Print 101 comment(s) - last by Fisherlee.. on Jan 2 at 9:42 AM

Satellite altimetry data showing rate of sea level rise  (Source: University of Colorado, Boulder)
World's oceans rise slower since 2005, fail to display predicted accelerating trend.

Satellite altimetry data indicates that the rate at which the world's oceans are rising has slowed significantly since 2005. Before the decrease, sea level had been rising by more than 3mm/year, which corresponds to an increase of about one foot per century. Since 2005, however, the rate has been closer to 2mm/year.

The decrease is significant as global climate models predict sea level rise to accelerate as atmospheric CO2 continues to increase. In the 1990s, when such acceleration appeared to be occurring, some scientists pointed to it as confirmation the models were operating correctly.

Sea level rise was calculated from altimetry data from the TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 satellite missions, published by the University of Colorado, Boulder.

Dr. James Choe, a research associate with the University of Colorado, says the decrease is temporary. "Interannual variations often cause the rate to rise or fall", he says. Choe believes an accelerating trend will reappear within the next few years. Oceanographer Gary Mitchum of the University of South Florida, says making any judgement from the limited data available is "statistically so uncertain as to be meaningless".

Others disagree. Dr. Vincent Gray, a New Zealand based climatologist and expert reviewer for the IPCC, believes that the accelerated trends seen earlier were simply an artifact of poor measurements. "The satellite system has undoubtedly shown a rise since 1992, but it has leveled off", he tells DailyTech. "They had some bad calibration errors at the beginning."

Gray points to a study done by Flanders University using tide gauges which, he says, measured no perceptible increase in sea level over its entire 15 year period.

Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age, some 20,000 years ago. During an episode known as "Meltwater Pulse 1A", the world's oceans rose by more than 5 meters per century, a rate about 20 times faster than the current increase.

TOPEX/Poseidon was launched by NASA in 1992, and collected data until 2005. In 2001, NASA and France's Centre National d'Études Spatiales (CNES) launched its follow-up mission, Jason-1.

Jason-2 was launched in June of this year.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Talk about statistically insignificant...
By Goty on 12/15/2008 9:29:09 AM , Rating: 5
I like how supporters of either global warming camp like to state recent results as absolute fact when the results support their belief while the other camp immediately decries them as just a "temporary effect."

RE: Talk about statistically insignificant...
By Ryanman on 12/15/2008 9:34:49 AM , Rating: 5
Lol you're right.

How about we all just accept we're going to die in a nuclear fire instead?

RE: Talk about statistically insignificant...
By whirabomber on 12/15/2008 9:42:42 AM , Rating: 4
The power of global warming is insignificant compared to the power of media band wagnonning and political smoke screening.

The two theories on the current trend towards warming:
1) Man is doing it through pollution.
2) Global warming is a natural 10,000 year cycle of the earth.

The secret 3rd:

3) Global warming not only blows smoke over media coverage of banking, Iraq/Afghan war, and degradation of American power by greedy politicians but it sells Japanese hybrids quicker than your house devalued.

RE: Talk about statistically insignificant...
By Mitch101 on 12/15/2008 10:12:05 AM , Rating: 2
Next were going to find out that the Man-Bear-Pig exists.

Oh Crap!

RE: Talk about statistically insignificant...
By nstott on 12/16/2008 1:44:45 AM , Rating: 2
All hail man-bear-pig!

By phxfreddy on 12/16/2008 10:39:10 AM , Rating: 2
Don't you all know that the earth is cooling because it is warming?! ...or was that warming because its cooling.

Gee my effeminate liberal lieing arse gets confused upon cross examination.

RE: Talk about statistically insignificant...
By austinag on 12/15/2008 12:39:02 PM , Rating: 3
4) The Sun (where Earth gets 98% of it's heat from) is having a significant down trend in sunspot activity. I'm pretty sure DT even had an article on this a few months ago...

# 3 isn't true because the illuminati haven't approved it yet. Oops, I've said to much-

RE: Talk about statistically insignificant...
By whiskerwill on 12/17/2008 10:23:37 AM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure the sun is responsible for more like 99.9% of the earth's heat :)

By theendofallsongs on 12/17/2008 3:24:05 PM , Rating: 2
So where's the rest coming from?

By heulenwolf on 12/27/2008 12:13:42 AM , Rating: 2
There's lots of liquid-hot magma at the earth's core that I don't think it getting its heat from the sun;) Friction due to the motion of the core is responsible for most of the heat down there. Adding to both core heat and to heat at the surface is radioactive decay of natural levels of uranium, potassium, and thorium present all over. I'm not sure what percentage of "earth's heat" it is responsible for but I'm sure there are varying models.

RE: Talk about statistically insignificant...
By FITCamaro on 12/15/2008 10:10:36 AM , Rating: 5
Actually a lot of what Michael posts is because of the left constantly pointing out how any temperature increase, loss of ice, etc is evidence of global warming. So he points out a lot of things happening that go against it. To ultimately prove that what's going to happen with the climate cannot be predicted accurately. So it is an absurd proposition to set economic and social policy based on the idea that our climate is going to suddenly shift either way. Climate changes happen gradually over thousands of years with swings in both directions. Not a few decades.

RE: Talk about statistically insignificant...
By lukasbradley on 12/15/08, Rating: 0
By grenableu on 12/15/2008 11:09:29 AM , Rating: 4
Climate change has NOT been happening much more rapidly. There are plenty of times in history where temperatures changed by 5-8 degrees in just a couple hundred years. Our current "change" is very mild in comparison.

By onelittleindian on 12/15/2008 11:21:51 AM , Rating: 3
From the article:
During an episode known as "Meltwater Pulse 1A", the world's oceans rose by more than 5 meters per century, a rate about 20 times faster than the current increase .

RE: Talk about statistically insignificant...
By ThePooBurner on 12/15/2008 11:29:48 AM , Rating: 5
No it's not the point. We have only been able to measure and record accurate data for a little over 100 years. We have no way of telling that the change of the last 100 years wa much different than a different hundred year period prior to it. With no control data there can't be anything but half-assed guess work about the things we are observing now that we've started. With how little we know about how this planet works it's assinine to assume we could accurately predict how it is going to continue to work for any length of time. Every year all the predictions come to not and everyone is surprised by nature pulling a fast one. We should be spending the money on actual research into how the planet works, not on phoney crap to push a politican scare tactic adgenda to control the ignorant populous. Or on candy. Anything but what it is currently being spent on foolishly.

RE: Talk about statistically insignificant...
By lukasbradley on 12/15/2008 12:12:32 PM , Rating: 2
I'm assuming you don't include ice core samples going back 740k years as "accurate" data?

By masher2 on 12/15/2008 12:38:48 PM , Rating: 5
They're proxies, which is certainly data. How accurate they are remains to be seen. It is known that ice core proxies cannot capture short-term spikes, as entrainment, subsequent gas diffusion while frozen, and the coring process itself all result in a "smearing" process that will average out any readings below a certain minimum width.

In any case, many temperature proxies (ice cores or otherwise) have established undoubtably that climate often shifts at a much faster pace than that we are now experiencing. In the Younger Dryas event (just 12,000 years ago) temperatures changed by 5C in just a few decades.

By ebakke on 12/15/2008 12:42:51 PM , Rating: 3
The further back you go, the larger the range that that data covers. For example, if we go back 24 hours, we can find the minute by minute temperature, precipitation, pressure, dew point, etc etc. If we go back 100 years, we may find daily high/low temperatures, and precipitation. Go back 10,000 years and you have the deduced average rainfall/temp for a 1,000 year period. Go back 740k years, and you have an ice core sample that spans a 75k year period. We have NO idea if within that 75k year timeframe, there were 50 100-year spans that were identical to the past 100 years, or if there were 0. Or 75!

The point is that we just don't have the data.

RE: Talk about statistically insignificant...
By omnicronx on 12/15/2008 11:13:42 AM , Rating: 1
FT is there anything in the world that is not the fault of the left? Aside from this, your post is pretty much dead on..

RE: Talk about statistically insignificant...
By FITCamaro on 12/15/2008 12:01:13 PM , Rating: 5
Economic progress.

By mjitg on 12/15/2008 12:09:47 PM , Rating: 2
lol, good comeback

By mezman on 12/15/2008 2:59:03 PM , Rating: 2

By Headfoot on 12/15/2008 4:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
6 this!!!!

RE: Talk about statistically insignificant...
By foolsgambit11 on 12/15/2008 8:13:21 PM , Rating: 2
Haha. I get it, because to the left, economic progress is bad, so it's somebody's 'fault'.....

GDP grows more during Democratic administrations. It grows more when Democrats control Congress. Unemployment is lower. Productivity gains are greater. Which part of economic progress were you referring to?

RE: Talk about statistically insignificant...
By Goty on 12/15/2008 8:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
Probably the "progress" where the GDP goes up but the expendable income per capita goes down.

By foolsgambit11 on 12/15/2008 9:28:41 PM , Rating: 2
That's only tangentially related to 'economic progress'. Expendable income is a factor in economic development, but it isn't the only factor. Besides which, I can't find any historical data on expendable income. I can find data that the federal tax burden generally has gone up or remained stable under Democrats, and gone down or remained stable under Republicans, but federal taxes are only one component of expendable income, and the total sweep of tax changes in the last 50 years amounts to about 5% of the average family's income. Changes in housing prices are probably of greater variance, for instance.

Nor is especially economically responsible to run up debt when you have the ability to pay. The National Debt, as a percent of GDP, has decreased under every Democratic president since WWII, but it's gone up under every Republican, with the notable exception of Nixon's first term - during Vietnam, no less, so none of this 'of course we're running up a debt, we're at war.

By Ringold on 12/16/2008 1:31:37 AM , Rating: 4
Data points like that are cute little fillers for newspapers and blog posts. In reality, economic policies have different effects on the macroeconomy, each of which can have different lag periods. Monetary policy, for example, is often said to have six month time lag. This time, we might not see the inflation cost of our current monetary policy for 12-24 months. Another example might be the reforms Reagan pushed through; few would argue that many of the firms who laid the ground work for the productivity gains of the 90s got their start in the Reagan and Bush years. Instead, Reagan's economic data reflects his political support of Volcker, who had to create a deep recession in order to atone for the monetary (and other) sins of Carter.

A more recent example would be the last recession. It got started under Clinton, but came to full fruition under Bush. Nothing Bush could've done; a business cycle is a business cycle and the electoral calendar meant it was going to happen under his watch. And after all the chances Clinton had to kill and/or capture Bin Laden, it definitely wasn't Bush's fault that 9/11 accelerated the downturn.

Going back prior to Vietnam, it also loses relevance to compare economic performance under different parties. I can link to Youtube video's of Kennedy calling for tax cuts in what sounds like a very modern Republican way. The culture wars changed both parties sufficiently that comparisons prior to Vietnam I find are pretty useless.

Then there are things just entirely out of party control, in theory anyway, such as the aforementioned Fed policy. Inflation going on? The Fed should not care who it is in office; who ever it is may soon get a recession tossed at them as interest rates spike.

If you want to look at how Democrat party control does uninterrupted, why don't you look at Michigan? :P I think my neighbors dog is worth more money that some residential property in Detroit. But hey, they raised taxes on business last year, they'll be thriving in no time, right?

Go ahead and nod your head to an example of useless statistics though. Whatever makes you feel good.

RE: Talk about statistically insignificant...
By ebakke on 12/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: Talk about statistically insignificant...
By FITCamaro on 12/15/2008 12:48:35 PM , Rating: 5
Not all conservatives are religious.

RE: Talk about statistically insignificant...
By ebakke on 12/15/2008 1:04:33 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed. (Case in point: Me) Though, most with "strong" religious views tend to vote with the GOP.

RE: Talk about statistically insignificant...
By Headfoot on 12/15/2008 4:50:06 PM , Rating: 5
Most black people vote Democrat; but that doesn't mean that all Democrats are black, its the same logical premise.

By ebakke on 12/15/2008 6:36:55 PM , Rating: 2
And when did I say all conservatives are religious?

RE: Talk about statistically insignificant...
By foolsgambit11 on 12/15/2008 8:02:05 PM , Rating: 1
And not all liberals are Marxists. That doesn't keep us from being able to overgeneralize and paint huge swaths of the population with a single brush stroke.

By Reclaimer77 on 12/15/2008 8:21:32 PM , Rating: 4
And not all liberals are Marxists.


Liberalism is simply Americanized communism/socialism. Thats really all it is.

Politics at the point of a gun don't work here. Liberalism uses Government, not violent coupe's, to achieve its goals.

RE: Talk about statistically insignificant...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/15/2008 8:12:36 PM , Rating: 1
Religious (read Christian) fanaticism.

Define fanaticism ??

Its fine if your an athiest, or a democrat. But to call Conservatives Christian fanatics is just an absurd leftist smear. Human sacrifices ? Killing goats ? Thats fanaticism.

I love how its fine and hip and trendy when Democrats come out lately and admit they are Christians, like Obama claimed he is. But a Republican is portrayed as an old 14'th century veteran of the Crusades or something. Its just silly.

Conservative Christians, quite literally, founded this country and made it great. I'm not sure how thats fanaticism..

RE: Talk about statistically insignificant...
By ebakke on 12/16/2008 11:34:23 AM , Rating: 3
Examples of the fanaticism I'm thinking of: insisting that the 10 Commandments be placed in all courtrooms, insisting that prayer be mandated in schools, insisting that creationism or 'intelligent design' be taught in science classes, passing legislation supporting Christmas (after all, there I 'culture war' going on ::eyeroll::), claiming "the Muslims are brainwashing their children, so we have to do the same" (hit up YouTube for the movie Jesus Camp).

I'm not an athiest, and I'm not a Democrat. For that matter, I'm not a Republican. I believe in a higher being, and I have conservative views (on most things). I never once said all conservatives are Christian fanatics. I said I attribute religious fanaticism to the right over the left. Those who are incredibly passionate about their Christian faith are, for the most part, people who vote for conservative (or at least Republican) candidates. And those candidates seek to please their constituents.

I'm not claiming, by any stretch of the imagination, that Democrats are good, and that Republicans are bad. Or that Republicans are crazy, fanatical, off-the-wall Christian whackos and Democrats are sane, logical, steady minded atheists. I'm saying I don't like anyone who can't argue a point rationally, and who doesn't rely on logic, facts, and evidence. Many of those people include crazy Republicans, crazy Democrats, crazy Muslims, crazy Christians, crazy ________. In the the case of religion and politics in the US, the simple fact is that hard-line Christians vote with the Republican party.

Conservative Christians, quite literally, founded this country and made it great. I'm not sure how thats fanaticism..

I believe their conservatism, their faith in a free market economy, and a belief in the individual's rights and abilities are what made this country great. I'm not sure I'd agree that their Christian beliefs were really the driving factor. But regardless, I never said the founders were fanatics.

By RandomUsername3463 on 12/16/2008 2:18:01 PM , Rating: 2
If you care to look, you'll find fanaticism spread equally among sociopolitical groups. For example, "conservative christian fanatics" will bomb abortion clinic, attempting murder, to save unborn children / fetuses. "liberal environmental fanatics" will bomb research facilities, attempting murder, to save primates or other animals.

Us humans always want to think that the group (class, race, religion, political party, school, etc) we belong to is better than the other groups. While this is not true 100% of the time, I'd suggest that if you see the "other" guys as more fanatical, you should take a long look at the fringes of your "own" group before pointing a finger.

By ebakke on 12/16/2008 6:57:30 PM , Rating: 2
Have you read what I was posting at all? I didn't claim one group was any better than another. In fact, I said I dislike anyone who's fanatical, regardless of the issue. The original post to which I replied asked for something that is the right's "fault". So I provided one. If it had been "left" instead of "right", I probably would've provided an environmentalism example (much like you did).

But you're right, before I start pointing at the crazies, I should look at the fringes of my own group. People who like logic, facts, and evidence as means of making arguments. I guess the 'fringes' of that group would be people who are too logical and who lack emotion.

Ugh. I'm done with this.

RE: Talk about statistically insignificant...
By marsbound2024 on 12/15/2008 9:00:15 PM , Rating: 1
I choose to believe in the Prisoner's Dilemma. If we do something about it and climate change is indeed influenced heavily by man, then we will have spent billions of dollars but for a good reason--saving countless species from extinction as well as keeping the progress of the human race steady without catastrophe. If we do something about it and climate change is just cyclic and humans have little to no effect, then the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars we will have spent may very well seem like an outrageous waste, but alas the haze of pollution is nearly gone and our technology has progressed due to intensive research and development.

Now if we DON'T do something about it and climate change has little to nothing to do with human activities, then we are no worse than we are at the moment and everything is fine and dandy. We have gained nothing but we have also lost nothing. If we don't do anything about climate change and it is indeed heavily impacted by human activities, then we are in quite a lot of trouble my friend. Massive amounts of refugees from islands and low-lying areas, disease progression, dramatically different weather (droughts or floods), the loss of countless species and the overall hardship that will be incurred on civilization.

Personally, I think it is best to try to move ourselves toward cleaner, renewable and efficient technologies and reduce what impact humans might have on the atmosphere. Face it, we are still a young civilization and there are many things we don't know and many things we can't accurately predict. What if global cooling returns? Will we start to pump CO2 back into the atmosphere if that will help? What if global warming escalates faster later down the line and we didn't cut our greenhouse emissions fast enough? Will we deploy radical concepts such as sunshades or carbon capture?

Time will tell. For now, I choose to be on the side supporting the switch to renewable energy. If not for anthropogenic climate change then for the progress of science and technology and the energy independence of the United States of America.

RE: Talk about statistically insignificant...
By grenableu on 12/15/2008 9:56:16 PM , Rating: 2
if we DON'T do something about it and climate change has little to nothing to do with human activities, then we are no worse than we are at the moment
Wrong. We won't have spent "billions", we'll have spent hundreds of TRILLIONS of dollars. You know how many lives we could save with that money?

You think changing out your light bulbs and driving a hybrid is all these carbon-trading proposals are all about? They will make anything and everything that creates or uses energy much more expensive. That's every single product and service. I seem to remember a story here about the UN estimating it would cost $47T (that's a "T", not a "B") just to get the ball rolling. I've seen other estimates a lot higher.

RE: Talk about statistically insignificant...
By marsbound2024 on 12/15/2008 11:26:53 PM , Rating: 1
Hundreds of trillions of dollars? Very doubtful we'll spend that kind of money being as it is tens of times more than the entire yearly GDP of the United States. Also I said if we DON'T do something (as in we don't invest any money into trying to fix this apparent problem) then we are not in any worse shape because this whole climate change thing was just erroneous to begin with--meaning we overreacted to observed data.

Oh and I didn't mention specifics anywhere. If we don't do anything about it we may still switch from incandescent to compact fluorescent to increase energy efficiency. But I think you fail to understand that new technologies are almost always more expensive than the old technologies because we have to figure out the best ways to mass manufacture these technologies while minimizing the cost of materials needed for those products. Any sort of change requires upfront cost.

At the very least, our change from incandescent to fluorescent and internal combustion only to hybrid or alternative fuel engines comes from necessity in that the demand is exceeding available supplies and their are severe geopolitical strains placed around the world due to such limited and highly valuable resources (fossil fuels). By switching from fossil fuels to renewable fuels we effectively eliminate such geopolitical tensions caused by the need for energy. We are a growing civilization and will depend on high efficiency if we are to continue to stay here on the planet Earth while having somewhat limited off planet activities (i.e.: no major mining activities in the solar system). Heck, even if we have major operations in space, we will still demand efficiency in order to be cost-effective and prevent a possible stagnate in progression of our civilization.

By Ringold on 12/16/2008 1:48:53 AM , Rating: 3
Hundreds of trillions of dollars? Very doubtful we'll spend that kind of money being as it is tens of times more than the entire yearly GDP of the United States.

Opportunity costs, and not just in a single year, but compounded over a century or more. Using a number like 10%, it's extremely easy to compound in to numbers in the high trillions by 2100. Using a lower number, like 6%, isn't quite as easy, but lets just say we toss 100b down the global warming hole this year that ends up being completely wasted because it turns out we were wrong, but no more is spent in the future. By the year 2100, thats 21.29 trillion in foregone investment in productive areas of the global economy.

By FITCamaro on 12/16/2008 6:32:39 AM , Rating: 2
I put nothing past the stupidity of the UN and Obama. He already wants to spend the better part of a trillion dollars on giving money to the poor in other nations. Because we're somehow responsible for making other nations less poor.

Obama as president in a time where the UN is constantly trying to act like it has legislative and executive authority over the US is a scary thought. The problem is its not just a thought.

This past year has already put taxpayers on the line for $7-8 trillion dollars of NEW debt in the long term. Not even repealing the Bush tax cuts is going to pay for that. Plus Obama wants a MANDATORY 5% "savings plan" coming out of your check that is on top of Social Security. It would be your own private account but the government has access to it to borrow from. So in essence it will be badged as a way to make Americans save so they don't have to rely on Social Security. But ol' grandpa government will be able to borrow against it just like Social Security so the money will disappear. Expect your paychecks to go down in a big way. And with employers freezing salaries, you won't have a raise to offset it. We just found out yesterday at my company that we're not getting raises.

My only hope is that the Republicans will make the next 2 years hell for Democrats by filibustering every socialist policy they bring up. I don't care if that means the government gets effectively shut down. It's better than the alternative.

RE: Talk about statistically insignificant...
By AlexWade on 12/15/2008 11:46:06 AM , Rating: 3
I tend to agree. Dr. Jeff Masters at, who is an ardent global warming believer, had a blog about the cold November in North America. The blog had the conclusion that one month was not enough data to disprove global warming. Yet, 20 years is not enough to prove global warming when you consider the earth has been around for many thousands of years. But yet that is exactly what they do: Take a very small slice of and make broad assumptions.

By mjitg on 12/15/2008 12:11:36 PM , Rating: 2
FYI, the earth has been cooling for 10 of the past 20 years.

RE: Talk about statistically insignificant...
By ebakke on 12/15/2008 1:06:40 PM , Rating: 3
...when you consider the earth has been around for many thousands of years.
Or billions.

RE: Talk about statistically insignificant...
By eldakka on 12/15/2008 11:35:46 PM , Rating: 2
Considering that the earth was created in 4004BC (according to Dr. John Lightfoot and Bishop James Ussher) then it is 'thousands' of years ;)

By ebakke on 12/16/2008 10:42:31 AM , Rating: 2
Considering that faith is by definition, not science, I'll go with the scientists on this one. And they're estimating the earth is ~4.5 billion years old.

By AlexWade on 12/16/2008 1:25:43 PM , Rating: 2
I was referring to human history. I should have been more clear.

By overlandpark4me on 12/16/2008 12:04:55 AM , Rating: 2
Haven't you noticed? With the data from the last few years, they don't even call it warming anymore. It's called Global Climate Change. It will cover them for both. In 5 years, we'll be talking about an impending ice age, just like they did when I was a kid in the 70's.

I can hardly wait for the new Weather Channel show, " How to make and survive in an ice hut". Stephy Abrams will be back with the usual hysterical voice and hand waving.

By overlandpark4me on 12/16/2008 12:06:05 AM , Rating: 2
Haven't you noticed? With the data from the last few years, they don't even call it warming anymore. It's called Global Climate Change. It will cover them for both. In 5 years, we'll be talking about an impending ice age, just like they did when I was a kid in the 70's.

I can hardly wait for the new Weather Channel show, " How to make and survive in an ice hut". Stephy Abrams will be back with the usual hysterical voice and hand waving.

Sea level
By owyheewine on 12/15/2008 9:35:47 AM , Rating: 4
The amazing thing is that anyone with any critical thinking skills and even the most basic level of understanding of thermodynamics believe all of this drivel. There is an AP post this morning on Drudge that makes several incorrect declarations in the first paragraph and the proceeds to build a case based on the fiction. It's infuruating that we have such ignorance trying to shape public policy. I guess we can't expect much more from those whose guru is Al Gore.

RE: Sea level
By Dreifort on 12/15/2008 9:50:07 AM , Rating: 5
you mean like ppl sitting in pews believing Rev. Wright that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because WE (US) attacked them with a nuclear bomb?

Or he actually failed in WORLD history and completely got his facts screwed. Either way, ppl sat in the seats and didn't walk out of church. Some actually cheered at the mention of mean ole' USA attacking poor defenseless Japan without being prevoked.

RE: Sea level
By FITCamaro on 12/15/2008 10:11:26 AM , Rating: 2
I missed that clip. I would've laughed in his face.

RE: Sea level
By elFarto on 12/15/2008 11:32:10 AM , Rating: 3
RE: Sea level
By MozeeToby on 12/15/2008 1:03:00 PM , Rating: 1
While the US obviously didn't drop nuclear weapons on Japan before Pearl Harbor, that doesn't mean that Pearl Harbor was completely unprovoked.

Just before the Pearl Harbor attack, the US had cut off all steel shipments to Japan. Imagine you're in Japan's position: Fighting the war of the centure, suddenly cut off from your primary supply of a vital war resource.

How do you think the US would react if we were in the middle of WWIII and Saudi Arabia suddenly cut off all petroleum exports?

RE: Sea level
By masher2 on 12/15/2008 1:11:13 PM , Rating: 3
You fail to point out that those steel shipments were cut off in protest for Japan's invasion of Indochina.

In any case, refusing to sell your products to a nation is hardly justification for their attacking you.

RE: Sea level
By foolsgambit11 on 12/15/2008 8:25:23 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Which is why the Japanese justification should have been that it was a 'preemptive war.' The cutoffs of steel shipments were obvious evidence that we weren't coming in on their side of the conflict. Since it was also likely that we would enter the conflict, it was imperative that they make a preemptive strike. In fact, I think that is (roughly) the justification they gave.

So, bringing that logic forward, if the Taliban (not Al-Qaeda) were to hit us with a nuclear warhead in a major war manufacturing town (Detroit, maybe?), would that be okay? After all, they were dragged into this war against their own wishes.

There's no doubt that the Reverend is mistaken in his facts. And I believe much of his anger is misplaced. But at least some of it has some validity. "My country, right or wrong" is a poor philosophy for a democratic society, especially a (supposedly) 'Christian' nation, who should know that their efforts in this world are imperfect, and should strive to better the nation and the world.

RE: Sea level
By masher2 on 12/15/2008 10:10:48 PM , Rating: 2
> "So, bringing that logic forward..."

If you're using the word "logic" to compare the US halting steel sales to Japan to a terrorist nuking of a major population center, then you fail to understand what the word means.

No one can make excuses for Japanese foreign policy in the 1930s/40s. They were not "justified" in attacking Pearl Harbor, the Rape of Nanking, their treatment of prisoners and civilians, their horrific medical experiments, or in any of the other terrible acts they committed during the period.

I personally know people whose lives were *saved* by the dropping of the atomic bomb....people whose entire families died in Japanese POW camps, and who they themselves only survived by the early end of the war the bomb brought about.

Had the bomb not been used, not only would those people have died, but hundreds of thousands of US troops and millions -- perhaps tens of millions -- of Japanese civilians as well. There very well may not have been a surviving nation at all, at least not as a distinct cultural group. Take a look at the *conventional* bombing statistics prior to Hiroshima. Most major cities and dozens of smaller ones were partially or entirely razed already...and the Japanese will to fight on remained untouched. Hell, even after Nagasaki, the Japanese still very nearly didn't surrender.

Most cultural anthropologists credit the amazing, near-overnight transformation of Japanese society from the militaristic hegemony into the current peaceful, free, democratic society on one thing -- their defeat by the United States in WW2. Being proud of the US defeat of Japan isn't "my country, right or wrong". It's basic ethics, and simple common sense.

RE: Sea level
By Ringold on 12/16/2008 2:00:24 AM , Rating: 3
"My country, right or wrong" is a poor philosophy for a democratic society

I disagree entirely. First off, I feel liberals slightly misunderstand the quote; possibly why they never bother to quote him in full. But beyond that, it's entirely possible in a democratic society to back the nation completely, at all times, and disagree with the sitting elected representatives. This is, after all, what liberals themselves try to claim with bumper sticks like "Against the War, Not the Warrior." Being against the country in which one lives seems strange; there are others to choose from that allow immigration, and having ill will upon the place one lives seems even stranger. That's like hoping your house will burn down. Okay, the house you hated burned down, but now you're homeless.

RE: Sea level
By FITCamaro on 12/15/2008 1:18:12 PM , Rating: 3
Did we attack the Middle East in the 70s during the fuel shortage when OPEC cut production? No.

RE: Sea level
By clovell on 12/15/2008 2:36:28 PM , Rating: 3
I'm fairly certain that with Iraq and Afghanistan, we'd know better than to further over-extend our dimished military in a Yamamoto-inspired sneak attack.

RE: Sea level
By Headfoot on 12/15/2008 4:54:56 PM , Rating: 2
So by your logic we should have fought them when they wouldn't buy American beef in Japan. It's the exact same thing.

RE: Sea level
By Reclaimer77 on 12/15/2008 8:40:23 PM , Rating: 2
How do you think the US would react if we were in the middle of WWIII and Saudi Arabia suddenly cut off all petroleum exports?

I'm pretty sure we WOULDN'T send a carrier task force and bomb a few naval bases in Saudi to make our point. Just going out on a limb there...

RE: Sea level
By Reclaimer77 on 12/15/2008 8:29:43 PM , Rating: 2
Either way, ppl sat in the seats and didn't walk out of church. Some actually cheered at the mention of mean ole' USA attacking poor defenseless Japan without being prevoked.

You mean like our President ? Who sat there and ate that shit up, for 20 years, and not once questioned it ?

Twenty YEARS. And the idiots who voted him in believed Obama's lame attempts to distance himself from Wright.


RE: Sea level
By FITCamaro on 12/15/2008 9:22:59 PM , Rating: 2

What's the source for the plot?
By jbartabas on 12/15/2008 3:17:16 PM , Rating: 2

A/ where did you get the plot?
B/ what data set did you use for making it?

I've used one data set from University of Colorado and find differences with your plot. You can also note the differences with the plot they have at their home page at For example, the local maxima roughly on the 1998 and 2006 ticks seem misplaced on your plot. Can you specify which one of their data sets you've used for the raw data?

RE: What's the source for the plot?
By masher2 on 12/15/2008 3:24:31 PM , Rating: 2
I used the set with seasonal signal removed, inverted barometer not applied. I used a running average in place of the linear regression, as obviously a straight line cannot show any acceleration or deceleration of the trend.

If one applies an inverted barometer response, the result is very slightly different.

RE: What's the source for the plot?
By jbartabas on 12/15/2008 3:52:04 PM , Rating: 2
Ok thanks, that's the one I've used. Therefore it seems you may have an x-axis issue. See for example the "peak" reaching 0 mm anomaly at beginning of 1998 in the raw data or their plot, it is around 1996 on your plot. Similarly their peak at ~30 mm, around the beginning of 2006, it is during 2005 on your plot (although that one is trickier as I am not sure where the year starts on your plot).

RE: What's the source for the plot?
By masher2 on 12/15/2008 4:39:51 PM , Rating: 2
Good eyes. I had to compress the font to keep it from clipping. That skewed the axis a bit, especially towards the beginning of the range. The labels on the new version above should track better with the data points.

RE: What's the source for the plot?
By jbartabas on 12/15/2008 5:15:16 PM , Rating: 2
If I read your x-axis properly, it is still off by up to 1 year at some locations (eg. 1998 peak).

Here are the raw data & a 2-year running average:

The raw data have a few temporal gaps, it may explain the x-axis shift.

RE: What's the source for the plot?
By whiskerwill on 12/17/2008 10:26:02 AM , Rating: 2
Just curious, but what software did you both use for graphing?

By jbartabas on 12/17/2008 8:45:09 PM , Rating: 2

Bet were not gonna hear about this from Asher
By guy007 on 12/17/2008 2:46:54 AM , Rating: 2
Ice melting across globe at accelerating rate, NASA says

bet we have a convenient week of absence from Asher..

RE: Bet were not gonna hear about this from Asher
By masher2 on 12/17/2008 9:58:50 AM , Rating: 2
> "bet we have a convenient week of absence from Asher.. "

Not hardly. That article from CNN is actually one of their most shockingly disingenuous. First of all, they failed to tell you the research only covered the period 2003-2005 -- meaning its already three years out of date with the data shown above.

Secondly, while the researchers concluded that ice loss in that period was higher than it was in the early 1990s, they also concluded the rate was smaller than most other estimates. Interesting CNN left out that tidbit, eh?

Thirdly, one should point out that GRACE only measures ice loss through a gravity proxy method, whose accuracy not only remains uncertain, but didn't even exist prior to 2003, which makes comparisons to any data from the 1990s (which came from different sources) somewhat arbitrary.

Read the actual research here, rather than CNN's interpretation of it:

RE: Bet were not gonna hear about this from Asher
By jbartabas on 12/18/2008 4:09:26 PM , Rating: 2
The linked "shockingly disingenuous" CNN article does not refer to the 2006 study you think they do. They refer to two very recent studies (presented this week at the AGU) using the most recent data, up to 2008.


RE: Bet were not gonna hear about this from Asher
By masher2 on 12/18/2008 4:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
I apologize for linking to the wrong study. This one is indeed more recent. However, it points up an even larger objection. From the synopsis:

In Antarctica, the Antarctic Peninsula and West Antarctica are losing mass and East Antarctica is gaining mass, by amounts similar to those of the 1990's.
Again, a curious omission for CNN. It's only the Arctic which is experiencing any acceleration (or was, a year ago at least), whereas the Southern hemisphere reaffirms the same pattern of loss in the east, and gain in the west.

By jbartabas on 12/18/2008 5:38:38 PM , Rating: 2
You should note that the CNN article reports also results from Luthcke et al., who used data as recent as 2008, contrary to Zwally et al. who stopped in 2007. IMO, they would have done better to leave Antarctica out of the story, as 2008 cannot create a trend on its own, and that's the impression left by the article. Or they should have differentiated between one particular recent result for West Antarctica, that still has to be confirmed as being a trend or not, and the situation in the NH polar regions where a trend appears more likely to occur.

So what?
By goz314 on 12/15/2008 12:14:07 PM , Rating: 2
Defying Predictions, Sea Level Rise Begins to Slow

So what? All of the data collected thus far, including data yet to be officially published, still shows the average levels rising . Regardless of whether the rate changes from year to year, it is still positive and it certainly isn't reversing direction.

So now anti-environmental groups are reduced to arguing minutia or statistical noise in data sets? Sad.. sad.. sad..

RE: So what?
By porkpie on 12/15/2008 12:42:52 PM , Rating: 3
Its been rising for thousands of years. If it isn't getting faster, then it certainly isn't because of Aunt Mabel's SUV.

And I love how a decade of data is just "statistical noise" to you alarmists, but one hot summer or a single hurricane means the end of the planet.

RE: So what?
By werepossum on 12/15/2008 1:35:01 PM , Rating: 2
by porkpie on December 15, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Its been rising for thousands of years. If it isn't getting faster, then it certainly isn't because of Aunt Mabel's SUV.

Obviously you don't understand NASA's highly advanced AlGorithms, by which conditions today can and do affect the distant past. These AlGorithms can also be applied to things like history - witness Rev. Wright's theory that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because we nuked them four years later.

RE: So what?
By foolsgambit11 on 12/15/2008 8:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
I don't pretend to be a climatologist. (Well, maybe sometimes, in the bedroom.... my girlfriend really loves it when I say things are getting hot all over....) But do either the AGW or the anti-AGW (or the anti-GW) camps have any explanation for the forcing behind this stabilization? Potential reasons I can come up with off the top of my head include:

Massive change in barometric pressure changes freezing point of water - definitely not supported by data

'Easy ice' has all melted, leaving 'harder ice', which melts slower? - not sure if that's even possible

Tectonic movement raising continents fast enough to counteract sea level rise (after all, it is moving at a snails pace) - not convinced the data supports a global average land height rise.

Increased precipitation over polar and sub-polar regions (due to increased average temperatures) leads to more evaporated water from oceans persisting on land (i.e. increased land ice) - not supported by Al Gore, but potentially possible if we look at non-isolated incidences, consider snow depth and not just extent, &c.

Colder temperatures - the data doesn't seem to support that for the entire decade - only since 2002 or so - although possibly only certain key regions were colder?)

Interesting questions to ask are, are we gaining ice cover extent, losing it, gaining ice thickness, losing it, and where? I know there have been 2 recent articles about snow cover being more persistent this year in Alaska and Skandinavia. I also know we need to be talking about land ice when discussing sea level rise.

In the end, it may be that, barring any convincing explanation of the mechanism for sea level stabilization, we'll have to accept that previous projections were based on inaccurate data. But it is surprising that the data so consistently showed a rise, considering the number of data points involved globally.

By General Disturbance on 12/15/2008 10:26:09 AM , Rating: 5

I'm all for splitting hairs between anthro or natural.

But I also think pollution in all forms is bad. I don't know, maybe that's an antiquated 1980's ideology.

RE: Still...
By whiskerwill on 12/17/2008 10:27:31 AM , Rating: 3
CO2 isn't pollution, its an essential nutrient for life on earth. classing CO2 with real pollutants is a very dumb idea.

next ice age coming
By BillyBatson on 12/15/2008 12:00:10 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't this because global warming is supposed to ultimately cause global cooling ie. the next ice age? As the oceans of the world stop flowing and you get less warm water reaching the polar caps to melt ice the water stagnates and cools and forms new ice?
Wasn't there just a report out showing an increase in ice formation? If you have more ice forming wouldn't that cause the increase in water level to at the least slow down?
here is the link

RE: next ice age coming
By FITCamaro on 12/15/2008 12:05:49 PM , Rating: 2
So we were causing cooling before warming? In the 60s it was fear of global cooling. Then things started warming up a bit and suddenly we needed to fear global warming.

I love the odds...
By cscpianoman on 12/15/2008 1:33:10 PM , Rating: 2
I have a fifty-fifty chance of being right on global warming occuring or not occuring. If it occurs, I can say I told you so. If it doesn't occur, I can blame the data, and tell you it will eventually occur. When that is or what that means I don't know, but it will eventually occur. So watch out!

RE: I love the odds...
By foolsgambit11 on 12/15/2008 8:48:24 PM , Rating: 2
Two choices doesn't make it a 50-50 chance. That's why sports gamblers have a spread.

contradictions abound...
By RoberTx on 12/17/2008 7:43:05 PM , Rating: 2
A story carried by Yahoo news just the other day said exactly the opposite. According to the Yayhoos at Yahoo the ocean has risen dramatically over the past decade, far more than predicted. It just hasn't reached the shore line yet. A slow water issue?


RE: contradictions abound...
By jbartabas on 12/17/2008 9:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe the Yahoo news referred to that study:

The qualification of the acceleration of the rise as 'dramatic' being subjective of course ;-)

NASA satellites
By werepossum on 12/15/2008 9:51:42 AM , Rating: 1
Wow, who'd have guessed another NASA system (satellites measuring sea level) would have systematic errors showing catastrophic effects from global warming?

RE: NASA satellites
By twhittet on 12/15/2008 10:53:36 AM , Rating: 2
Damn metric system - how do I convert?!?! I don't understand! Just cuz a person works at NASA they expect them to know math - that's discrimination!

By Dreifort on 12/15/2008 9:27:31 AM , Rating: 2
All the hot air from the Global Warming & Climate Control groups heated up to a temperature that is evaporating the excess water.

By porkpie on 12/15/2008 10:27:25 AM , Rating: 2
the rate at which the world's oceans are rising has slowed significantly since 2005.
From looking at that graph, to me it looks like it slowed down in 2001. Thats five full years ago, a very inconvenient fact for the alarmists.

AGW predictions
By drilloil on 12/15/2008 2:41:20 PM , Rating: 2
All predictions of catastrophic global warming are based upon atmospheric models that have yet to be able to history match without tweaking the equations or input. All data presented by the disciples of the "Church of Algore" ignore any facts that don't support their conclusion. Unless you have written computer models that find numerical solutions to partial differential equations, please refrain from comments about the merits of the predictions, you are too uneducated to comment intelligently about the subject matter.

By FPP on 12/15/2008 8:41:31 PM , Rating: 2
They are measuring fractions of an mm with a system that has a 3 to 4 mm uncertanty....does anyone see an issue here besides me?

Check and Balances
By snownpaint on 12/16/2008 10:06:59 AM , Rating: 2
I think as the planet heats up, we will see more of the earths checks and balances taking effect. Environmental balancing effects we could never think of, nor computer models will show; the system is just too large. The earth has had some grand things happen to it, instantly and gradually, and has recovered. We just have to make sure in another 50 year we are not swimming in filth and all water needs to be processed. Water is abundant, but clean water is not, and that is one thing the earth can not do fast enough, clean the water we dirty up.

No Proof
By toyotabedzrock on 12/16/2008 2:25:33 PM , Rating: 2
What really bothers me is that everyone, other scientists included, seem to blindly trust that measurement of CO2 levels and temperatures from 400,000+ years ago is accurate enough to make predictions from. Also i don't think measurements from even the past 50 years are accurate enough to make there extreme claims.

I'm actually starting to think that we might be better off releasing more CO2 for a little while longer to protect us from events such as the Little Ice Age. Look it up on Wikipedia if you have never heard of it.

Sea Level
By WestHoustonGeo on 12/16/2008 5:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
When talk turns to sea level, I like to post this from Tasmania.

You might want to tell me the island has risen exactly as much as sea level has. I might want to laugh at you, too.

"The Science is Better Now"
By TA on 12/16/2008 10:47:29 PM , Rating: 2

There's a fun article for you to read from 2006, where a NASA spokesperson speculates on why the ocean is cooling and the oceans are rising.

I like to play AGW drinking games now. I read articles and drink everytime they say "the science is better now" or "swings in <a given event> are an indication of human-induced climate change". It's in almost every article that has been produced in the past few years. If this keeps up, I might need to go into AA for a drinking problem.

Cheers to you, oncoming Ice Age.

Defying Predictions...
By Fisherlee on 1/2/2009 9:42:35 AM , Rating: 2
For anyone who desires to know the real science behind the "global warming" hoax, go to this link to get the real low-down so you will have actual facts with which to argue and guide your life.

"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber

Latest Headlines

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki