NASA Scientists Suggest We've Been Underestimating Sea Level Rise (vice.com) 258
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."
Tide Gauges (Score:3, Interesting)
"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.
Re: (Score:3)
"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.
I don't think that follows. Gauges are placed mostly in and around harbors that have a lot of commercial shipping, yes, but those aren't necessarily the areas that are most prone to damage by rising sea levels. Actually, given their relative wealth they're probably among the coastal areas most capable of adapting to changing levels, and they're the areas that tend to already have sheltered natural harbors or artificial breakwaters (or both) in place, which will reduce the impact of higher storm tides.
Re: (Score:2)
that's not the point they are making.
yes the tides in those locations are important to know...for the trade in those locations.
but that doesn't mean they are the best locations for knowledge of the entire tidal system of an ocean.
those readings get used because they are available.
but many things affect tides, from local geography to local gravity to nearby river flow (or lack).
and this bit of knowledge is about a) finding better sites more representative of the whole system rather than just that locality, a
Re: (Score:2)
those readings get used because they are available.
And they are not wrong for their location. NASA doesn't need to add a fudge factor to the tide gauge readings at the local harbor. On the other hand, if they are only realizing now that harbor tide gauge readings don't apply to what is going on in mid-ocean, they need their ministerial credentials revoked by the Church of Climatology. I mean, this is really basic stuff. If they don't have these effects properly accounted for in their models, then why are we listening to "the science is done" crap?
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously doubt a low-order error in the sea level throws the models off to the point of them being worthless.
By that that line of reasoning, we should just throw out all our measuring devices because they all probably have a tiny systematic error built into them, and forget the whole concept of centimeters.
Consider this (Score:3)
Re:Consider this (Score:4, Interesting)
Could be. Direct mass consequences may be starting:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-... [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Why only "dozens" of sites? (Score:2)
These gauges, located at more than a dozen sites across the Northern Hemisphere
That doesn't sound right, surely they can use the data from more stations than that? Canada has 125+ years worth of tide and water level data from thousands of stations [isdm-gdsi.gc.ca], maybe NASA should talk to them? It's free to download per water level station, or you can submit a request for the full dataset. (Disclosure: I worked for a time with the team that processes incoming marine data and digitizes historical log books.)
Re: (Score:2)
Northern north America is still bouncing back up from the compression caused by the last ice age.
They are likely 'adjusting' that data, old temperature records style.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they do. But that kind of motion isn't likely to go unnoticed.
You measure it the same way you measure any noisy data. Lots of samples and averaging.
Question from open minded skeptic... (Score:2)
I continue to see articles explaining why for various plausible sounding reasons we need to adjust our raw data to show more climate change than the raw data contains. Can anyone point out any significant examples where the raw data was adjusted to show less climate change? The statistician in me is curious...
climate model marathon (Score:2)
Without a doubt, we'll still be debugging our 20th century climate models when the clock strikes 2200.
Sometime in the 23rd century, there will be a Holospace Science-Officer conference (conducted through a Holoreality subspace linkup) to thrash out a few lingering points of disagreement—adjust six inches here, six inches there and we're all good.
Sample size is king (Score:2)
Does anyone else see a problem with this sample size?
The solution is pretty simple regardless (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably a good for solution against global warming too. Tides heat up the earth, so does the solar energy reflected back to earth.
No moon, no problem, let's just build that death star and blow up the moon. What about the debris and all that stuff you say? The Ewoks survived, so why can't we?
civilization likes stability (Score:3)
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?
Headline VERY misleading (Score:5, Informative)
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... [wiley.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But, but... We were only off by 6.25%.... Tune in next week and based on this "new data" we will be able to perfect our models and more confidently estimate how wrong we really are....
Re: (Score:2)
A 1.4 error range is really low too. That means the number might be 0.3cm to 3.1cm per decade.
You misunderstood, the error is +/- 0.2, so that 1.4 is the lower-end of the range when taking the error into account.
Here's the quote from the abstract:
The analyzed records have an average twentieth century rate of approximately 1.6 mm/yr, but based on the locations of these gauges, we show that the simple average underestimates the twentieth century global mean rate by 0.1 ± 0.2 mm/yr. Given the distribution of potential sampling biases, we find that
Re: (Score:2)
Gah, didn't like that less-than sign in the abstract and I missed it when previewing thanks to distraction. Yay.
Here's the full quote:
The analyzed records have an average twentieth century rate of approximately 1.6 mm/yr, but based on the locations of these gauges, we show that the simple average underestimates the twentieth century global mean rate by 0.1 ± 0.2 mm/yr. Given the distribution of potential sampling biases, we find that <1% probability that observed trends from the longest and highest-quality tide gauge records are consistent with global mean rates less than 1.4 mm/yr.
Error range: (Score:2)
The error range is not a factor of 1.4, it is no lower than 1.4 cm/decade.
Specifically, the text in the AGU release was: "As a result, the authors place a lower bound on 20th century sea level rise of about 1.4 millimeters per year during the 20th century, and the most likely "true" global rate was closer to 1.7 millimeters per year.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the various article on this topic shift back and forth from mm per year to cm per decade, sometimes even in the same paragraph. And the popular articles add inches per decade and feet per century.
It's not hard to convert back and forth, but it is disconcerting.
Re: (Score:2)
You evil denialist filth! Off to the gas chambers! The models are always right! The science is settled dammit!
Science is never "settled". In fact that's what makes it "science", that it's always open to revision in the fact of new data, or new theories that provide a better explanation of the old data.
Science proceeds by a method that produces a long series of successive approximations, asymptotically approaching "truth". This doesn't mean you can just ignore the current values, even though they're known to be wrong in some degree, because they're also closer to right than what we had before -- and almost certain
Re: (Score:2)
it's always open to revision in the fact of new data
s/fact/face/, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact that's what makes it "science"
s/fact/face/
In face that's what makes it "science"
What? Your regexp needs work.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact that's what makes it "science"
s/fact/face/
In face that's what makes it "science"
What? Your regexp needs work.
My regexp was applied only to the selection, which you conveniently did not quote :-)
Re: (Score:3)
No it isn't. I ripped the hands off one last week and it hasn't been right since.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fine with trying that experiment on Mitt also.
Re: (Score:3)
Citation please? I can't find any evidence Clinton said that.
Re:OUR MODELS ARE ALWAYS RIGHT! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Her statement also suggests that ranking enemies by enemy-ness levels (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) is perhaps futile. Russia has helped us with the Iran deal, and terrorism in the relatively recent past. They don't like terrorists either, for they've had problems with them also. Our relationship with them is thus largely situational. It's been rough lately, but could change, depending on world events. Her response was nuanced because our relationship with the country is nuanced.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
NOAA says, you cannot read their data (Score:2)
Really is that your answer to their publication? Have you looked at their contribution and tried to understand it? No. First, NOAA hat not other thoughts. They have measurements from around the globe. Depending on the point of data collection they look at the data from the past (this is the time period which had already happened), e.g., 1915 to 2011 (for Cuxhaven 2 which has an 1.76 mm/y rise). The article claims that rises could be off in some areas by 28% and are 5.5 inches in the last century which are 1
NOAA analysis (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [noaa.gov].
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.
Re:NOAA analysis (Score:5, Insightful)
What a shame that even very minor reanalysis papers get politicized.
There's something about Engineering education that convinces engineers that they know everything about everything, and scientists are all a bunch of morons. I'm always amazed and saddened when I see a group of people who fancy themselves science and tech enthusiasts display such deliberate ignorance of actual science. You have to actually work at it to be that stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think, though I can't be absolutely sure of course, that he was signifying agreement, in principle, with the post he replied to, and the 'attacks' were directed at the thread parent.
Re: (Score:2)
No, your science is just that underwhelming.
Re: (Score:3)
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).
Re: (Score:3)
Different organizations have different sensors all over the world. Furthermore, people use satellite measurements. Have a look at http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.g... [noaa.gov]
They show similar data to the NASA estimate.
Re: (Score:2)
But who gives a shit about Africa, the US are sinking!
Re: (Score:2)
You have no clue about science funding (Score:2)
You get funding to investigate a certain part of reality. For example, to understand and model sea level development. After X years you provide a final report (and a lot of publications in between now and now-X). Then you try to get the next grant, which will be most likely in a similar area. It does not mapper if the sea level rises or not. It for the research it is sufficient that there is something called sea level. In case your models are good, they get adopted by the state or state based organizations
Re: (Score:3)
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!
Re:Sure thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Deniers aren't skeptics (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
they are, in fact, the exact opposite of skeptics. They are completely credulous:
That's pretty funny, and often true, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Languages change.
But apparently ACs don't.
Deniers very much want to label themselves as skeptics, because it bestows a false sense of importance. (See GP for definitions.)
Perhaps, given enough time, deniers will succeed at bringing the term "skeptic" down to their level. I for one hope that does not happen. The distinction is important to preserve.
Re: (Score:2)
Granted you are an AC probably trying to troll.
1. NASA is on the initial part of science. They have a Hypothesis and perhaps some preliminary data. Now this data may or may not be actual. However if the premise sounds sound, then it could be worth further investigation to see if it is true or not. Science is a process not a Magical Fact Machine.
2. Scare Tactics are much larger on the side of the deniers. Trump threatening to cut funding. Blaming the scientist are liberal bias... How many careers were w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the National Space Administration.
It's the National AIR and Space Administration.
Re: (Score:2)
aeronautics. close enough. they deal with atmosphere too.
Re: (Score:2)
Trust our data models.
I buy that. Sure.
All models have a built in error. Nobody's predicting exact values for anything.
What a correction does (this is a correction) does is narrow the best/worse case scenarios a bit, that's simple to understand even for nincompoops.
Problem is: The corrections aren't ever going to make it point downwards, which is where it needs to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Science sucks that way.
Re:The evidence is wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between discovering natural laws and engineering products that either do or do not work, versus trying to measure and model climate history, present, and future in a highly political environment.
In other words, success in one area of science (and engineering) does not guarantee success in another.
Re: (Score:2)
so youre advocating that science should go backwards??
Re: (Score:2)
Ignoring evidence and hoping it will go away doesn't even work in your broken court model, why should it work in reality?
Re: (Score:2)
OK. How do you measure sea level then? Be specific.
What you find with datasets like this is that you get contradictory results -- some places will show more rise than others, others may even show sea level dropping. Now you can choose to ignore these discrepancies -- say by just averaging the measurements you have in your dataset. But that assumes an implicit model of what's going on; and an implicit assumption isn't really any better than an explicit one.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. If the observed data does not match the models the observed data must be wrong.
A little correction will fix that.
Re: About These Weekly Climate Panic Articles... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
exactly what part of this concerns panic, dogma, and heretics?
Re: (Score:2)
" It's a form of addiction"
Climate Denial appears to be a religious obligation for many; and many Xtians who blithely overlook all the Bible's pesky warnings about greed.
For example, 1 Timothy 6:10
"For the love of money is the root of all evil; and while some have coveted after it, they have erred from the faith and pierced themselves through with many
sorrows"
There may even be something in Two Corinthians that give
Re: About These Weekly Climate Panic Articles... (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks for reminding us of the heavy financial motivations for pro-AGW climate research! I agree, it is indeed sinful.
Um, facepalm. [scientificamerican.com] Just facepalm. [ucsusa.org]
Climate-change scientists are not living large. But the well-heeled supporters of the denialist movement certainly are.
Re: (Score:2)
They may not be living large, but their AGW research is funded.
Re: (Score:2)
Think of the proposals. What arguments are you going to make for your anti-AGW research project? Unless it's got some ingenious new explanation for things, it's going to be going against the evidence. If you use similarly thin arguments for your pro-AGW project, it won't get funded either.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Atheism is an absence of belief in phenomena that have been shown to exist at all.
Climate denialism is a refusal to acknowledge an increasing preponderance of facts based on an accumulating body of research.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no good objective argument for the existence of God, so atheism is a perfectly consistent belief or lack of same. It's not necessary to explain away any scientific evidence to become an atheist. To be a denialist, it's necessary to explain away tons of data and other science, typically by believing that climate scientists are almost all part of a global conspiracy. It's more like creationism.
Re: (Score:2)
yes.
Reporting a finding from a group of scientists concerning previous scientific readings is "alarmism".
Re: (Score:2)
There are also countless studies with evidence showing that race is a determinant of intelligence, but everyone seems to be happy to aggressively ignore those. :)
And they all ignore Socio-economic status. When you take that into account it shows no statistically significant difference between the races.
Re: (Score:2)
well, then they show a link between socio-economic status and race. Having three variables that are definitely linked should not be a reason to claim that no two of them are related.
And no, just because they are related to and correlate with race, does not require them to be genetically determined. It can very well be the case that people are forced to or choose to divide based on race and then that leads to a whole host of differences as well.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
A black child raised by a rich white family from birth has about 80-90% of the mobility of a white. But a black child raised in a poor black family is down at 10-20%. The studies seem to indicate that neighborhood and schools have more impact than race.
Race may play a part, but the identifiable part is 0% so far, as the confounds overwhelm that hypothesis.
Re: (Score:2)
F1, NASCAR, to the bottom, to the top, 100 meters, 26.2 miles, there are many to choose from.
Re: (Score:2)
lol
Re: (Score:2)
I've actually read that we are in a little ice age and (I think) have never left it the whole time we've existed as humans.
Re: (Score:2)
You're just imagining that, and brainwashed by all the scientists that want more grant money. Just wish away the water and everything's gonna be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
You're just imagining that, and brainwashed by all the scientists that want more grant money. Just pray away the water and everything's gonna be fine.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
"which will cost trillions of dollars for a net temperature reduction of 0.3C if fully implemented"
America alone has spent trillions on things of far less importance than global warming.
But I don't think the Paris agreement will reduce the rise, only hold it below 1.5C which is well above where we are now.
We simply waited too long, despite decades of warnings
Re: The evidence is wrong... (Score:2)
Really? What?
Re: (Score:2)
Too much on the military; too much on healthcare for the outcomes; too much on oil & gas
Re: The evidence is wrong... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But how are those of less importance than global warming, which is completely normal (as is global cooling)?
Disease, starvation & death are also completely normal yet look at the effort we've put into avoiding those things.
Re: The evidence is wrong... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't know the value of getting the Sunnis and Shia fighting again.
It could have been brilliant. Our grandchildren will be in a position to know, but likely won't care if it turns out well (towel heads keep fighting for a century or so).
Re: (Score:2)
We don't know the value of getting the Sunnis and Shia fighting again.
It could have been brilliant. Our grandchildren will be in a position to know, but likely won't care if it turns out well (towel heads keep fighting for a century or so).
For the 4 yrs before 9/11, the Federal deficit was running a SURPLUS of $100+ million annually.
In 1999, the Federal debt was $5.5 trillion, population of 278 million so $19,780 per person. In 2006, when the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq were 5 yrs & 3 yrs respectively, it had grown to $28, 359 per person.
It's now sitting a bit over $60k per person which is more than the household income of 55% of the population.
I think the grandkids will be too busy slaving away in their Indian & Chinese-run labor
Re: (Score:2)
There was never a federal surplus. You are repeating a big fat lie.
Go check the national debt graph. It never went down.
There was one year with a projected surplus (if you include the SS trust fund accounting tricks), it went pop with the .com bubble.
Re: (Score:2)
I will add that the grave of FDR will, no doubt, be used as a public toilet when his debt bubble finally goes pop. It falls on all presidents and congress people sense that bastard was in charge. None of them even tried to stop the train headed for the cliff.
Re: (Score:2)
The way you ask that question I have to return a question: In what medium?
Re: (Score:2)
Statisticians.
Re: (Score:2)
What weights more - a pound of ice or a pound of water?
The correct question is how much mass of ice versus water does it take to weigh a pound.
The answer depends on its altitude and its latitude.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's a reading comprehension test.
Rain fall might also increase, and that would trap more water in the ground around the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you freaking kidding me?
A dozen data points?
No, a dozen sites. Each of which delivers many, many data-points during the lifetime of its mission.
This B.S. should make real scientists, viz. physicists, gag.
Are scientists and physicists who send spacecraft to the outer planets "real" enough for you? Because they often need to rely on just one "site" for their measurements, specifically the single spacecraft that conducts the mission. And such missions have yielded treasure-troves of results.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh!
Re: (Score:2)
I knew there had to be a logical explanation. I can totally see them going to all that effort to add a quarter of a toddler - a whole nine or so inches. That'd stop a tsunami!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I would already do it if I had the chance. But try to find anything domestic made. Clothing? Hardly possible. Electronics? Absolutely impossible. Like George Carlin once said when he went on stage flying a Chinese flag. "I fly this flag proudly, because this flag, unlike any US flag I could find, was made in the U.S.A."
This is what scientists do (Score:3)
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.