backtop


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

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 (blog) 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 (blog) 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
quote:
"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
quote:
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
quote:
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.

Sigh.


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


"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki