
NASA Scientists Suggest We’ve Been Underestimating Sea Level Rise - bilifuduo
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/nasa-scientists-suggest-weve-been-underestimating-sea-level-rise
======
M_Grey
I suspect that we can expect a lot of bad news to emerge over the next few
decades, as the promise of climate change becomes the reality of climate
change.

~~~
WillPostForFood
On the other hand, people have been saying that for last few decades, and the
bad news hasn't had much impact.

~~~
Shivetya
It is always in how the numbers are used, cherry picking by both sides.
However the real take away here is that they figured out they were wrong yet
again. Of course they lean towards the more extreme each time but even some
publications indicate that Antarctic changes are due to natural variability.

Then lets play with sea rise, the fear is always that some islands will wash
away and port towns will be at further risk. Yet studies of the Marshall
islands show the reverse, the islands continue to grow in the majority. What
about changes leading to flooding, changes in rain fall patterns, and the
like. Well the common trend is to over exaggerate unique events as if they
were common place, ie Katrina leading to years of violent hurricanes wrecking
the US (oops). Sixty years of studying rain falls in some central US states
show no changes, the recent floods in Louisiana weren't even unusual. Even
China has had an area in drought for centuries.

In other words, the climate does change but we don't know all the variables
and people's whose very jobs depend on income from both studying it and
"fixing it" (read : GE) will always push the numbers that support their side.
Just like big oil will try to claim that oil isn't the leading cause; its cows
btw.

So take it all with a grain of salt. Articles on Vice lean one direction and
one direction only and tend to exaggerate . however those inclined to always
believe this type of alarmism won't think otherwise.

~~~
givinguflac
This is an idiotic response at best. Are you honestly trying to say that the
variations are natural? We have thousand upon thousands of years of climate
details in ice cores, and while there is natural variation, the last 100 years
vary more than anything else we can find in history. Here is an unbiased
visual representation of all the temperature data we have from the last 20,000
years or so. Notice how the temperature _does_ vary over time, but it takes
thousands of years for the variance to occur. Scroll all the way to the bottom
and look how drastically it's changed over even the last fifty years. This is
the most straightforward representation I could find, and it's facts not
opinion: [https://xkcd.com/1732/](https://xkcd.com/1732/)

~~~
brianwawok
You realize an infographic involves opinion right? What data to use, what
scale, etc. You can't just present one graph and say you win... Both sides
could find a graph or 3.

~~~
givinguflac
The data is all temperature records, and the scale shows every recorded
variation. What about that is opinion??

~~~
brianwawok
1) What date range was picked? That was a choice. Look back to the last Ice
Age, and you would see more variation in the data.

2) What colors are picked for the background? We are in white now and going to
red? What if the colors showed us in blue, and global warming moving us to
white?

It is a total lie to say raw numbers don't lie. Every part about making an
infograph lies. X axis. Y axis. Colors. Labels. We could take the same dataset
and draw many different conclusions.

(Not that global warming isn't true, but that infographic isn't enough)

------
cheiVia0
For the folks outside the USA, that is 14-17cm

~~~
labster
For the folks from MIT, that's 0.082 - 0.1 smoots.

------
neilsharma
Slight tangent, but how does one with SWE/product skills get involved in
climate work? There seems to be some research every other day indicating how
disastrous global warming is going to be, but a dearth of jobs outside of
solar installation or academia.

~~~
adrianN
Make the Linux kernel more efficient, save a bazillion CPU cycles in
datacenters all over the world.

~~~
brianwawok
Which hipsters with Ruby and Node will burn away.

~~~
colordrops
I hope you are being sarcastic.

~~~
TeMPOraL
He's not. Inefficient code multiplied by millions of users = quite a lot of
coal being wasted.

~~~
brianwawok
For example AirBNB talks about 2000 web servers with Rails. I bet they could
be 200 web servers with Java. So because of Ruby, we have 1800 servers burning
coal in a datacenter somewhere.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Indeed. And to be clear - I'm not saying everyone needs to do everything bare
metal. But more often than not, inefficiency comes out of people's laziness.
But that very laziness gets dangerous when multiplied millionfold, which is
what happens when a service gets popular. Therefore I think making things
efficient deserves at least a passing thought.

------
mattko
What am I missing here? 0.6"/decade since 1900 would be 6.6" by 2015, and the
article says sea level rose as much as 6.7" in the last century.

~~~
jczhang
Uh yeah I'm confused by this part as well. Can anyone clarify?

~~~
Arnt
Quoting Vice's source: "The analyzed records have an average twentieth century
rate of approximately 1.6 mm/yr, but based on the locations of these gauges,
we show that the simple average underestimates the twentieth century global
mean rate by 0.1 ± 0.2 mm/yr."

~~~
andy_ppp
So the margin of error is greater than the discovered difference? And because
of that it could actually be lower not higher? Strange.

~~~
Arnt
The old number had a margin of error too. It's not strange, just a sign of
thorough math.

What they say is approximately "1.5-1.9 with values near 1.7 being most
likely", so in layspeak and round numbers, the chance that actual number is
higher is 90% and that it's lower is 10%.

~~~
andy_ppp
Great, thanks for clarifying that.

------
refurb
_In terms of sea level changes, however, the study found the effects of
melting are more drastically felt in regions farther from its source._

Would be nice if they had a theory why.

~~~
trentnix
Whatever it is, you can be certain that the solution is massive taxation and
central control by bureaucrats.

~~~
lakmear
Try a revenue neutral carbon tax.

~~~
phs318u
In Australia we tried a scheme with very low economic impact (despite
scaremongering to the contrary) carbon tax, which provably reduced emissions
before its repeal.

[http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-
pric...](http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-price-helped-
curb-emissions-anu-study-finds-20140716-ztuf6.html)

~~~
shakna
Our Environment Minister doesn't believe in Climate Change. I expect we'll
utterly fail to do something like this again.

------
BurningFrog
Have you noticed how you hear about 100 reports about how things may be worse
than we though, for each report about the opposite?

This says nothing about science, and a lot about what stories get people's
attention.

~~~
Daishiman
What this says about science is that the consensus from all the experts who
have spent man-centuries looking at this is that we're looking at a huge
shitshow.

~~~
BurningFrog
I'm not at all talking about climate change specifically.

This applies to any issue that humanity is worrying about.

------
hydandata
I wonder how much waste can be averted if remote was the default option
everywhere where it is a viable way of working. Perhaps this is one of the
easier ways to contribute to averting the catastrophe.

~~~
undersuit
But then how would the pointy haired bosses be able to see that you are a
diligent worker with no effort?

------
veeragoni
I suggest people watch the documentary too.
[https://youtu.be/90CkXVF-Q8M](https://youtu.be/90CkXVF-Q8M) . I care about my
son and their future. so, i change

------
bssrdf
"In terms of sea level changes, however, the study found the effects of
melting are more drastically felt in regions farther from its source.
According to InsideClimate News, melting sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere
might raise water levels more in “the southern Pacific Ocean and equatorial
regions.”

With all due respect, but melting sea ice doesn't raise sea level. It's a
scientific fact the author should check carefully before publishing.

~~~
yequalsx
The author made a mistake by interchangeably using "sea ice" and "ice sheet
ice".

However, your correction itself isn't strictly correct. Melting sea ic can
change sea levels by changing the density of the water in the ocean. Also, by
melting it changes the amount of sunlight that is reflected. The increase in
sunlight reaching the oceans will cause thermal expansion of the water.

~~~
bssrdf
The author clearly confused the land ice/ice sheet with sea ice. Do you have
evidence supporting your claim that "Melting sea ice can change sea levels by
changing the density of the water in the ocean"? I'd be curious to know.

~~~
yequalsx
Salt water is more dense than fresh water. Add fresh water and you decrease
the density of seawater.

~~~
bssrdf
Loss of Land Ice (Not Sea Ice) = More Sea Level Rise

SCHWEIGER: “Melting sea ice has no impact on sea level rise because it’s
already floating in the ocean.”

Like a glass of ice water. As it warms, the ice in the glass melts, but the
total volume of water does not change. However, melting sea ice does
contribute to climate change. That’s because white sea ice reflects the sun.
So when it melts, the dark open ocean now absorbs sunlight and heats up,
raising global temperatures, which in turn cause glaciers and ice sheets on
land to melt further. Globally, sea levels have risen four to eight inches
since the last century and will continue to rise as the ice melts, putting
coastal communities worldwide at risk.

[http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2014/11/loss-of-
land-i...](http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2014/11/loss-of-land-ice-not-
sea-ice-more-sea-level-rise/)

~~~
yequalsx
The change in density is small but it is not zero. It does change sea level
but not in a significant way.

------
Eadrax
There is nothing we can do, as long China and India get a pass, 3.2 billion
people in 2 country doing nothing. Even if the US disappeared off the face of
the map, its still to late. I say let it happen, it will propel us into a new
era off innovation and environmental awareness. No one is going to take it
seriously until its to late anyway .

~~~
meric
They're building solar power plants everywhere, shutting down factories and
coal power plants around large cities.

"Other main targets include: – reduction of emissions from coal burning
industries and vehicles2 – boost cleaner and more efficient use of coal –
promote the use of electricity and natural gas in place of coal – support for
wind, solar and bio power sectors; increase in proportion of clean energy –
encourage the use of waste straw as a resource – reduction in-field burning –
implementation of control measures to deal with air pollution

...

By 2020, he said, the intensity of water use per unit of GDP will fall by 23%,
energy intensity by a further 15%, and carbon intensity by 18%."

What about U.S.? It's people saying "as long China and India get a pass...
Even if the US disappeared off the face of the map, its still to late... so
let it happen."

You're the problem. Even if the rest of the world disappeared of the map,
U.S.'s carbon emissions and pollution still exceed world's capacity to absorb
it. Do you know how much of the world's environment is scorched to produce raw
resources to produce goods for consumption in the U.S.? You're not taking it
seriously.

~~~
M_Grey
Not to mention that we're incredibly hypocritical about the fact that we
happily burned coal and oil and continue to, but expect developing economies
to just... stop. It's worse when you consider Europe getting uppity about
migrancy, which is being causes in large part by drought related to climate
change.

It's going to be the story of this century: the people least responsible for
climate change are going to disproportionately suffer for it. Meanwhile those
most responsible will demonize them for their efforts to survive it.

~~~
Gustomaximus
I hear this logic but dont buy it. Yes many western countries were polluting
heavily during the industrial age, but that was using the best technology that
existed at the time. The world now knows better about these harmful
environmental practices, and has access to better tech to avoid this. If you
apply this thinking that 'its what the other countries did previously' that's
fine but then you do you expect developing continues not to utilise computers
and other new technology for 50 years while they catch up? You cant have it
both ways or your just cherry picking what suits your bias.

I feel the better arguement is that per capital these countries are lower
polluters and we need to all strive to reduce pollution to an acceptable per-
capita level. And as a global population need to look at how we lift everyone
lifestyle while reducing environmental harm. This 'you had your turn polluting
the world and now it's mine' lacks logic and will not solve the problem.

~~~
capisce
> The world now knows better about these harmful environmental practices, and
> has access to better tech to avoid this

Except the better tech tends to be more expensive and less labor intensive. A
country with a huge cheap labor force would handicap itself by not using the
most cost effective means to grow their economy, negative externalities
notwithstanding.

~~~
saiya-jin
which doesn't make it right in any way - caring only about "me", "now", and
not "us" and "tomorrow"

Or in other words - it explains it, but doesn't justify it. We as mankind can
do better

~~~
M_Grey
The problem is that people don't really exist as a "We, mankind"... we exist
as various competing nations and other divided groups. It's laughable to think
that what's good for "We, mankind" in the US is somehow good for "We, mankind"
in North Africa, or China, or India.

------
NumberCruncher
I like this quotation:

>> We're all human. Oh, we all do our duty when there's no cost to it. Honor
comes easy then. Yet sooner or later in every man's life there comes a day
when it's not easy. A day when he must choose.

People like to talk about human driven climate change but do not want to pay
the price of stopping it. I have seen a demonstration against climate change
in Germany. There weren't any banner with the text "I have thrown out my
plasma screen and sold my car! Please do the same!" This lot of talking but no
doing annoys me like hell.

~~~
Xylakant
I don't own a car - not entirely for ecologic reasons, but that's one of them.
I do most of my short-distance trips by bicycle, I'll use a car-sharing offer
when I need to transport heavy stuff, though I currently consider buying a
cargo bike to replace that use.

I'm in the fortunate position that this is possible for me since I live in the
city, have proper public transport, can walk to the supermarket and in a pinch
have multiple car-sharing offers to pick from.

Still, I believe that action against climate change cannot be effective at an
individual level. It's the classic tragedy of the commons - what I save in
energy, the neighbor next door easily blows through the tailpipe of his SUV.
Foregoing a car is not possible for large chunks of the population, those that
live in areas with less good public transport, for those that regular need to
travel long distances etc. So action needs to come at at least federal level,
probably even at a EU level: Public transport (and long distances railway)
needs to be a real alternative to private car ownership in at least most
places in germany. Clean energy needs to be supported, dirty energy not (we're
still paying subsidies for a lignite mine in brandenburg). So yes,
demonstrations make sense, because they support the policies at a level that
actually makes sense.

~~~
tajen
> I'm in the fortunate position that this is possible for me since I live in
> the city

I can't approve. You've made the choice. You've paid for this choice. People
keep claiming that I'm lucky to live close from my work and not have children.
I was a choice, and blaming it on chance undervalues the effort we make (i.e.
paying twice the price for housing and/or only choosing among jobs within a
certain radius of public transports).

> I believe action against climate change cannot be effective at an individual
> level

Yes. After travelling the world, I've seen that there will always be another
Mythbusters show to waste cars, another person who'll have an unfair advantge
on me by using air conditioning and long-distance travel, and another child
born in the world who deserves the same amoung of energy luxury I've lived in.

Unless all countries pass a tax on petrol usage (I mean a huge tax which will
make cars, meat and heating too expensive for 95% of the population), we're
doomed.

~~~
guard-of-terra
We had meat and heating before petrol, why would you expect it to go away?

Are you in California by chance? Because you seem to ignore the fact that
large part of already-inhabitated world is unlivable without heating (and,
possibly, meat). Canada, Scandinavian countries, Russia, even then Germany and
Poland, and as south as Bosnia.

It's as if you were thinking that warm countries becoming unlivable is
tragedy, but cold countries becoming unlivable is desired.

~~~
tajen
> but cold countries becoming unlivable is desired.

I don't know, let's analyze the facts. Do they emit carbon and participate to
the destruction of civilization in 2150? Which one is a crime against
humanity, staying in cold countries or moving those populations?

~~~
guard-of-terra
There seem to be a MAJOR problem with your reasoning.

Why do we fear carbon emissions? Because climate change will make swaths of
planet uninhabitable and/or underwater, forcing people there to move.

Don't tell me your solution is preventively moving half billion people. Isn't
that the result you wanted to avoid? What's the principial difference anyway
between land becoming uninhabitably hot and land becoming uninhabitably cold
(due to lack of heating)? You lose land either way and have to move people
from it, worsening situation everywhere else.

Your solution is basically shooting yourself in the foot to avoid gangrene,
and the amount of faith you have in such solution is disturbing. Your position
is one big reason why climate change deniers exist: because you scare people
with your misdirected zeal.

~~~
tajen
But there is now 7 billion people. And no, it's not just "People will have to
move": +6 degrees in one century is a temperature change we haven't seen since
humans appeared on Earth:
[https://www.xkcd.com/1732](https://www.xkcd.com/1732)

So we need to come back to emissions of 1990 (when they balanced natural
absorption), emit a even less for a while, but with 7 billion people, everyone
has to emit much less than in 1990.

To preempt any question... I still eat meat and I don't see how I could do
without.

~~~
guard-of-terra
Then stop talking about crimes about humanity. If you consider yourself a
criminal, go and jail yourself.

Personally I don't think "going back" is viable, we should probably be trying
to engineer ourself a new climate. Better than we had pre-industrialization.

Our planet was pretty messed up even before humans came. It was going to
snowball.

------
Kenji
As the sea level rises, its surface grows by the square. So, more and more
water is needed for it to rise more. So, all linear predictions are flawed
anyway. What do you think, the sea is suddenly going to rise by meters? Get a
grip on reality. I really dislike these alarmist articles.

EDIT: Okay, I checked the math and the square really doesn't weigh much at
this ratio of sphere radius vs. sea level rise. I guess I should rely less on
asymptotes in the real world ;)

Still, I remain largely unconcerned about sea level rises since even if it
were to continue linearly, it's completely unproblematic except for some
coastal/below sea regions.

~~~
pithon
Many nonlinear problems can be approximated as linear and in this case the
rough sea level rise (think altitude/distance) so ridiculously dwarfs the
radius of the earth (the square in your argument) that the linear
approximation is pretty good.

------
blueprint
Duh. The important thing at this instant is to develop a self-sufficient
extra-terrestrial colony or a means by which some people can survive far above
the surface of the Earth for 30-80 years. Life on Earth itself has less time
than most people are even ready to know. Something on the order of 1-10 years
left. There are massive changes coming which will destroy all human
civilization on Earth. Global warming is just the first step. It's like a
fever in a human. 1-3°C is no big deal. 3-5°C is extremely serious. We're
talking massive tectonic activity, volcanoes, and huge tsunami(s) caused by a
huge wave of energy originating from Earth's core. This situation is caused by
a problem in the circulation of the gravity field. I've met many scientists
but aside from even finding people who understand this topic, I have barely
even found anyone who genuinely wants to know either. And this is the very
reason this phenomenon of collapse is determined to appear in this age of
mankind.

~~~
adrianN
Earth has been warmer before without all the catastrophic effects you describe

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.sv...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg)

~~~
blueprint
The point is not the temperature itself, although my simplified description
implied that. It's the fact that human activities are causing and have caused
the natural environment to lose its homeostatic balance and to do so very
quickly. This fact generates the catastrophic effects, not the resting
temperature of the planet.

