Climate scientistsโand other scientistsโare always improving and updating their methods. Thatโs how science works. And itโs a very good and honorable thingโor at least, it is until conservatives catch on to some particular methodological change and argue that itโs political, rather than part of the normal course of scientificย events.
And until Fox Newsโwhose viewers are far less likely to accept climate science, as well as various other well known factsโjoinsย in.
In the latest case, a group at the University of Colorado at Boulder added a new correction to their estimates of global sea level rise. What they did is pretty technical, but before going further Iโll have to briefly explain itโmore details can be found here.
A correction forย glacial isostatic adjustmentโor GIAโwas recently added to the Colorado groupโs estimates of the rate of sea level rise. This was done because even as sea level is rising (due to the thermal expansion of the oceans and the melting of land-based ice), the land in some areas is also rising a bit, increasing the size of the ocean basins. Why is the land rising? Itโs a โreboundโ from the disappearance of massive land based glaciers since the last iceย age.
Any questions soย far?
So the Colorado scientists added a correction to take into account GIA, so that they could measureโin isolationโhow much total water volume is being added to the ocean. Due to the rising of land, this cannot be simply inferred from measuring the sea level along theย coastline.
Hereโs a somewhat comprehensible explanation from the University of Coloradoย website:
โฆwe have to account for the fact that the ocean is actually getting bigger due to GIA at the same time as the water volume is expanding. This means that if we measure a change in [global mean sea level] of 3 mm/yr, the volume change is actually closer to 3.3 mm/yr because of GIAโฆ.We apply a correction for GIA because we want our sea level time series to reflect purely oceanographic phenomena. In essence, we would like our [global mean sea level] time series to be a proxy for ocean water volume changes. This is what is needed for comparisons to global climate models, for example, and other oceanographicย datasets.
Okay. Perfectly normal, perfectlyย justifiable.
However, as we know, climate science is watched closely by conservatives, who are looking for places where they can cry foul and object. And in this case, along comes the Heartland Instituteโsย James M. Taylor, who says the scientists have โdoctor[ed]โ their data:
Note: Taylor himself admits that the consequences of this correction will only be โ1.2 inches over the course of the 21st century.โ In other words, if sea level rise is a big deal, then the correction in question certainlyย isnโt.
But weโre not done yet. Now comes Fox News and its reporter Maxim Lott, who does an โon the one hand, on the other handโ piece about whether the GIA correction is kosher. Suddenly itโs the scientists at Colorado vs.ย Taylor:
Taylor calls itย tomfoolery.
โThere really is no reason to do this other than to advance a political agenda,โ heย said.
Actually, weโve already seen the entirely non-political reason to doย this.
But weโre still not done. Then Matt Drudge takes up the story, adds some more bias and some embellishmentโโClimate change โresearchersโ caught padding sea level dataโโand off it goes. Another byte of misinformation about climate change is now inย circulation.
Whatโs tragic about all of this? Sea level is really rising, and the rate is expected to increaseโand adjusted or unadjusted, corrected or uncorrected, this is one of the most transformative aspects of climateย change.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts