South Africa Is Rising Up Out of The Ocean, Scientists Reveal
As climate change intensifies, South Africa is not only becoming hotter and drier; it's also rising by up to 2 millimeters per year, according to a new study.
Scientists knew this uplift was happening, but the prevailing explanation attributed it to mantle flow within Earth's crust beneath the country.
The new study suggests the uplift is caused by recent droughts and the resulting loss of water, a trend linked to global climate change.
The discovery emerged due to a network of global navigation satellite system (GNSS) stations in South Africa. Mainly used for atmospheric research, this network provides precise data on the height of various sites across the country.
"This data showed an average rise of 6 millimeters between 2012 and 2020," says geodesist Makan Karegar from the University of Bonn.
Experts had ascribed this phenomenon to the Quathlamba hotspot. A localized bulge in Earth's crust could form from the upswelling of material from a suspected mantle plume beneath the region, spurring the recent uplift.
"However, we have now tested another hypothesis," Karegar says. "We believe it is also possible that a loss of groundwater and surface water is responsible for the land uplift."
To explore this possibility, Karegar and his colleagues analyzed the GNSS height data along with precipitation patterns and other hydrological variables across regions of South Africa.
A strong association stood out. Areas where severe droughts have occurred in recent years underwent an especially dramatic uplift of land.
The rise was most pronounced during the 2015–2019 drought, a period when Cape Town faced the looming threat of "day zero" – a day with no water.
The study also looked at data from the GRACE satellite mission, a joint effort by NASA and the German Aerospace Center to measure Earth's gravity field and changes in water distribution.
"These results can be used to calculate, among other things, the change in the total mass of the water storage, including the sum of surface water, soil moisture, and groundwater," says University of Bonn geodesist Christian Mielke. "However, these measurements only have a low spatial resolution of several hundred kilometers."
Despite this low resolution, GRACE satellite data supported the hypothesis: Places with less water mass had higher uplift at nearby GNSS stations.
The team used hydrological models for higher-resolution insight into how droughts can influence the water cycle.
"This data also showed that the land uplift could primarily be explained by drought and the associated loss of water mass," Mielke says.
The researchers suggest that in addition to upward pressure from a mantle plume, the loss of moisture in the crust could also cause it to bulge.
This is another example of the many ways climate change is tweaking the world around us, but it could also offer practical value.
GNSS data, which are cost-effective and simple to collect, could offer a new way to track water scarcity, including critical groundwater resources – widely overexploited by humans for agriculture and other purposes.
Given the dire threat droughts pose in South Africa, as well as many other parts of the world, this finding may provide a valuable window into water availability.
The study was published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth.
An Extreme Drop in Oxygen Will Eventually Suffocate Most Life on Earth
The Ocean Is Getting Darker, Threatening All That Lives Within
Your Salad Could Be Carrying Microplastics From Soil Into Your Body
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Harvard Fires Honesty Researcher For Research Fraud - Why That's OK
Harvard Business School dismissed prominent researcher and tenured professor Francesca Gino. Harvard Business School has dismissed Francesca Gino, a tenured professor whose research on honesty and ethical behavior ironically became the foundation for one of academia's most damaging fraud scandals. The firing is the first time Harvard has terminated a tenured faculty member in approximately 80 years. For her part, Gino maintains she is innocent. As I'll explain, this is actually good news for marketers and others who use behavioral science to drive better business outcomes. Gino built her career studying why people lie, cheat, and behave unethically. Her most influential work, published in 2012, found that people were more honest when signing truthfulness declarations at the top of forms rather than at the bottom. This research became a go-to example in behavioral economics circles. The study seemed to offer a simple, cost-free way to reduce fraud in everything from insurance claims to tax filings. Companies and government agencies actually implemented "sign at the top" policies based on Gino's findings. Part of the appeal of this intervention was that it seemed intuitive, not unlike Nobel winner Richard Thaler's work showing that changing retirement plans from opt-in to opt-out resulted in higher enrollment numbers. There was one big difference, though. Thaler's interventions worked, resulting in millions more people saving for retirement. But, when organizations tested 'sign at the top' forms, they were surprised that it made no significant difference in honest form completions. Sometimes, even sound research doesn't scale well in real-world settings. But, Harvard's investigation concluded that Gino fabricated some of the data supporting her honesty research. (All parties agree that the various studies include fabricated data, but disagree on its origin.) The study that promised to reduce dishonesty was itself dishonest. For CMOs and executives who regularly apply behavioral science insights to enhance their strategies, Gino's downfall offers three crucial lessons: Gino wasn't a fringe academic—she was a full professor at Harvard Business School, published prolifically, and spoke at major conferences. Her work appeared in prestigious journals and was covered by the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. At one point, she was one of Harvard's highest paid employees, earning $1 million per year. If someone with these credentials could publish fabricated data for years, no researcher should be above scrutiny. Cornell's Brian Wansink, known for his food psychology research, produced work with results that were often surprising, simple, and highly actionable. He, too, faced serious misconduct allegations that led to his resignation. The "sign at the top" intervention moved from an academic theory to a tool that organizations implemented widely. How many companies are still using policies derived from fabricated data? The business impact of academic fraud or poorly designed experiments can extend beyond university walls. At least in this case, a signature at the top has no effect on honesty, good or bad. Behavioral science has struggled with a "replication crisis" where many published findings can't be reproduced by other researchers. Most of these are due to legitimate methodological differences, small sample sizes, unrepresentative subjects, etc. Occasionally, though, they stem from statistical manipulation and even fraud. Major scientific research results that are erroneous or fraudulent often get exposed as other researchers try to build on them. Most research doesn't automatically get replicated, though. The rewards for replication experiments are limited. At best, one confirms the original research. At worst, one ends up in a messy dispute with a fellow scientist. But, some researchers do devote time to research integrity. The Data Colada blog, run by three behavioral scientists, has exposed multiple instances of apparent data manipulation across the field. There's also a site, Retraction Watch, that keeps tabs on retracted papers. Ultimately, most bad research with major findings will be rooted out. Either fellow academics will discover the problem, or data-driven businesses will show real world results don't match the findings. Gino's firing shows that publishing questionable findings can have consequences, even for a star professor and researcher. It's a reminder to other researchers to be sure their data is sound. Published research papers almost always have more than one author. I expect we'll see more of these co-authors double-checking the data and methods to be sure they don't get embroiled in a replication/retraction mess later. Smart marketing leaders should exert healthy skepticism about behavioral science claims: Demand multiple sources. Don't base major strategy decisions on a single study, no matter how compelling or well-publicized. Look for independent replications by different research teams. Focus on established science. Robert Cialdini's principles of influence, for example, have endured for decades because they've been tested countless times in real business environments. Newer, flashier findings should be viewed with more caution. Watch for claims that seem too good to be true. A simple change in form design that dramatically reduces dishonesty sounds almost magical. In retrospect, the "sign at the top" finding's elegance should have raised more skepticism. Test everything. The most important behavioral science principle for marketers isn't any specific psychological finding, it's the commitment to testing. What works in a psychology lab or even for another brand may not work for your customers, your product, or your market. The bad data in the original honesty study wasn't spotted for years. Then, Harvard's investigation took years after that, with Gino remaining on the faculty during much of that time. Academic institutions move slowly, business decisions happen quickly. This creates a problematic gap where bad research can influence corporate tactics long before misconduct is discovered and corrected. The Gino scandal shouldn't make business leaders overly wary of behavioral science. Legitimate research in this field has produced valuable insights about consumer psychology, decision-making, and persuasion. Visit any successful travel website, for example, and you'll see behavior-based tactics everywhere. For marketers, the lesson is clear: approach novel behavioral science findings with the same critical thinking you'd apply to any other business intelligence. Evaluate the claims, verify the sources, and test everything. Remember that in both research and business, if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.
WebMD
2 hours ago
- WebMD
Why We're So Obsessed With Coffee's Health Claims
Or is it? For decades, studies have linked drinking coffee to a longer life and reduced risk of an array of health problems. This week, a big study grabbed headlines linking coffee to healthy aging – women who drank caffeinated coffee were less likely to develop physical problems, cognitive impairment, and chronic diseases as they aged. In January, another study found that morning coffee drinkers lived longer than people who drank coffee later in the day. Another recent analysis suggested those longevity benefits may be limited to those whose coffee doesn't contain a lot of added sugar or saturated fat. Sorry, mocha and Frappuccino fans. Maybe wait for the next study. 'Coffee is like the science version of a celebrity – it makes headlines no matter what,' said Susan Albers, PsyD, a clinical psychologist at the Cleveland Clinic. 'I think that's because it crosses age, culture, and socioeconomic status. It's a substance that everyone enjoys and drinks. And it's one of the most widely consumed psychoactive substances on the planet. We forget that it is actually a drug that is paired with an enjoyable drink.' Three out of four adults in the U.S. report they are coffee drinkers. Half of Americans drink it daily. That's a huge number available to researchers, who can then examine countless variables and look for associations. If we're all doing something and it turns out to be bad for us – or good – public health officials want to let us know. Coffee is loaded with micronutrients, such as polyphenols that have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory benefits, and most coffee also contains the drug caffeine. 'It's such a window into the brain and how what we put in our bodies impacts us on every different level, in positive and negative ways,' Albers said of our own and researchers' seemingly insatiable thirst for more info on coffee. So will there ever be a verdict? We've been let down before. First it was red wine, touted as healthy until recently, when all alcohol has been frowned upon. And like coffee, chocolate seems to forever be switching sides between healthy and unhealthy. What Is It About Coffee Stories That We Just Can't Resist? 'We want to have healthy habits. We want to keep this enjoyable ritual in our lives but make sure that we're not sabotaging our health,' Albers said. 'And so, the more information that we obtain about it, the better. What I think happens is that there might be a little bit of a click bias.' Coffee lovers click to hear scientific confirmation that their habit is healthy, and people who don't like coffee click in hopes of confirming their choice to avoid the drink. Be skeptical of health claims about coffee, especially on social media, advised Jamie Mok, a registered dietitian nutritionist based in Los Angeles, California, and spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Unqualified health influencers are everywhere these days, so look for someone with credentials who cites evidence from scientific journals. Extreme or ultra-simple claims made in absolute terms are a sign to keep scrolling. Is There a Consensus About the Health Benefits of Coffee? Yes. But the benefits may not apply to everyone. 'Large observational studies are generally showing a consistent positive association between moderate coffee consumption – so like two to three, maybe four cups a day – and the reduced risk of several diseases, including cardiovascular disease, liver disease, or cancer,' Mok said. Some people may not get all those benefits, she said – like those who already eat a diet rich in polyphenols (you're a blueberry lover, for example), or who aren't drinking black coffee, since that's what is usually studied. And even if you do just have a couple of cups of straight black and only in the morning, it may not be healthy if you have a condition like irritable bowel syndrome or anxiety. Do Your Own Coffee Study 'Coffee really is a gold mine for neuroscientists and psychologists who want to study the brain,' Albers said. 'It gives them this wealth of information about how what we put in our body impacts us. And as a psychologist, that's incredibly exciting and interesting to see how something like caffeine impacts our sleep and our mood.' Both Albers and Mok said that when they are working with clients who have anxiety or sleep problems, caffeine is one of the first places they examine. Most people don't realize the deep impact it can have on other parts of their health, they said. Albers suggested a 'mindfulness drinking' exercise to examine your relationship with coffee that she often shares with clients: Sit down to drink your coffee (riding in the car or on the subway doesn't count). Breathe deeply to smell the aroma, maybe wrap your hands around the cup to feel its warmth, and use the moment to slow down and be present. This can be quick, but run through your senses of taste, touch, smell, sight, even hearing. Before you start drinking, rate your energy level and mood each from 1 to 10. For the next hour, keep track of how you feel, and at the end of the hour do the 1-to-10 rating again for your energy level and mood. 'For many people, after they drink their cup of coffee, their mood boosts significantly,' said Albers, who has authored best-selling self-help books including Eating Mindfully. Repeat the experiment on other days, perhaps taking your coffee black or adding a flavor and see if the results change. You may find that coffee affects your energy or sleep, or it enhances your relationships by adding ritual to a shared coffee date. Maybe coffee helps boost your mood and the steaming cup and familiar taste simply bring you pleasure. 'There isn't anything to feel bad about with that,' Albers said.
Associated Press
6 hours ago
- Associated Press
Researchers confirm preservatives used in todays' preserved wood won't contaminate soil or rainwater runoff
Oregon State University study proves preservatives stay in the wood, protecting it from decay and insect attack, not leaching into soil or rainwater runoff 'The study confirms the preservative in pressure-treated wood used by consumers will stay right where it belongs, protecting the wood from decay and insect damage, not leaching into the environment.'— Dr. Gerald Presley, Oregon State University VANCOUVER, WA, UNITED STATES, June 3, 2025 / / -- Researchers at Oregon State University have confirmed decks built with today's pressure-treated preserved wood products cause no environmental harm from preservative chemicals leaching from the wood and into rainwater or surrounding soil. The researchers collected runoff and soil samples the first and fourth years after construction of a deck built with wood pressure treated with Copper Azole (CA-C), the preservative used to treat the preserved wood sold for decks and other residential projects. The deck is located in Oregon's Willamette Valley, where rainfall measures 40-60 inches each year. Sampling began with the first rains after the deck surface was completed in October 2021. Samples were analyzed for concentrations of copper, the primary active ingredient in CA-C. The highest copper concentrations were found in samples taken at the very start of the study, shortly after the deck was completed. According to lead researcher Dr. Gerald Presley, that was to be expected. 'Those higher initial levels are due to residual surface deposits of preservative not fully absorbed into the wood fiber washing off with the rain,' he explained. 'But even those highest copper concentrations were quite low.' Within a few months, Presley said, the copper concentrations in rainwater runoff samples stabilized to well below one part per million (ppm). Similarly, copper levels in soil samples taken from directly beneath the deck and points downslope from the deck were indistinguishable from those taken upslope from the deck. 'Two years in, samples from below the deck did not differ from other locations. We could not detect any copper increase resulting from the preserved wood deck,' Presley stated. Copper in soil samples ranged from 50.3 ppm to 54.4 ppm, well within the normal range for background copper levels in the Willamette Valley and significantly below the 140 ppm threshold the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality considers to be 'elevated.' OSU researchers returned to the deck in its fourth year of service to sample rainwater runoff again. In samplings taken during the fall of 2024, copper concentrations were dramatically lower than the already low concentrations found in the initial sampling. The average copper concentration of all runoff samples collected in the fourth year was well below 0.5 ppm. These data prove that preservative loss from preserved wood decking remains negligible as the structure ages. Presley said the study confirms that preservatives in pressure-treated wood used by consumers will stay right where they belong, protecting the wood from decay and insect damage. The study's results refute concerns often voiced on the internet and elsewhere about the dangers of preservatives from preserved wood polluting the environment. 'Often lost to these unfounded fears are the many benefits of using preserved wood,' said Butch Bernhardt, executive director of Western Wood Preservers Institute (WWPI). 'The wood is sustainable, renewable and easy to maintain. Thanks to pressure treating with preservatives, those decks and other projects can last for decades in place.' Bernhardt said the wood deck study and an earlier OSU research project confirming the safety of preserved wood garden boxes offer science-based answers to questions consumers have about using preserved wood. 'Some people have concerns. We get that, it's only natural,' he said. 'The takeaway from these studies is there's no reason to be worried about the preservatives causing damage. People can relax and appreciate the natural warmth, long life and simple enjoyment these preserved wood decks and garden boxes have to offer.' Initial findings from Dr. Presley's deck study, Monitoring metal migration from a pressure-treated and sealed deck, were published in the Proceedings of the International Research Group on Wood Protection in 2024. The complete peer-reviewed study is expected to be published later this year. Dr. Presley, PhD, is an assistant professor in Oregon State University's Dept. of Wood Science and Engineering. A white paper detailing the deck study is available from WWPI at Details on the OSU garden box study are available in the publication PreserveTech: Safe Garden Boxes Using Preserved Wood at # # # About WWPI WWPI represents preserved wood treaters, preservative manufacturers and others serving the industry throughout western North America. For more than 75 years, WWPI has provided technical support and market outreach supporting the use of preserved wood in outdoor applications. Timm Locke Western Wood Preservers Institute +1 503-806-4831 [email protected] Legal Disclaimer: EIN Presswire provides this news content 'as is' without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
