7 ms·
So the mystery was because the original paper had flaws in it's methodology? That's anticlimactic.
by zymhan 11y ago
So the mystery was because the original paper had flaws in it's methodology? That's anticlimactic.
- mmanfrin 11y agoAnd anticlimateic. :]
- rntz 11y agoWelcome to science! Also, not just flaws in methodology, but also flaws in its model, which is a more significant issue. Making better models & checking them against reality is a big part of science. It's not necessarily that the original author fucked up; it's that our knowledge of the world improves (we hope) over time.
- zymhan 11y agoAh, okay, that seems like an important distinction.
- iolothebard 11y agoAnd the new paper likely has flaws in its methodology as well. Mystery #2! Double climax!
- SagelyGuru 11y agoThe main factor seems to be that Munk simply over estimated the sea level rise. It is things like this that make me a skeptic about the anthropogenic global warming claims. "First, they say, the estimates of 20th-century sea-level rise used by Munk were too high."