6 ms·
What am I missing here? 0.6"/decade since 1900 would be 6.6" by 2015, and the article says sea level rose as much as 6.7" in the last century.
by mattko 10y ago
What am I missing here? 0.6"/decade since 1900 would be 6.6" by 2015, and the article says sea level rose as much as 6.7" in the last century.
- andrewstuart2 10y agoThe important thing is that 6.7 is more than ten times bigger than 0.6. Clearly you can safely ignore the words decade and century because they're words and not numbers.
- imron 10y agoHow many decades are there in a century?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- pc86 10y ago6.7
- andrewstuart2 10y agoI was debating including /s to make it clearer that I was being sarcastic. I seem to have made the wrong choice.
- imron 10y agoLast century is up until 1999. So it hit the expected 2015 target 15 years early.
- jczhang 10y agoUh yeah I'm confused by this part as well. Can anyone clarify?
- Arnt 10y agoQuoting Vice's source: "The analyzed records have an average twentieth century rate of approximately 1.6 mm/yr, but based on the locations of these gauges, we show that the simple average underestimates the twentieth century global mean rate by 0.1 ± 0.2 mm/yr."
- andy_ppp 10y agoSo the margin of error is greater than the discovered difference? And because of that it could actually be lower not higher? Strange.
- Arnt 10y agoThe old number had a margin of error too. It's not strange, just a sign of thorough math. What they say is approximately "1.5-1.9 with values near 1.7 being most likely", so in layspeak and round numbers, the chance that actual number is higher is 90% and that it's lower is 10%.
- andy_ppp 10y agoGreat, thanks for clarifying that.