Changing Tides: Research Center Under Fire For 'adjusted' Sea-level Data

[florduh]

Keep in mind, that the science doesn't likely agree entirely or even in part with either side of the political debate.

Since there appears to be "real science" to support both sides, why does anyone think any of this is conclusive? If you are a LeftieGreenie you would discount certain scientific evidence that shows no unnatural warming trend. The RightyBigoily doesn't believe data that shows warming - especially if it seems to coincide with human activity.

 

I have no idea if there is any scientific consensus at all. Perhaps that's what the real science says - we don't have any way of knowing if claims of climate warming, cooling or stasis have any demonstrable basis.

[stryper]

Stryper if someone's sole purpose is to observe sea levels then why would they "decide" to automatically add some amount every year rather than simply measure the damn thing?

 

 

 

Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.

 

"We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly bigger... water volume is expanding," he said, a phenomenon they call glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).

 

 

The answer to your question is in the extremely BIASED article.

 

What they are saying to my layman's ears, is that the ocean basins are also rising in response to something that happened 10,000 years ago. Because the ocean floor is rising, that is like the bottom of your pan sliding up when it is filling with water. What do you think would happen if you tired to fill a pan with a bottom that moved up while you were filling it?

 

The observable water level would rise faster.

 

It is simply putting all the facts out there. There is little doubt to my mind that the climate is changing.

 

 

This article to me is like Fox news declaring evolution bunk becuase they made some adjustments to the theory becuase of new data.

 

 

 

[Ro-bear]

I swear I don't know how people who are not climatologists themselves can decide between the two religious positions. Both sides lie and/or exaggerate apparently because they need to in order to make their point. Both sides have huge business interests that will benefit from "their" scientists being believed.

 

Seriously, I'd like to know how any of you decided which article of faith is the right one - and please don't say the majority of scientists say this or that. The majority of mainstream scientists believed that the first atomic bomb detonation would cause our entire atmosphere to burn up. The majority of Americans believe Christmas celebrates the virgin birth of a man-god who died and rose from the grave. How does one pick the correct climate "religion" when corporate interests are taking turns stacking the deck?

 

 

What the hell does the bolded part have to do with global warming? Trusting scientists to know science is not the same as trusting Americans for...whatever the hell you were trying to imply. Why even bring up religion? Calling either side a religion is as ludicrous as calling atheism a religion. Why do people try to discredit everything under the sun by calling it something it is not? For me it is no more complicated than this: a large majority of scientists believe that man is to some degree responsible for climate change. Most of the opposition to this consensus seems to be about business or politics, not about science (except for a tiny number of anti-science types).

 

I'd like to see some evidence that "the majority of mainstream scientists believed that the atomic bomd detonation would cause our entire atmosphere to burn up."

[stryper]

Thank you Hans, but that question was intended to be more like this...

 

Why do some people WANT global warming to be true?

 

 

In answer to this. Follow the money.

 

 

thisis just one article on a 2 sec google search. (not saying its the best but it was first and serves as an example)

 

However, people on the other side have just as much to lose if current paradigms of living are changed. Thus a politically and ideaologically charged debate.

[stryper]

 

I'd like to see some evidence that "the majority of mainstream scientists believed that the atomic bomd detonation would cause our entire atmosphere to burn up."

 

 

From my understanding they weren't sure if the nuclear reaction would stop. And it was the infancy of nuclear weapons so, lots of theory...not actual experience.

[florduh]

whatever the hell you were trying to imply.

Simply that a majority of any kind is not necessarily right solely by virtue of being the majority. Sorry if I touched a nerve.

 

Calling either side a religion is as ludicrous as calling atheism a religion.

The political positions and reactions are like religion in the sense that true believers on both sides of the debate are quick to dismiss evidence that doesn't support their established position and eager to accept whatever is said in support. Responses are emotionally charged when it is even suggested that their dearly held belief might not be universally accepted as gospel by all sentient beings. Observe your own response to my neutral question.

 

You aren't alone in your reaction. There are people everywhere saying "Those morons have been duped by (fill in blank) and can't see the obvious truth that conclusively shows (fill in blank)."

 

I just don't understand the certainty some people have, the need they have for everyone else to believe as they do, and the emotional attachment that comes along with it all.

 

I understand how there would be a highly emotional debate on the subject of abortion where there is also no consensus on when life or viability begins, the very existence of a soul for a fetus, the rights of the mother vs rights of a fetus/unborn child, etc. An emotional climatology debate I don't get.

[RankStranger]

I'm not really convinced by either 'side' of the debate at this point.

 

I used to be a solid global-warming-denier. But what convinced me that the scenario was plausible was when I read up on exactly how CO2's 'greenhouse effect' works. It's a very real, well-established, and easily verified effect... it's a basic property of the gas. Add that to the very conclusive evidence that we humans have measurably increased the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere (we put BILLIONS OF TONS of CO2 into the atmosphere every year- that's a fact that isn't up for debate)... and it's hard for me to honestly deny that SOME level of MMGW is possible if not probable.

 

But that's the extent of my 'conversion'. I can't jump on the political bandwagon for global warming for several reasons.

 

 

 

I'm not convinced that there's anything we humans can or should do about it. Short of culling the population by billions, I think we'll be relying on fossil fuels for many more decades- even centuries. 'Solutions' offered up by governments are laughable. We're really gonna run the world on windmills and electric go-carts? And nuclear reactors that can contaminate entire regions if the malfunction? Bullshit. Even if these 'solutions' DID work (and they don't on any large scale), any benefit would be negated by China, India, and other places where they have far bigger and more immediate problems than 'greenhouse gasses'.

 

And I'm not convinced that we really have any IDEA what the long-term consequences will be. Maybe sea levels will rise. Maybe a new ice age will be triggered. Maybe it'll turn out that solar weather is more important and CO2 isn't the primary determinant of climate. We just don't know. Maybe some scientists out there have a far better grasp on climate than I can imagine... but they haven't convinced me of it yet.

 

So I'm kindof fatalistic about MMGW. It's going to happen- there's no avoiding it. All we can do is adapt. I'm all for research & investment into alternative energies in theory. Problem is we get boondoggles like Ethanol that everybody knows is nothing more than a wasteful farm subsidy... but it keeps going via its own momentum. And even IF we had a viable alternative to fossil fuels (and we don't), there's too much money at stake... they'd lobby their way out of any 'solution' that actually did away with fossil fuels. So not only is a solution technically far-fatched... it's politically impossible too.

[Ro-bear]

whatever the hell you were trying to imply.

Simply that a majority of any kind is not necessarily right solely by virtue of being the majority. Sorry if I touched a nerve.

 

Calling either side a religion is as ludicrous as calling atheism a religion.

The political positions and reactions are like religion in the sense that true believers on both sides of the debate are quick to dismiss evidence that doesn't support their established position and eager to accept whatever is said in support. Responses are emotionally charged when it is even suggested that their dearly held belief might not be universally accepted as gospel by all sentient beings. Observe your own response to my neutral question.

 

You aren't alone in your reaction. There are people everywhere saying "Those morons have been duped by (fill in blank) and can't see the obvious truth that conclusively shows (fill in blank)."

 

I just don't understand the certainty some people have, the need they have for everyone else to believe as they do, and the emotional attachment that comes along with it all.

 

I understand how there would be a highly emotional debate on the subject of abortion where there is also no consensus on when life or viability begins, the very existence of a soul for a fetus, the rights of the mother vs rights of a fetus/unborn child, etc. An emotional climatology debate I don't get.

 

 

The written word is notoriously bad at conveying emotion with any specificity. You perceive that you have touched a nerve, and you conclude it has to do with my position regarding climate change. In fact, what touched a nerve was comparing faith in scientists to faith in Americans. One group I moderately trust; the other, I barely trust in a very limited sort of way. Also, relating faith in a farcical fictional sky-daddy to faith in real, qualified, dedicated people sort of gets my goat.

 

As for the issue of climate change itself, that is not a particularly emotional issue for me. I don't know enough about it to be really scared or really dismissive.

[florduh]

In fact, what touched a nerve was comparing faith in scientists to faith in Americans.

I didn't intend to imply a comparison of faith. Obviously, some of the scientists must be right and some must be wrong, so faith isn't relevant anyway. My point was about how while some say the majority of scientists say this about global warming, the majority of Americans in general also say that about Jesus. A majority of either proves nothing, though that is frequently used as evidence that a thing must be so.

 

Sorry if that wasn't clear and sorry if I misread your response. You looked a little pissed off in text.

[Vigile]

I have no idea if there is any scientific consensus at all. Perhaps that's what the real science says - we don't have any way of knowing if claims of climate warming, cooling or stasis have any demonstrable basis.

 

We do as far as I can tell. It's presented by the scientific journals and by those joining with a consensus. Where it gets tricky is when political sides take sound bites from this to support their cause or just throw out rebuttals from scientists way out of the field, such as engineering. Kinda like what takes place with the evolution debate. Just like the evolution debate, however, it is possible to distinguish what the scientists are saying and what the partisans are saying even if you aren't qualified to understand it all.

[Vigile]

But that's the extent of my 'conversion'. I can't jump on the political bandwagon for global warming for several reasons.

 

That's pretty close to where I am as well. Political measures responding to it seem to be more about raising taxes and propping up unproven industries than they do with actually limiting GW. The anti folks, OTH, can't even really be taken seriously any more than Hovand can be taken seriously on the ToE debate given they make pretty much the same types of arguments and use the same flawed reasoning methods.

[Vigile]

A majority of either proves nothing, though that is frequently used as evidence that a thing must be so.

 

Perhaps not in the absolute sense, but there is a vast difference between the opinions of a majority of laymen and those that have access to and an understanding of the data. Using a scientific consensus to prove a point is not the same as making an ad populum appeal.

[Xerces]

I do not quite know the severity, but I'll make a few comments.

 

Many people, especially people in big cities could benefit from switching from a car to a motorcycle/scooter/bicycle. Especially people whom don't have children. Regardless if cars are killing the planet are not, they need to be rethought in how they are utilized. I believe they could be made more fuel efficient or converted into electric/alternative fuel cars altogether. This would also improve air quality for people, maybe even knocking the percentages of the amount of people with certain diseases, because I'm sure long term exposure to smog can't be healthy, it stinks, it's disgusting, the air feels heavier with it and harder to breath. I personally have no need for a car, and if I need to use one I can either rent one, or ask a friend to help me with theirs if they have one.

 

I do not know if the planet is being made inhospitable for life through numerous pillaging of resources. I do know the planet has been very different in the past in terms of climate without humans or without modern day environmental hazards. What could be happening is that we're simply going to make the planet inhospitable for humans, and without another planet to go to we'll all simply die out. If we're to have peace of mind about the planet we live, we need to move away from destructive habits, and find new, more efficient ways in conducting ourselves on this planet. One thing that would help is the governments of the world reducing military spending dramatically and using those resources for science. There are already a multitude of forces in existence that kill many a human being, we don't need to be shredding bodies with bullets and exploding each other with rockets. Destructive habits of big business also needs to be addressed, aggressive short term profits is repugnant.

 

Another driving force for change is the expanding population, as it grows demand for resources will grow, and we have to find ways to live that are sustainable. The ultimate goal should be to keep this up while we figure out how to start living on other worlds.

[Legion]

I hear tale in these parts that them there plants love CO2.

[florduh]

...there is a vast difference between the opinions of a majority of laymen and those that have access to and an understanding of the data.

The majority of scientists have also been ultimately proven wrong on many subjects throughout history. That's why we now know that the atom isn't the smallest particle after all, sterilization really does reduce infections in surgical sites, leeches can't cure all diseases, and Piltdown Man was a hoax. There is progress only because conventional (majority) scientific wisdom is shown to be incorrect.

 

Add to that fact that science is now largely funded by interests who would benefit from certain outcomes. A majority of researchers determined that the drug (Vioxx, Thalidomide, fill in the blank) was safe, and that was accepted as medical wisdom until people started dying and exhibiting tragic side effects. Currently, climatologists are also under industry pressure from both camps.

 

 

Political measures responding to it seem to be more about raising taxes and propping up unproven industries than they do with actually limiting GW.

This, I think, is the very heart of the entire debate, Vig. It's only about money, not truth or a goal of improving anything in any real sense.

[Vigile]

The majority of scientists have also been ultimately proven wrong on many subjects throughout history.

 

That's science. Can you explain how this argument is valid with GW and not with evolution, relativity or any other number of theories there is a consensus on.

 

This, I think, is the very heart of the entire debate, Vig. It's only about money, not truth or a goal of improving anything in any real sense.

 

I agree, that's what the debate is about. What I'm trying to get across is that the science stands outside of the debate and as I said already, doesn't even necessarily confirm or agree with what is currently at issue in these debates.

 

As I see it, the science completely dismisses the views of the deniers and doesn't necessarily support the wild assumptions made by those who embrace the theory. At the end of the day, we are putting huge amounts of carbon in the atmosphere and it's having an effect. This even makes sense without access to the data FWIW. It seems ridiculous to assume we can put so much latent carbon in the atmosphere and deny that it will have any effect; but I'm not just assuming here, the data backs this up.

[florduh]

science stands outside of the debate

Pure, theoretical science does, but these studies are industry driven, and cynic that I am, I don't trust any official pronouncements anymore.

 

 

Can you explain how this argument is valid with GW

Not specifically. Other areas have been corrected to rather concrete conclusions. The jury is still out on GW. What one scientist (or a majority) says today can change tomorrow. Scientists within the GW study have changed and are still changing opinions along the way, so how is anything in this arena settled? Fudging figures and stats indicates to me that there is an agenda, not pure scientific inquiry.

 

Obviously, adding things to the atmosphere has a theoretical effect on it, but one of the questions is whether that is really meaningful compared to natural influences. It's a good idea to pollute as little as an industrial society possibly can, but the panic, taxes and higher prices don't really address improving things other than political power, bottom lines and tax bases.

 

We probably need to manipulate the sun if we want to really affect climate.

[Vigile]

Pure, theoretical science does, but these studies are industry driven, and cynic that I am, I don't trust any official pronouncements anymore.

 

Studies have taken place all over the world via universities, et al, just like other scientific research. Do you have evidence that the bulk of the studies are industry driven? As I said, I studied this in school years ago, well before it became a political/industry driven debate.

 

I just don't see how you are making a different argument here than those that have been made against other science that people don't agree with.

 

Not specifically. Other areas have been corrected to rather concrete conclusions. The jury is still out on GW.

 

So say the partisans, but not the scientists.

 

What one scientist (or a majority) says today can change tomorrow.

 

There you go using it again. If it's good for GW it must be good for ToE too. "We don't know, the consensus can change at any time..."

 

Scientists within the GW study have changed and are still changing opinions along the way, so how is anything in this arena settled?

 

Again, I can make the exact claims about evolution.

 

I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I'm just pointing out that these arguments you are making are special pleading; largely because this is a controversial subject that does in fact have a lot resting on it as you rightly point out. That's no reason to apply special logic to it as far as I'm concerned. I honestly don't know how we know anything if I accept the premises you've proposed to be applied here.

[VacuumFlux]

The impression I get is that Global Warming, as understood by the scientists and not by the politicians, isn't about the earth getting too hot for us. It's that for the last few hundred/thousand years, the earth has been unusually stable and it's not going to last. It was suggested in a geography class that the reason we have made such progress with technology and stuff lately is that the climate has been fairly stable, not that humans are somehow getting better or more sane (history classes never talked enough about climate and geography and how that affects human civilizations :-( ). We just have had enough food/infrastructure stability to not have to kill each other over resources. But that's not normal for the earth, and things are changing again. We are probably making that change happen faster than it would otherwise, but our exact contribution is hard to figure out.

 

So in addition to having more natural disasters that will kill people and tear down infrastructure, the climate of our croplands is changing. That's the scariest part to me, is that we're going to have to completely reorganize what we grow where. There will be upheaval, economic messes, and starvation. And if the starvation is bad enough, we'll go back to killing over basic needs, and our current happy advanced civilization won't be able to stand up to it.

 

As for what to do about it? That's way too politicized, and none of the climate models are good enough to know how much anything we do might help. I do think we should use less oil, but that's more about reliance on foreign oil and running out of easily accessible stuff to pull out of the ground, not about climate change. I'm all for less pollution for the sake of not having smog in the city I live in and to have cleaner water sources for drinking and recreation (there's a body of water near me that posts signs on microbe and pollutant levels and how likely you are to get sick if you go swimming). But when people freak out over global warming, I don't know why we're so focused on CO2 emissions and not on how to have a more robust food supply.

[LivingLife]

There must be some credence to global warming. In my short 30 year stay in the town I am in, I have noticed some indicators in my garden. My lawn never dies out completely like it used to. We do not get snow anymore where I live and the frost is not as severe as it used to be.

 

The spring and autumn fogs are now much worse than they were 20 years ago. Rainfall is plentiful these days and it has been a very long time since we had any drought leading to water rationing. I am 5k feet above sea level and plumb in the centre of SA.

 

We used to have cyclic weather where dry seasons were predictable, now it tends to be wet every summer w/o fail.

 

However, I do believe that the earth can self correct provided we are not just cutting down trees and not replenishing them. The rural folk still collect firewood for cooking and heating and this resource is dwindling, they will not go out and plant a tree. We have had mass forestation in pine trees for the paper and pulp industries and these are in areas that are conducive to those types of trees.

 

Our fossil power stations are running with strict emission controls for the last 15-20 years reducing ash and CO₂ but introducing more nitros gasses in lieu of that. Acid rain is bad and farmers have given up replacing fences, they only last 5 years at best. I strongly suspect the emissions of the power stations may also seed the clouds hence our good rainfall.

 

We tend to get rainfall deep into winter these days and winters used to be very dry, hence the grass staying green. The seasons also seem to have shifted in that in the past, this time of year the farmers would already be harvesting. They now seem to have to wait one month longer when it finally dries out and this means the next seasons crop planting happens in a shorter time period between harvesting and sowing.

 

Usually the crops were wanted out before the August winds start, now farmers still have unharvested crops in the field in August in some places. These are huge farms not irrigated but relying solely on natural rain.

 

So all I can say is something has changed, the seasons seem to have shifted by one month at least.

 

In the radius of 75-100 miles from my town, there have been two additional power stations commissioned and these are 6 packs of >4000MW.

 

Folk that stay in the city would not be aware of these changes.

[florduh]

I'm no climatologist. Does THIS SITE seem to make any reasonable points?

[Vigile]

When you get into dueling site links you end up with this problem. How did these guys miss the points the guy in your link figured out?

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9903-instant-expert-climate-change.html

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/

 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

 

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/hi/climate

 

http://www.unep.org/climatechange/

 

The fact is, we laymen aren't qualified to know who is right so we are left with one option, the same option we use with other science that is less controversial so it's not an issue. We accept the consensus of scientists who are qualified to assess the data. If we cannot do that, if we cannot accept the fact that science is a self-correcting process, if we imagine global conspiracies are afoot, we are at best left with the idea that nothing can be known and all basic knowledge is suspect at best. Maybe that's true, but I personally don't think so.

[Vigile]

But anyway, who gives a fuck, we aren't going to solve this issue, at least WE here won't, so have a beer and enjoy life.

[florduh]

I don't know if there are any "global conspiracies afoot," but it appears there is pressure from competing interests for their scientists to make only the "correct" findings. I trust the process of science, I don't trust the money that drives certain areas of research - I already mentioned drug research; big profits and political power are also at stake in the GW area, maybe even more so.

 

If you're at the point you can say, "A thousand scientists can't be wrong" then you have your answer. I'm just not there yet. Nobody stands to profit obscenely from most scientific inquiry, but certain areas easily become political and corporate footballs. GW is obviously one of those areas.

[Vigile]

I think research can certainly be tainted with money and as you point out, drug research is an area that it very likely is. The difference here, in my mind, is drug research is quite isolated, whereas we are talking about an entire global community of scientists here, with the vast majority in one field reaching the same conclusions. I seriously doubt, for instance, that Russian scientists are driven by the same motivating factors as the Aussies as those in Iceland as those in, etc... It would absolutely be a global conspiracy if they were.

 

Anyway, like I said, we are probably just beating a dead horse here. It's all just an intellectual exercise for me as I have more pressing issues.