|
Great news in a paper published today finds we have been overestimating sea level rise based on satellites: http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2015/05/sea-level-rise-accelerating-faster-thought What was previously assumed to be 3.2mm/year in sea level rise has been revised down to 2.6-2.9mm/year. On a decadal basis, that is a decrease of almost .2 inches per decade (from 1.25 inches per decade to 1.08 inches per decade). Weirdly, the focus of various articles on the paper is on the fact that sea level rise is "accelerating", but the acceleration finding is not statistically significant (.001 inches per year in acceleration). Just goes to show how easily you can spin a story I guess.
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
Arkane posted:Great news in a paper published today finds we have been overestimating sea level rise based on satellites: http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2015/05/sea-level-rise-accelerating-faster-thought Are you incapable of reading? Or are you just only good at cherry picking data to support your arguments? Seriously. Go post somewhere else about your freaking Climategate conspiracy theories.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Great news in a paper published today finds we have been overestimating sea level rise based on satellites: http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2015/05/sea-level-rise-accelerating-faster-thought The acceleration falls in line with predictions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Watson notes. “We’re tracking at that upper bound” of the IPCC’s business-as-usual scenario for greenhouse gas emissions, he says, which could bring up to one meter of sea level rise by 2100. Pretty easily when you make no attempt at reading the entire thing.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Great news in a paper published today finds we have been overestimating sea level rise based on satellites: http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2015/05/sea-level-rise-accelerating-faster-thought I love your use of mixed units. The decrease from 3.2mm/year to 2.6-2.9mm per year sure looks a lot compared to an acceleration of "0.001 inches per year" (actually per year per year, but never mind what the actual unit is, eh?) If we use an average of the two estimates at 2.75mm per year as the current rate of sea level rise, then, if the acceleration does not change, in ten years the rate will be 4.1mm per year, which makes the adjustment of the estimation of the historical rate look not worth mentioning, quite in opposition to your implication. We had better hope that the true acceleration really is statitistically insignificant, rather than matching the expected acceleration due to increasing Antarctic and Greenland ice loss. Edit: And you might like to note that 0.0016 inches "per year" rounds up to 0.002, not down to 0.001. Edit 2: "On a decadal basis", accounting for this acceleration, this is an INCREASE from 1.26 inches over the next decade, to 1.47 inches. Placid Marmot fucked around with this message at 20:18 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:I love your use of mixed units. The decrease from 3.2mm/year to 2.6-2.9mm per year sure looks a lot compared to an acceleration of 0.001 inches per year (actually per year per year, but never mind what the actual unit is, eh?) He is like the guy that crashed the Mars Climate Orbiter. Here's the same basic article from Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-level-rise-speeds-up/?WT.mc_id=SA_Facebook CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:15 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
The data points of 2.6 mm/yr and 2.9 mm/yr are lower than the IPCC 3.2 mm/yr, but what's more interesting is those numbers are even farther below the RCP starting rise of 3.7 mm/yr. The paper also notes the IPCC prediction for current acceleration is 0.07 mm/yr2 while they get 0.041 mm/yr2.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:The data points of 2.6 mm/yr and 2.9 mm/yr are lower than the IPCC 3.2 mm/yr, but what's more interesting is those numbers are even farther below the RCP starting rise of 3.7 mm/yr. The paper also notes the IPCC prediction for current acceleration is 0.07 mm/yr2 while they get 0.041 mm/yr2. The amount is different, but the rate is increasing. It's still in line with the IPCC estimates. For people that love talking about how Climate Scientists are misleading everyone, you and Arkane sure go out of your way to cherry pick data.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The amount is different, but the rate is increasing. It's still in line with the IPCC estimates. It's a little closer to the IPCC estimate than it is to 0, yes. The error bars cover both numbers, however.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Placid, I converted to inches since most people don't realize how small millimeters are. Secondly it looks like you've done the acceleration math incorrectly. And yes I rounded down instead of up, but again the number is so minuscule as to be statistically indistinguishable from zero (therefore a negative acceleration cannot be ruled out). The paper points this out, but the news articles about the paper do not, therefore giving a false impression about the results.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Placid, I converted to inches since most people don't realize how small millimeters are. You're a moron who LITERALLY thinks there a conspiracy of Climate Scientists to do....something. Make you stop rolling coal with your pickup or make your world a little cleaner. Either way, watching you post in this thread is a treat because you've already outed yourself as an idiot who believe in tinfoil hat conspiracy theories promoted by political think tanks. Please, keep posting so we can keep laughing. Tell us more about ClimateGate. Just how far do you think the conspiracy goes? More on topic: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/may/11/ice-loss-in-west-antarctica-is-speeding-up CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:51 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 20:31
|
|
Arkane posted:Placid, I converted to inches since most people don't realize how small millimeters are.
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Secondly it looks like you've done the acceleration math incorrectly. Ok, point one, yes, I see that I did the math incorrectly. Point two, the lower bound for the acceleration is a less-negative figure than the previously-believed figure, and the upper bound is over double the quoted figure, so there probably is acceleration, as indicated by the accelerating ice loss, and it could be over double their claim.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
He used millimeters when it was expedient, then swapped to inches when it looked better for him. Why are you staring at him like that? It's clearly just for our benefit so we can understand the numbers better.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
Looks like the inches/millimeters conversion racket has been found out. It's been a good run, fellas.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Looks like the inches/millimeters conversion racket has been found out. It's been a good run, fellas. Poster who truly believes there is a worldwide conspiracy from scientists spanning decades mocks other posters for being suspicious of motives
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 15:15
|
|
Arkane posted:Looks like the inches/millimeters conversion racket has been found out. "people don't understand how small a millimeter is so I switched to a measurement system only used in a few places throughout the world"
|
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Looks like the inches/millimeters conversion racket has been found out. It's been a good run, fellas. Oh shutup. You know EXACTLY what we were talking about. And don't pretend you've found some great flaw in the IPCC reports easily disproved by your off the hand math. You've got to be kidding me.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Guys, if he doesn't believe the AGW is occurring, he really could believe that there's a inches/millimeters conversion racket since they're supported by about the same amount of evidence.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Slightly on topic: Wyoming just criminalized Citizen Science and sharing ecological and environmental data with the Federal Government: http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...noring_the.html https://legiscan.com/WY/text/SF0012/id/1151882
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Slightly on topic: No way that'd ever hold up in court, but it just shows out truly committed Conservatives are to not acknowledging anything that runs afoul of their worldview (or threatens their donors' profits).
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Looks like the inches/millimeters conversion racket has been found out. It's been a good run, fellas. Units matter, and anyone literate in science at the high school level would know that arbitrarily converting to a different unit introduces another opportunity for error. As another poster above pointed out, switching units of measure like that can be done intentionally to muddy communication of the results. Millimeters are not some crazy obscure unit, they're one of the most universally known units of measure, and many rulers/tape measures/etc include both English and metric units. It is unnecessary at best and deceptive at worst to swap out the units; this is especially true for popular reporting on science. If necessary, include both. Rounding correctly matters as well. There are specific and defined rules for how to round numbers, and those rules are there for a reason. Arkane posted:Weirdly, the focus of various articles on the paper is on the fact that sea level rise is "accelerating", but the acceleration finding is not statistically significant (.001 inches per year in acceleration). Just goes to show how easily you can spin a story I guess. Popular articles are focusing on the rate of acceleration because that's the finding of the original paper; that accounting for instrument bias "reveal[s] non-zero rates, in contrast to previously published results". "If we apply our bias drift estimates to derive an adjusted GMSL series, the previously reported deceleration, estimated here as −0.057 ± 0.058 mm yr−2 (over 1993–2014), becomes an acceleration of +0.041 ± 0.058 mm yr−2 (Fig. 3), independent of the VLM applied. Neither of these is significantly different from zero, however, the revised estimate is significantly different from the earlier estimate derived from data unadjusted for the effects of bias drift." According to these authors, the adjusted data shows an acceleration in the rate at which sea level is rising of 0.041 mm/yr^2. That value is small and did not reach statistical significance in the test they used on the data. A really good reason for this result to not have reached significance is that the amount of sampling was too low to reduce the error, as one of the authors mentions in the Science article. Not reaching significance in a statistical test does not mean that the rate of acceleration might as well be zero and that you can treat it as zero. The measured rate of acceleration is still a non-zero, positive number, which is why popular reports are focusing on it, especially since it moves away from a previous, biased report of deceleration. The error you're making is akin to measuring the heights of two Japanese men and two Norwegian men, finding that the mean of the Norwegians was larger than that of the Japanese men, but claiming that Norwegians and Japanese men are not different in height because the statistics did not return a significant result. The correct interpretation would be to report the heights of the two groups, note that they aren't significantly different from each other, but also note the large amount of variance in the data which could be foiling the stats. You can't say that both groups of men are the same height, and then choose which of the two measured values to report. Another reason that the news outlets are focusing on the acceleration in this study is because while it is a "miniscule" number, it's the change in the rate of sea level rise, not the rate of rise itself. Global sea level is already rising, this is suggesting that the rate that the water level is rising is changing as well, and the rate is increasing, not decreasing. Even though it's a small number, it corresponds to a massive amount of water being added to the oceans. Even if further sampling moves the mean towards zero, sea levels are still rising, which is concerning.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 11:42
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Weirdly, the focus of various articles on the paper is on the fact that sea level rise is "accelerating", but the acceleration finding is not statistically significant (.001 inches per year in acceleration). Just goes to show how easily you can spin a story I guess. Weirdly, you don't seem to have much success spinning your story. Must not be that easy after all. 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 13:42
|
|
|
http://climate.nasa.gov/400ppmquotes/
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Slightly on topic: This is going to get shut down so fast. The Clean Water Act easily supercedes that 'legislation' and has decades of court cases to back it up.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
 We're fuuuuuuuuucked. 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Rime posted:
And the tragic part is that even that part is probably not going to happen
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 09:21
|
|
|
Rime posted:
That's a very ambitious proposal. 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 11:03
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:That's a very ambitious proposal.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 11:06
|
|
|
The right byline is where the funny is.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:That's a very ambitious proposal. Given efficiency technology, it's not that far out there.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Martin Random posted:Given efficiency technology, it's not that far out there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Are you going to cite Malthus too?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Are you going to cite Malthus too? Malthus is going to be right some day. Reduced emissions will come from political actions and politically-motivated incentives to reduce consumption, and eventually through scarcity, not by nebuous postulations of science-will-save-us "efficient technology", whatever that is.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Malthus is going to be right some day. or thousands of chinese/indian nukkkular power plants, which will tide us over till someone finally throws a stack of cash at physicists with a note saying "build a proper fusion reactor please guys"
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 16:31
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Placid Marmot posted:Malthus is going to be right some day. Counterpoint: he's not.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Counterpoint: he's not. You're right, the human population can continue growing exponentially with no significant consequences. 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
convert all organic matter on earth into humans
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:You're right, the human population can continue growing exponentially with no significant consequences. The human population has already stopped growing exponentially, with many areas of the world having shrinking populations (not shrinking that fast because low birthrates have been counteracted by advances in medicine). The Earth's population is expected to top out at about 9-10 billion in this century.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Arkane posted:The human population has already stopped growing exponentially, with many areas of the world having shrinking populations (not shrinking that fast because low birthrates have been counteracted by advances in medicine). The Earth's population is expected to top out at about 9-10 billion in this century.  an arkane post that is not complete poo poo, i never thought i'd see the day
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:You're right, the human population can continue growing exponentially with no significant consequences. Or demand is not infinite.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 17:22
|
|