The Fox News Effect: Sea Level Edition

authordefault
on

Climate scientistsโ€“and other scientistsโ€“are always improving and updating their methods. Thatโ€™s how science works. And itโ€™s a very good and honorable thingโ€“or at least, it is until conservatives catch on to some particular methodological change and argue that itโ€™s political, rather than part of the normal course of scientificย events.

And until Fox Newsโ€“whose viewers are far less likely to accept climate science, as well as various other well known factsโ€“joinsย 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 Iโ€™ll have to briefly explain itโ€”more details can be found here.

A correction forย glacial isostatic adjustmentโ€”or GIAโ€”was recently added to the Colorado groupโ€™s 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? Itโ€™s a โ€œreboundโ€ 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 measureโ€“in isolationโ€“how 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.

Hereโ€™s a somewhat comprehensible explanation from the University of Coloradoย website:

โ€ฆwe 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 GIAโ€ฆ.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 Instituteโ€™sย James M. Taylor, who says the scientists have โ€œdoctor[ed]โ€ their data:

Faced with the embarrassing fact that sea level is not rising nearly as much as has been predicted, the University of Coloradoโ€™s NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group has announced it will begin adding a nonexistent 0.3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. As a result, alarmists will be able to present sea level charts asserting an accelerating rise in sea level that is not occurring in the real world.&

Note: Taylor himself admits that the consequences of this correction will only be โ€œ1.2 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 isnโ€™t.

But weโ€™re not done yet. Now comes Fox News and its reporter Maxim Lott, who does an โ€œon the one hand, on the other handโ€ piece about whether the GIA correction is kosher. Suddenly itโ€™s the scientists at Colorado vs.ย Taylor:

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.ย โ€œWe have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly biggerโ€ฆ water volume is expanding,โ€ he said, a phenomenon they call glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).

Taylor calls itย tomfoolery.

โ€œThere really is no reason to do this other than to advance a political agenda,โ€ heย said.

Actually, weโ€™ve already seen the entirely non-political reason to doย this.

But weโ€™re still not done. Then Matt Drudge takes up the story, adds some more bias and some embellishmentโ€”โ€œClimate change โ€˜researchersโ€™ caught padding sea level dataโ€โ€”and off it goes. Another byte of misinformation about climate change is now inย circulation.

Whatโ€™s tragic about all of this? Sea level is really rising, and the rate is expected to increaseโ€”and adjusted or unadjusted, corrected or uncorrected, this is one of the most transformative aspects of climateย change.

Related Posts

Analysis
on

Badenoch, a self-described โ€˜net zero skeptic,โ€™ called Poilievre โ€˜a new friend and allyโ€™ in December.

Badenoch, a self-described โ€˜net zero skeptic,โ€™ called Poilievre โ€˜a new friend and allyโ€™ in December.
on

Claire Coutinho endorsed several figures linked to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a group that questions established climate science.

Claire Coutinho endorsed several figures linked to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a group that questions established climate science.
on

Oil company was storing a fraction of advertised amount of CO2 at offshore project, data shows.

Oil company was storing a fraction of advertised amount of CO2 at offshore project, data shows.
Analysis
on

What the country craves is fewer selfies and more action to confront the emergency.

What the country craves is fewer selfies and more action to confront the emergency.