1.7 cm per decade--with an error range that it might be as low as 1.4.
Really this isn't "We've been wrong!"-- it's more "we have a slightly better estimate now."
The abstract of the article is here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Actually, I think your link shows exactly what NASA is saying. They put their measurements in places shown in the NOAA graph to have below average rise. ie in a green arrow area instead of a yellow arrow area
Not sure how that's hard to understand.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
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
Have you even compared his NOAA source wit the NASA source? I guess not. Otherwise you would have found out that the NOAA measurements of the past are close to the NASA estimates (of the past).
Different organizations have different sensors all over the world. Furthermore, people use satellite measurements. Have a look at http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.g...
They show similar data to the NASA estimate.
"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."
It's most likely that tide gauges were placed at locations where the economic impact of tides (on shipping, etc.) were most significant. So, even if the bias in sea level measurements is real, factoring in this impact cancels out the higher levels. In other words, who cares? If the sea level in the middle of the ocean is rising more than near the coast, most of us live near the coast.
Have gnu, will travel.
If they're wrong, the refutation would be more science, not conspiracy theories.
And if they are right, the global climate will change rapidly over the next hundred years. Species around the world will die off due to this. Famine in some areas and flooding in others will kill off millions of people.
But lets just assume they are wrong, it isn't like they got us to the moon or they have done any good science before. We should all just ignore this and continue polluting as much as possible, because change is hard!
The tip of the iceberg.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
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.
No it isn't. I ripped the hands off one last week and it hasn't been right since.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I'm fine with trying that experiment on Mitt also.
Table-ized A.I.
well, then they show a link between socio-economic status and race.
Yes, it's the lingering effect first of slavery, and then later segregation. We're less than 60 years from when the civil rights act was passed, there have not been enough generations for the socio-econonomic situation to stabalise between races.
Also, in the US, and the rest of the west, many minorities who are immigrants come from less affluent nations with lower standards of education.
Yes, there is a link between socio-economic status and race but it is not caused by race.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Citation please? I can't find any evidence Clinton said that.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Thanks for reminding us of the heavy financial motivations for pro-AGW climate research! I agree, it is indeed sinful.
Um, facepalm. Just facepalm.
Climate-change scientists are not living large. But the well-heeled supporters of the denialist movement certainly are.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
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.
So, I compare a theoretical model, that I have created, against historical data, and decide that what everyone else has been using as evidence was wrong.
Enough said.
No. You took a data set that consisted of spotty records at irregularly spaced points, and asked the question "how do I derive the average sea level rise from irregularly spaced data points?" You answered this question by saying "we will fit the theoretical model to the data points, and derive the best fit."
This is what scientists do: fit theory to data. Really. This is how science works.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com