Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

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


nivek

Recommended Posts

on NPR Morning Addition today

 

 

Politics of climate change

 

http://www.npr.org/2...-is-a-non-issue

 

 

followed by scientists on climate change

 

http://www.npr.org/2...scientists-sure

 

 

I think it speaks directly to the issues being discussed here.

 

 

Edit: The most telling for me was

 

"Most Americans have overwhelming trust in the science and trust in scientists," he said.

 

But the public is largely unaware of the consensus because that's not what they're hearing on cable TV or reading in blogs.

 

"They mostly get exposed to a much more conflicted view, and that's of course not by accident," he said.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Stryper, the NPR article seems reasonable and factual. What strikes me is this:

 

He says if you drill down a bit, the American public actually is not split when you ask them if they'd like to see a gradual transition from fossil fuels to clean energy.

 

"We find overwhelming bipartisan agreement about that," he said.

I think the reason that progress toward clean energy is so excruciatingly slow when compared with other technologies is the fighting over who will profit the most from it and how the issue can be used as political ammunition. Those in a position to do so don't seem inclined to actually implement any solutions of consequence.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the reason that progress toward clean energy is so excruciatingly slow when compared with other technologies is the fighting over who will profit the most from it and how the issue can be used as political ammunition. Those in a position to do so don't seem inclined to actually implement any solutions of consequence.

 

Couldn't agree more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stryper, the NPR article seems reasonable and factual. What strikes me is this:

 

He says if you drill down a bit, the American public actually is not split when you ask them if they'd like to see a gradual transition from fossil fuels to clean energy.

 

"We find overwhelming bipartisan agreement about that," he said.

I think the reason that progress toward clean energy is so excruciatingly slow when compared with other technologies is the fighting over who will profit the most from it and how the issue can be used as political ammunition. Those in a position to do so don't seem inclined to actually implement any solutions of consequence.

 

That's part of the problem. I actually did a bit of research on this for my business a couple months back. Some of the other major issues are the fact that start up costs are so high and new technology continues to emerge making investment in start ups obsolete before they become profitable. Currently most money is going into solar and this money is primarily coming from the EU. At this point, these types of investments seem doomed from the get go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how this 0.3mm correction is being interpreted by people as manipulation of data. Its a correction for previously unaccounted data.

 

e.g. in layman's terms:

 

A car is tested on a dyno and the results published. Everyone starts comparing the results to another vehicle from the opposition.

Data flies around like mad.

Then someone points out that the test vehicle was supplied with wheels different from the final release as it was a prototype and the final wheels were not yet determined.

A correction has to be made that takes this into account since the figures were quoted as rear wheel power and torque due to a change in the wheels rolling diameter.

 

Its not fudging the data or manipulating it. It is correcting it to make it more accurate.

If this process didn't happen then no progress in science could ever occur.

We'd be stuck with the original results which were incorrect.

 

Bit like the speed of light experiments improving in accuracy over time. As new information and techniques develop we get a more accurate result.

Still, there are those who complain that the new result doesn't agree with the old one.

They don't agree, that's the whole point of revising and improving data, one is approaching a more accurate calculation as time goes on.

Science would not work otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how this 0.3mm correction is being interpreted by people as manipulation of data. Its a correction for previously unaccounted data.

 

This is normal. Not sure how they do it in Australia, but in the US, if you do not agree with something, you do your damnedest to remain as nonobjective as possible and nit pick at your enemy's position until you can find any little thing that if framed in the right context will soothe your confirmation bias. Truth is completely unimportant as long as your own position remains in tact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how this 0.3mm correction is being interpreted by people as manipulation of data. Its a correction for previously unaccounted data.

 

This is normal. Not sure how they do it in Australia, but in the US, if you do not agree with something, you do your damnedest to remain as nonobjective as possible and nit pick at your enemy's position until you can find any little thing that if framed in the right context will soothe your confirmation bias. Truth is completely unimportant as long as your own position remains in tact.

 

I see that a lot here too, its not just a US thing. It is something I just can't abide but it seems to be growing in popularity.

I'll stand by an enemy if they are right and slap my friend if he's wrong.

Done it in real life so everyone knows where they stand with me.

Right is right and wrong is wrong no matter the source.

The real hard part is remaining objective to one's self and realising what's right and wrong as much as one can understand it to be.

 

The practice of being one's own biggest critic has been lost in the desire to prove one's own worth.

I see examples of that everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how this 0.3mm correction is being interpreted by people as manipulation of data. Its a correction for previously unaccounted data.

 

e.g. in layman's terms:

 

A car is tested on a dyno and the results published. Everyone starts comparing the results to another vehicle from the opposition.

Data flies around like mad.

Then someone points out that the test vehicle was supplied with wheels different from the final release as it was a prototype and the final wheels were not yet determined.

A correction has to be made that takes this into account since the figures were quoted as rear wheel power and torque due to a change in the wheels rolling diameter.

 

Its not fudging the data or manipulating it. It is correcting it to make it more accurate.

If this process didn't happen then no progress in science could ever occur.

We'd be stuck with the original results which were incorrect.

 

Bit like the speed of light experiments improving in accuracy over time. As new information and techniques develop we get a more accurate result.

Still, there are those who complain that the new result doesn't agree with the old one.

They don't agree, that's the whole point of revising and improving data, one is approaching a more accurate calculation as time goes on.

Science would not work otherwise.

The problem is changing definitions.

 

The correction is added to reflect how much the water would have risen if the waterbed was not changing. The new measurement is a virtual average instead of a real average.

 

The new value is more accurate in the sense of that it reflects the increased volume of sea water, but it is not accurate in the sense of the average rise of sea water level. The new number represents what would have been if things were the same.

 

I think it would be more straightforward to report the amount (volume) of liquid water instead, because that's what they are really trying to do with this new change. It is to show how much more water, and less ice, there is in the world each year. The actual average sea level is not increasing with another .3 mm, but the volume of water is in fact increasing. Exactly how much, they're not sure. Different institutes have different numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No argument from me but I can see why it was done.

The reason I think they chose seawater level is that everyone can visualise that.

Using volume change and people have no clue.

What's a few tera-litre's of water here and there when so few actually know what that would mean.

A few tera-litres would then need to be recalculated to show sea level rise and we're back to the same problem.

 

My guess is they are pro MMGW.

The anti MMGW advocates would give you the same figure but you'd have to add the correction.

 

Neutral scientists will give you both figures pre-calculated and explain the difference as their goal is knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'd like to see instead of "sea level" (or what I think it probably should be called "relative average sea level depth") is a "liquid to frozen" sea water ratio. The depth of the ocean, land rising, sinking, etc, are just secondary measurements that won't tell us how bad it is. The only number that would carry information how much glacial ice are disappearing in relationship with how much more fresh water is diluting the sea water, is a ratio between those two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be a great idea. It would work for you, me and many others.

But some people have trouble with ratios, and yes, they get to influence political decisions.

Many times actually they make political decisions.

 

Imagine Palin for example trying to understand not just ratio's but the whole GW topic in order to make a good political decision.

She won't. Like all politicians she'll cater to the party base and if the party base doesn't understand it...

 

The problem isn't so much the scientific data but the state of ignorance in the population.

 

*edited to add*

 

That's meant as an insult to anyone. Just an observation as to the state of education world wide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.