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: 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.

"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 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