Seas rise even more significantly than previously thought


Washingtonpost.com

 

A group of scientists says it has now reconstructed the history of the planet’s sea levels arcing back over some 3,000 years — leading it to conclude that the rate of increase experienced in the 20th century was “extremely likely” to have been faster than during nearly the entire period.

“We can say with 95 percent probability that the 20th-century rise was faster than any of the previous 27 centuries,” said Bob Kopp, a climate scientist at Rutgers University who led the research with nine colleagues from several U.S. and global universities. Kopp said it’s not that seas rose faster before that – they probably didn’t – but merely that the ability to say as much with the same level of confidence declines.

The study was published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Seas rose about 14 centimeters (5.5 inches) from 1900 to 2000, the new study suggests, for a rate of 1.4 millimeters per year. The current rate, according to NASA, is 3.4 millimeters per year, suggesting that sea level rise is still accelerating.

Read More

The Post’s View: on Trump and the GOP

 

Washingtonpost.com:

Editorial 2/23/16

Republican leaders’ silence on Trump is inexcusable — and irrational

ON SUNDAY, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus whether the party would back Donald Trump should he win the GOP nomination. “Yes, we will support the nominee,” the Republican chairman replied. “To me, it’s a no-brainer.” Mr. Stephanopoulos asked if a Trump nomination would split the party. “Winning is the antidote to a lot of things,” Mr. Priebus responded.

Winning can quiet many complaints, it is true. But it cannot and will not be an antidote to the moral poison of Mr. Trump’s campaign. Party leaders who support and celebrate his victory will be accomplices to an attack on the fundamental values of American democracy. Winning will not wash away the stain.

Mr. Trump’s campaign is based on suspicion and unreason. He revels in policy proposals that make no sense. He stirs bigotry against Muslims, Hispanics, Jews, people with disabilities and more. He demeans war heroes. His latest turn is indirectly questioning Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-Fla.) eligibility to be president, a suspicion rooted in pure prejudice.

Mr. Trump appears to have turned illogic into a virtue for his supporters, asking his audiences, “Who’s going to pay for the wall?” The reply is as enthusiastic as it is bizarre: “Mexico!” How might that happen? The answer, or rather the absence of one, is irrelevant to the candidate. How will he respond when, having reached the Oval Office, his simplistic promises proved unachievable, he encounters opposition in the form of legitimate checks and balances from the courts and Congress? Which ethnic group will he pick on to explain away his failures to deliver? What actions would he take to distract people from his lack of substance?

Read More