• jetA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse13091641

      Statistical tests were run on all selected datasets, taking acceleration of sea level rise as a hypothesis. In both datasets, approximately 95% of the suitable locations show no statistically significant acceleration of the rate of sea level rise. The investigation suggests that local, non-climatic phenomena are a plausible cause of the accelerated sea level rise observed at the remaining 5% of the suitable locations. On average, the rate of rise projected by the IPCC is biased upward with approximately 2 mm per year in comparison with the observed rate.

      • amotio@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        2mm per year is huge right? That is massive ammount of water spread across the globe. We’re fucked.

  • jetA
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    The article has no basis in reality. The paper itself indicates the sea level is still rising. The papers just about the rate of rise. Which if your geotechnical engineer designing coastal features, you should incorporate a more accurate projection of sea level rise.

    This paper does nothing to disprove climate change at all, it doesn’t even say that. This article is using this paper incorrectly to make assertions about things the paper didn’t say - this is why using propaganda outlets for science news is a really bad idea.

      • jetA
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Sure! It’s really important to develop better models for projecting ocean level growth.

        It does not, however, turn everything on its head , and it does not discount the premise the climate is changing.

        The news article is politicized beyond what the science says.

        • Lovstuhagen@hilariouschaos.comOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          I would emphasize, though, that the rate at which they were previously saying it was changing was alarmist and inaccurate.

          Kind of like how they routinely would talk about islands going underwater. I remember in the mid 2000s believing that Maldives would likely go under water, something that the then leader of the country also believed… But it just has not happened, and a lot of the talk about the rate at which it is happening ends up encouraging extreme protest positions that do things which are not warranted, IMO.