4 ms·

> (If it's not obvious to you that the trend, rather than the current value, is the interesting data, then this whole discussion is a waste of time.) Both are

> (If it's not obvious to you that the trend, rather than the current value, is the interesting data, then this whole discussion is a waste of time.) Both are interesting. The only thing that isn't is your needless snark. Yes, a linear regression fit shows a slight upward trend, but the current value is also worth noting because the whole point of the article is that the Marshall Islands are being submerged. If the sea level is at the same point it was 23 years ago, then it seems there are three possibilities to consider: 1. The islands were similarly submerged 23 years ago. 2. The sea level data is somehow inaccurate. 3. Sea levels are at the same point, but geological facters may be causing the islands to sink.

ajkjk 11y ago
What's wrong with snark? You left out a possibility: 1. The islands were similarly submerged 23 years ago. [close to submerging, but sure] 2. The sea level data is somehow inaccurate. [always must be included] 3. Sea levels are at the same point, but geological factors may be causing the islands to sink. 4. The sea levels are generally higher, but are currently in a lower point in their regular cycle - similar to what happened in 1998. Now, I won't make any claim either way about this without doing more research. But it should be abundantly clear that the value oscillates (with several effects that have different periods) and therefore you must include those in your list of possible explanations. And also that the instantaneous value, taken in a vacuum (ignoring all predictions we can make from the periodic effects), is utterly useless for predicting what will happen in the next 1-50 years.
- kevinskii 11y ago
  I think everyone agrees that the sea level is oscillating around a positive trend. The disagreement seems to be about: a) how steep it is, and b) whether the rise poses an immediate or serious problem for humanity.

ajkjk 11y ago

What's wrong with snark? You left out a possibility: 1. The islands were similarly submerged 23 years ago. [close to submerging, but sure] 2. The sea level data is somehow inaccurate. [always must be included] 3. Sea levels are at the same point, but geological factors may be causing the islands to sink. 4. The sea levels are generally higher, but are currently in a lower point in their regular cycle - similar to what happened in 1998. Now, I won't make any claim either way about this without doing more research. But it should be abundantly clear that the value oscillates (with several effects that have different periods) and therefore you must include those in your list of possible explanations. And also that the instantaneous value, taken in a vacuum (ignoring all predictions we can make from the periodic effects), is utterly useless for predicting what will happen in the next 1-50 years.

kevinskii 11y ago
I think everyone agrees that the sea level is oscillating around a positive trend. The disagreement seems to be about: a) how steep it is, and b) whether the rise poses an immediate or serious problem for humanity.