# National Geographic’s Junk Science: How long will it take for sea level rise to reach midway up the Statue of Liberty?

Assuming that it can actually get there?

Today on the WUWT Hot Sheet, we reported that there was more fear-mongering imagery from National Geographic, as seen at right.

Steve Wilent said in a tip:

Have you seen the cover of the September 2013 National Geographic Magazine? Cover story: Rising Seas. Image: The statue of Liberty with water up to about Liberty’s waist — more than 200 feet above sea level.

http://press.nationalgeographic.com/2013/08/15/national-geographic-magazine-september-2013/

I wondered if they told readers how long that will take to get to that level, like I did in a previous photo portraying New York underwater here:

According to the Nat Geo article “Rising Seas”, it turns out that they didn’t tell their readers about how long it would take to reach the level depicted on the cover, so I’m going to do the calculation for you. First, specs on the Statue of Liberty. I found this image with measurements:

But neither it or the article http://statueofliberty.org/Fun_Facts.html using it had the details I was seeking to be able to determine the heights above current mean sea level.

The National Park Service stats page says:

 Top of base to torch 151’1″ 46.05m Ground to tip of torch 305’1″ 92.99m Heel to top of head 111’1″ 33.86m Ground to pedestal 154’0″ 46.94m

Since the measurements are to ground level, I also has to determine the height of the island above MSL. A variety of measurements I discovered give different answers. Google Earth says 7 feet, while this National Park Service document says  15-20 feet were the highest elevations during its natural state before becoming a national monument. Looking at photos, etc, and considering those citations, for the sake of simplicity I’m going to call the height of Liberty Island at 10 feet above MSL. That puts the torch at 315 feet above the sea level.

I also had to estimate where the NatGeo waterline was, and based on folds in the robe, I estmated it to be 1/3 of the entire height of the statue from feet to torch, or about 50 feet above the top of the pedestal. That puts the NatGeo waterline at approximately 214 feet, or 65.2 meters above mean sea level.

So I have added these measurements, along with the estimated water line from the NatGeo cover to this image from WikiPedia:

So now that we have an estimated value for the NatGeo waterline depicted on the cover of the magazine, we can do the calculations to determine how long it will take for sea level rise to reach that height.

We will use the rate value from the tide Gauge at “The Battery”, just 1.7 miles away according to Google Earth.

How long will it take to reach the NatGeo waterline in the cover photo?

The mean sea level trend is 2.77 millimeters per year. At that rate we have:

65.2 meters = 65200 millimeters / 2.77 mm/yr = 23537.9 years

That’s right, 23 thousand 500 years!

A new ice age will likely be well underway then, dropping sea levels. The water would never get there. That’s assuming the statue still exists there at all. Ironically, Liberty Island is a remnant of the last ice age:

Liberty Island is a small 12.7-acre island in New York Harbor. As a remnant of last glacial age, it is composed of sand and small stones deposited as the glaciers retreated.

Even if we believe that sea level will accelerate to 2 or 3 times that rate (as some proponents would have us believe), we are still looking at thousands of years into the future. At a 3x rate, we are looking at 7846 years into the future.

Without explaining this basic fact to their readers, National Geographic is doing nothing but scare-mongering with that cover image.  Shame on them.

It is this sort of junk science sensationalism that causes me and many others not to subscribe to National Geographic anymore. Their climate advocacy while abandoning factual geographics such as this is not worthy of a subscription.

## 137 thoughts on “National Geographic’s Junk Science: How long will it take for sea level rise to reach midway up the Statue of Liberty?”

1. Mike Bromley the Kurd says:

No argument there.

2. Alan Van Buren says:

Count me in as one of those others who found out long ago how biased Nat Geo is and dropped the subscription

3. davidmhoffer says:

That’s assuming the statue still exists there at all.

Why? Is Obama sending that one back too?

4. Mk Urbo says:

The term “grasping at straws” in a marketing/agenda sense comes to mind….

5. davidmhoffer says:
August 20, 2013 at 10:19 pm

> That’s assuming the statue still exists there at all.

Copper thieves.

6. My question would be entirely different, and as usual, more philosophical than scientific. Assuming that this would be a global event, with water at the same level everywhere, is there actually that much water on Earth?

7. National Geographic has good photos and bad science. We cancelled our subscription some years ago but I still look at the copies in the Dentist’s Waiting Room for the admirable photography and just ignore the Junk Science and Global Warming Alarmism.

8. cynical_scientist says:

The depicted level is pretty darned close to the absolute maximum possible if all ice in all places (Greenland + Antarctica) were melted and ended up in the oceans.

9. nickshaw1 says:

Okay, so the photo and, no doubt, the article is ludicrous.
Where does NatGeo figure enough water for a rise of 65 meters, world wide, would come from?
Franky, I think even 5 meters might require the whole of Antarctica to melt or am I way off?

10. I haven’t read the story because I knew it would be nothing but propaganda after reading the following in the Editor’s Note on Page 4 of the issue: “Because there are no computer models or scientists to tell us with certainty how fast and how much the seas will rise, it is a challenge to illustrate this story. You could say it requires a leap of imagination. . . “

11. Leg says:

All war is deception – Sun Zhu. Any doubt about what kind of state we are in? That NatGeo is practicing a war against science is shameful.

12. nickshaw1 says:

@ cynical scientist
Are you basing that on some formula that estimates the total volume of ice (on land) of Greenland and the Antarctic?

13. milodonharlani says:

nickshaw1 says:
August 20, 2013 at 10:39 pm

If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted, sea level might rise about six meters. If both Antarctic Ice Sheets melted, sea level would rise by about 60 meters.

14. my sub is expired or expiring – if I get that issue I’ll send it back asking them to stop trying to get p*rn in this house, climatic or otherwise

15. Mike McMillan says:

Since the island is a glacial remnant, it is reasonable to assume it will be threatened by the next ice age glaciers. A real test for the NYC snow removal crews.

16. Anthony Watts says:

@ David Thomas Bronzich, good question.

If all the ice covering Antarctica, Greenland, and in mountain glaciers around the world were to melt, sea level would rise about 70 meters (230 feet).

Good luck getting all the ice on Antarctica to melt.

17. nickshaw1 says:

@milodonharlani
I just don’t see it. I read an article recently about a sunken forest off Mobile that they determined to be on dry land during the last great Ice Age. It’s about 70 feet underwater.
If the melting of the sheets covering a goodly portion of the northern hemisphere (incredibly thick sheets at that!) only resulted in a rise of 70 feet (about 22 meters or so), how the heck could just Antarctica and Greenland total about 60 meters?
Or am I really missing something?

18. Unite Against Greenfleecing says:

Generation dumb.

I don’t blame National Geographic, they have long since realized that their target audience crave science fiction, the target audience are pop idol fans with limited thinking capabilities. They want a quick scare story to retweet, facebook or share.

19. Firestarter says:

I think it looks very nice, a bit like an infinity pool.

20. Strange coincidence, if as they claim they just made some sort of guess, that their picture depicts almost exactly ALL of the world’s ice melted – no more no less. Since Antarctica started glaciating millions of years before the current sequence of ice ages started, they are portraying a climate something like back in the cretaceous. Even the most rabid alarmist hasn’t done that, have they? (But heck, why not? One lie is as good as another.)

21. Coincidentally I just wrote National Geographic a letter I’ll post separately, but first I want to correct what you report (by the way, before I even took the wrap off of my issue I was already doing the same calculation you did here regarding the length of time it would take to raise sea levels that high). They do make mention of how long it might take on the “If All the Ice Melted” supplemental poster (it makes the AIT animation look tame by comparison—Florida is reduced to several islands):

[N]o one really knows how long it would take to melt it all. Probably more than 5,000 years, some scientists say.

Followed immediately with this to stay on message:

But if we burn all the coal, oil, and gas, adding some five trillion tons of carbon to the atmosphere, we’ll very likely create an ice-free planet.

Thought you’d also be interested to know that on the page following the poster is almost the exact picture of the moulin in Greenland you used the other day, minus the mention of soot of course. One more quote from the article:

In May the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached 400 parts for million [actually, no it didn’t], the highest since three million years ago. Sea levels may have been as much as 65 feet above today’s; the Northern Hemisphere was largely ice free year-round. It would take centuries for the oceans to reach such catastrophic heights again, and much depends on whether we manage to limit future greenhouse gas emissions. In the short term scientists are still uncertain about how fast and how high seas will rise. Estimates [such as Hansen’s beauty regarding Manhattan] have repeatedly been too conservative.

And finally another from the poster:

The East Antarctic ice sheet is so large—it contains four-fifths of all the ice on Earth—that it might seem unmeltable. It survived earlier warm periods intact. Lately it seems to be thickening slightly—because of global warming. The warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor, which falls as snow on East Antarctica. But even this behemoth is unlikely to survive a return to an Eocene climate.

The map points out that East Antarctic contributions to global sea level amount to 175 feet. I’ll share the letter I sent next, where I, like Sully, also noted the “leap of imagination” called for by the editor. I wonder if he’ll answer. Cheers!

22. Ummm, NatGeo has been rewriting history and twisting science for at least 20 years now… Just try to get off their mailing list!

23. All right. So here’s the letter I sent to National Geographic a while ago. I know they would never publish it in part or in full (the lead paragraph offers a nice synopsis though), but I feel better for having sent it. Needed to get some of that off my chest…again. Contents:

The irony is fathoms deep in your ‘alarming’ “Rising Seas” cover depicting the Statue of Liberty half-submerged in the Atlantic, a fantasy piece of such low probability that even the most climate-anxious scientists agree such an outcome would be several millennia away. The only true threat to Liberty is immediate and comes in the form of the relentless surge offered by overzealous propagandists who enthrone the political dictates of activist post-modern pseudoscience to implement an open agenda that aims to control and punish humanity.

Under the guise of the innocuous-sounding Sustainable Development banner, this edict to de-develop developed nations and cripple the growth of developing nations will do nothing to affect climate but much to promote poverty, wealth destruction, loss of national sovereignty, energy and resource rationing, restriction of property rights, further environmental degradation, and a general continued withering of Liberty.

Perhaps National Geographic could turn its attention upon that global phenomenon instead of wasting any more of its valuable pages advocating a misguided political and economic philosophy anchored in anti-science, anti-human sentiment, and above all else, abject failure. It is far beyond time that your once-proud society returned to its roots in the scientific method. What passes now for climate ‘science,’ and specifically those issues concerning attribution, is nothing more than a falsely heralded consensus of unfalsifiable ignorance. Even more objectionable is the wanton promotion of this manufactured consensus as robust and unequivocal. It is a farce and a dishonor to those who established the long-standing scientific principles that, like our Liberty, wither as a result. Richard Feynman is rolling in his grave.

One must look no farther than page 127 of the “Rising Seas” issue to understand at least a small portion of what is at play here in the article by Hannah Bloch titled “Failure Is an Option.” She says:

Scientific researchers are reluctant to own up publicly to flops. Reputations and future funding depend on perceptions of success.

Indeed, but the stakes in this case are so much higher than the simple protection of a funding stream, by several orders of magnitude in fact. What is at stake is no less than Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That is no exaggeration when one objectively considers the reality that would be delivered through Sustainable Development.

Before continuing down that road, I did want to also touch upon the Editor’s Note, Sea Change, by Chris Johns. I surmise he was speaking tongue-in-cheek when he said “A catastrophe is playing out in slow motion.” Certainly true Mr. Johns, though not quite as slowly as I’d like. And there is in fact a man-made catastrophe unfolding, we agree, just not the same catastrophe. Yours is a crystal-ball catastrophe comprised of many a could, maybe or might. Mine is a crystal clear catastrophe-in-the-making equating to economic suicide. As is of cue you added this:

Because there are no computer models or scientists to tell us with certainty how fast and how much the seas will rise, it is a challenge to illustrate this story and telegraph the problem’s urgency. You could say it requires a leap of faith in imagination that is grounded in fact.

Can I translate?

I confess that the entropic nature of climate requires the concession of great uncertainty, or as Kevin Trenberth put it privately, “We are not close to balancing the energy budget,”  but this will not keep us from using scare-mongering imagery and uncorrelated circumstances to foster anxiety regarding the rise in sea level that has been occurring for millennia and will continue to occur until nature flips the switch back to the next age of glaciation. Despite our knowledge that mitigation will be far costlier than adaptation in regards to efficacy, environment, and economy, we are forging ahead with the mitigation agenda regardless. To keep this agenda on course we must continue to “offer up scary scenarios” and ignore the empirical evidence that points more and more strongly toward natural variability with each passing year. We choose to instead substitute empirical evidence with model-based projection that hinges upon a leap of faith in imagination rather than a foundation in sound science.

I know it is an editorial page with a statement by a photojournalist, but regurgitating unscientific phrases such as “ever more destructive storms” and a “leap of faith in imagination” is an insult to your readership. I am willing to bet that your audience is a far more skeptical bunch than you are willing to concede. Matters as contentious as anthropogenic global warming are best presented from a balanced rather than biased viewpoint, and the attempted stifling of dissent that has been the cornerstone of AGW proponents is a wholly unscientific endeavor that must be abandoned. National Geographic could lead the way were it to choose to do so, and, were it to do so, would assist in restoring faith in modern science tarnished by the stain of activist climate science.

Finally, to lend weight to my previous statements of fact, not conspiracy, regarding the impact of Sustainable Development, I offer figures derived by the UN, its chief promoter. If we continue upon this deviant course instead of the natural course we were following (the UN termed it the Golden Economic Age), by the year 2100 the global GDP will have contracted by \$200 trillion (\$350 trillion vs. \$550 trillion). That equates to a 40% decrease in per capita income for developed countries and a 50% decrease in per capita income for developing countries. Read that again. Eighty percent of humanity lives in developing countries and this agenda aims to cut their projected wealth in half. Please keep that in mind whenever you hear it parroted that these efforts are primarily meant to help the poor. They do the exact opposite and instead will ensure that poverty is unforgivably sustained for the world’s poorest. I conclude with my earlier premise that those propagating this agenda wish only to control and punish humanity. When enough people awaken to that reality, this backward opposition to humanity’s natural course of development, this Golden Economic Age, will be swept aside. My advice to you is to join us to that end, or step aside.

24. Robert Crouch says:

@Unite Against Greenfleecing “They want a quick scare story to retweet, facebook or share.” must be one of the best quotes describing our current generation! May I borrow it?

25. Ric Werme says:
August 20, 2013 at 10:25 pm

davidmhoffer says:
August 20, 2013 at 10:19 pm

> That’s assuming the statue still exists there at all.

Copper thieves.

*

LOL. Thank you, Ric, you’ve made my afternoon. :)

Good article, Anthony, this info should be out there for all to see – and it will be, thanks to your blog and others like it. The warmists have nowhere to hide, and no lie escapes detection.

26. CodeTech says:

Has anyone seen the new Tom Cruise scifi movie, Oblivion? It shows a post-apocalyptic world, but we can always tell which city we’re in because all of the most iconic buildings remain. Heck, even in D.C. the Washington Monument is completely intact, even though the rest of the city is pretty much rubble. (Surprisingly, it’s not a bad movie at all, other than those kinds of details I enjoyed it).

This kinda looks the same.. a ridiculous benchmark of catastrophe, which of course reminds me of the Original “Planet of the Apes”… Charlton Heston sees part of the Statue of Liberty rising from the sand, it’s thousands of years in the future and the Apes have done all they can to erase human artifacts, but that statue is still essentially intact. “You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!”

I disagree that NatGeo has great photography these days. All that I see (my parents still subscribe, members since the 50s and every issue intact) are staged, grainy, and mediocre images. And I have a business selling commercial photography, so I have some idea what makes a great image.

The whole sea-level rise scare depends upon acceleration of current trends, and that acceleration is simply NOT happening. But that doesn’t stop the alarmists from claiming that it is.

27. nc says:

Did not the UN at one time have a post on their website stating there would be 50 million sea level rise by 2012? Since been quietly removed.

28. Lil Fella from OZ says:

NG may have enough ice in their refrigerators to make that much water. They seem capable of pulling anything out of nowhere to get a ‘story.’ What an absolute ludicrous effort. No science involved!

29. Sasha says:

The National Geographic makes a habit of ignoring and re-arranging facts to suit itself. For example, they altered the position of the pyramids of Egypt in order, as they put it, to make “a more pleasing composition” of the photos. You might give them a pass on that if they ever bothered to tell their readers about their manipulations.

30. Merovign says:

If I fictionalized current events into another set of subjects, and posited huge numbers of professionals blandly engaged in grandiose lies about without any apparent sense of shame or anyone but a few isolated skeptics to oppose them, it would be seen as grotesquely implausible.

On the other hand, I’m sure I could make a SyFy Channel movie out of it.

31. David, UK says:

Now, come on. The picture in that cover could happen. Eventually. And there might be talking apes too.

Actually the picture says it all, although not in the way intended. The alarmists claim that climate change will violate our freedoms, whereas the violation of our freedoms is in the distortion of the science itself.

33. brian boru says:

the 65 metres is about what you would get from the complete melting of antarctica. ie a lump of ice a few miles thick and several thousand miles wide.

mind you, humans never cease to amaze me. they panic about the smallest things (is milk good for you or bad for you this week?) and shrug off utter disasters like WW2.

If we had that sea level rise in a year, there would be some effects for sure, but life would just carry on as normal. it would be less far to walk to the beach, some people would have lost some property, some ports would need rebuilding as would some cities – on the upside think of the new land grab in greenland and antarctica

34. markx says:

Facinating thing about this is that satellite data supposedly tells us sea levels on average are rising some 3 mm plus per year.
Central east coast USA is one of the faster subsiding places on the planet (some 0.7mm/year I think?).

Yet somehow the Battery Point tide guage only gives us 2.77 mm per year…..

And then we may take into account the 0.7 mm per year of the sea rise we measure we get from pumped aquifer water reaching the sea.

35. Peter Miller says:

We live in a world where newspaper and magazine sales are tumbling because of the internet.

Sensationalism and scary forecasts still sell, as every climate scientist can attest to.

Nat Geo wants to survive, so in editorial policy the concepts of scary and sensational naturally receive higher priority than facts. Also, like many of our great scientific institutions, the management has probably been hi-jacked by serial lefties, who have an agenda which would make the founders turn in their graves and bear little resemblance to the thinking of their members/readers.

36. michael hart says:

That torch she’s holding doesn’t look very carbon-neutral to me…..
…..a windmill, perhaps?

37. EW3 says:

The rise of sea level is likely not a linear function.
As sea level rises, it’s surface area increases thus requiring more melt to keep the rise linear.

38. Other National Geographic hoaxes: Piltdown man, Nebraska Man, Peking Man, Java Man and the Archaeoraptor (half bird half dinosaur thing)

39. SasjaL says:

This would not happen, as in 23500 years the Statue of Liberty will be knocked over by a thick ice sheet …

40. Paul Burtwistle says:

and the reason I stopped my Nat Geo subscription years ago was because of their incessant pushing of the green issues. They should learn that it puts a lot of people off.

41. Jimbo says:

What kind of warming would create such a sea level rise for National Geographic’s image? During the warmer Eemian interglacial Greenland’s ice sheet showed only a modest response.

(Nature – 2013) “…a modest ice-sheet response to the strong warming in the early Eemian…”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7433/full/nature11789.html

42. LucVC says:

You missed the whole point of the cover. In essence climate change will have very limited impact as shown by our ability to maintain the statue of liberty very well over thousands of years. We will cope very well regardless how high the water comes.

43. TimTheToolMan says:

Bah, 23,537.9 years! As if. I’ve seen the documentary “Planet of the Apes” and the year was only AD 3978 where the statue was buried in sand up to the waist.

44. H.R. says:

I dunno… If all the National Geographics stored in attics, basements, and medical offices were burned at the same time there might be enough soot created to cover Greenland and the poles and melt them. But then you’d have to factor in the isostatic rebound of the continents after getting rid of all the back issues when doing the sea level rise calculation. Of course I’ll need funding for further study.

45. cedarhill says:

The real science question is how many comets will have to deposit water to flood the planet to a 200 foot sea level increase. The number to be looking for is the one that estimates the extra water needed after the Gore “all glaciers melt” and the North and South Poles are ice free, the mountains are not ice capped, etc. Next, estimate how to get all those ice comets in the Oort cloud to Earth.

Then, someone at National Geo will calculate how the mass of the SUV’s and their carbon footprint will attract them. Sort of like a huge celestial ice magnet.

46. Todd says:

“It is this sort of junk science sensationalism that causes me and many others not to subscribe to National Geographic anymore.”

Welcome to the party that’s been going on for at least 6 years, when I dropped my 20+ year sub.

47. lurker, passing through laughing says:

I was fortunate to have grown up when National Geographic was devoted to the wonders of the world and telling of the wonders of science.
Now I wonder when National Geographic was taken over by shallow hucksters and fear mongers and became a glossy tabloid.

48. Rob Dawg says:

Nat Geo is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. Time to revoke their tax exempt status.

49. lurker, passing through laughing says:

omnologos is on to something. National Geographic is in the Climate Pornography business.
Of course there is no surprise in this. Climate Porn is a very lucrative industry. Most politicians and others of easily misled judgement are addicted to Climate Porn. Climate Porn addicts are supporting it with billions of dollars a year. Climate Porn conferences are held in expensive locations annually. The UN has even set up a large organization to push Climate Porn and publishes a review of International Climate Porn every few years, which is highly anticipated in the tabloid press.

50. I dropped my subscription years ago, alarmist idiots!

51. EW3 says:
August 21, 2013 at 1:35 am
The rise of sea level is likely not a linear function.As sea level rises, it’s surface area increases thus requiring more melt to keep the rise linear.

I have done the calculations for volume in the past:
Conclusion: There is an extra 0.112 cubic kilometres of extra ocean volume room available on an expanded earth for every 1 metre increase at its present radius.
======
My original comment and calculations :
I thought I’d share some geometry math I did of volumes and expanding spheres.
A 1 metre increase of earths radius holds 510 thousand cubic kilometres of extra volume.
Here’s the math (I leave it as OneNote printed it):
((4/3)*pi *((6370.001)^3))-((4/3)*pi *((6370)^3))=509904.4439697265
Reduce by 30% to eliminate land area:
.7*509904.4439697265=356933.1107788087
So that’s 360 thousand cubic kilometres of ocean volume per metre radius increase.
An interesting side experiment I did was to calculate how much extra volume there is in an expanded earth radius due to the larger surface area/volume of an expanding sphere, like how a balloon expands when it gets larger. Here is some math:
Increase radius by an extra 1 metre from the previous calculation:
((4/3)*pi *((6370.002)^3))-((4/3)*pi *((6370.001)^3))=509904.6040039062
The difference between the smaller radius calculations and the 1 metre larger radius calculations:
509904.6040039062-509904.4439697265=0.1600341796
Conclusion: There is an extra (.7*.16)=0.112 cubic kilometres of extra ocean volume room available on an expanded earth, per metre increase at its present radius.

52. I did not add the extra volume that would result from the sea expanding into new land territory.

53. Russell Johnson says:

Most of us (on this blog) possess highly ordered mental processes that prefer to deal in supportable facts, thus the calculations disproving Nat Geo’s assertions of sea level rise. Nat Geo knows that most of the populace is willing to believe the most outrageous, catastrophic scenarios that can be imagined about global warming and climate change without any proof. In today’s world there is no penalty for false propaganda; our government continues to use the “97% consensus” lie as a bludgeon to beat back opposition to its climate change agenda.

The war on climate change is designed to 1) Empower government and 2) micromanage the behavior and activities of the population. Only economic vitality, liberty and freedom will be destroyed by this war.

54. En Passant says:

At what point do the owners of NG wake up and realise they are going broke because they have left the path of science for faith? I subscribed for 32 years, but did not renew last December (about 5-years later than I should have). I wrote telling them why and citing several objectionable articles that had caused me to stop subscribing.
Zero response. Let them die out as something new and evolutionary will arise that meets my need for the scientific truth, even if sometimes unpalatable.
I have also stopped The Scientific American, Nature and two others. I might fly somewhere on the savings

55. After Peter Gleick committed forgery and identity theft to smear Heartland Institute, National Geographic rewarded Gleick with a high profile blog. IMO, that makes National Geographic accomplices after the fact.

56. Eyes Wide Open says:

Cancelled my subscription to this Alarmist rag many years ago!

57. lurker, passing through laughing says:

The owners of NG, since they are in the privileged world of tax free status, don’t give a fig for actually making something that increases readership, much less a profit. They are classic modern elites: extremely wealthy, and much more interested in their politics than actually doing something productive. The explosion of so-called non-profits that are all too often simply fronts for extreme wealth to hide money and assets and dole out favors, is damaging the real world where people work and pay taxes.

58. BTW, I wrote a little paper on that Battery Park tide gauge, and the lack of acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise. It’s paywalled, but here’s the preprint:
http://tinyurl.com/nhazburt1

59. Bill_W says:

It might be interesting (too lazy to do it myself though) to see what the slope is
since 2000 as it looks 2-3 times steeper. That would fit in with your 3X calculation of ~7,000 years. Then to look at even Hansen’s alarmist projections and see how long it would take even by his claims. Anyone have an idea?

60. thelastdemocrat says:

a much easier hike to the crown.

61. Coach Springer says:

Venice is sinking faster than sea levels are rising. Figuring that in with the worst possible sea level rise, we’ve still got a couple millennia to move the thing to our new capital in Detroit. ( They never show D.C. under water because that would be a good thing?)

62. Todd says:

As for why NG sucks, now, it’s all here from a couple of days ago.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323608504579022902445145192.html

“The chief executive of National Public Radio, Gary E. Knell, has resigned after less than two years at the broadcaster to join National Geographic Society as its new CEO.”

It wasn’t that long ago the story would have started out…

Jim Studdly’s lifetime of wresting tigers in the Africa Bush is about to come to an end as he parks the Land Rover for the last time and becomes the National Geographic Society’s new CEO.

Hard to believe NG has lost half their readers since their peak, isn’t it.

63. JFB says:

I agree that liberty are sinking fast!

64. Jean Parisot says:

I was able to use that issue of NatGeo as a teaching moment for the kids – don’t trust everything you read.

65. Alan Watt, Climate Denialst Level 7 says:

Interesting. Has anyone managed to calculate the rate of land level rise in the same 1856 – 2006 interval due to land fill? If you superimpose the two trends, don’t you get a net increase in usable (dry) land? Take that net trend out 23,500 years and won’t people have to climb dozens more steps than they do today to visit the monument?

66. Don Bennett says:

I stop my subscription to NatGeo back in the early 2000’s because of the obvious global warming tilt the society was taking. Looking at the board members, I realized there was no hope for a balanced view from the organization.

67. Jeff Alberts says:

Galileonardo, excellent letter!

I’d recommend that as a separate post, if possible.

I noticed one small set of typos: “As is of cue you added this:” I’m sure you meant “As if on cue…”

You might also add, where you refute their mention of increases in extreme weather, that the data solidly refutes that meme.

68. Chris @NJSnowFan says:

We are all Doomed, NG sold that from
The movie “Planet of the Apes”

69. Insufficiently Sensitive says:

I think that a straight-line projection of the sea-level rise is inappropriate, since the earth is a near-sphere and over a geologically-significant time interval, the surface elevation would increase as the cube root of the volume of ‘new’ water in the ocean. Meaning that 23,000 years is wildly underestimated.

70. Larry Hamlin says:

National Geographic makes the same deliberate error often made by climate alarmists by inappropriately comparing NOAA tide gauge sea level data with University of Colorado satellite sea level data and then claiming that the difference in these measurements demonstrates that sea level rise is accelerating. This conclusion is scientifically invalid because these measurements address completely different aspects of sea level rise. NOAA tide gauge sea level data is the only measurement available which applies to coastal regions which cannot be measured by satellite. Tide gauge sea level data is the most accurate coastal sea level measurement data available. Satellite sea level data represent ocean volume measurements. The two results cannot be compared but are independent measurement approaches which have no common terrestrial reference framework. Those who make this scientifically invalid comparison due so in any event to push climate alarmism with the usual attributes of deception, concealment and conjecture that always drives alarmist propaganda.

71. Nelson says:

Don’t tell these guys that they’re wrong! I’ve been selling future beachfront property in Cut And Shoot, TX (north of Houston, Elevation 190′) and you’re gonna ruin my business!

72. Robertv says:

Is what the The statue of Liberty represents not already completely under water.

73. DirkH says:

galileonardo says:
August 20, 2013 at 11:35 pm
“And finally another from the poster:

The East Antarctic ice sheet is so large—it contains four-fifths of all the ice on Earth—that it might seem unmeltable. It survived earlier warm periods intact. Lately it seems to be thickening slightly—because of global warming.

They must be laughing all the way to the bank when they write that kind of stuff.

74. Alberta Slim says:

galileonardo says:
August 20, 2013 at 11:42 pm
All right. So here’s the letter I sent to National Geographic a while ago…………………………etc.

That is an excellent letter. But I doubt that NG will care, or print it.
Many of us are glad you sent it to them.

75. Ryan S. says:

I, as well, cancelled my nat. geo. subscription once I realized they have morphed into an advocacy magazine. They should be worried when scientists like me cancel, but they don’t care.

76. Kevin K. says:

At this point Nat Geo is kinda like Playboy…you look at the pictures and skip the articles.

77. Steve Wilent says:

The Nat Geo “Rising Seas” article opens with a two-page photo of the swamped roller coaster at Seaside Heights, NJ. Subhead: “As the planet warms, the sea rises. Coastlines flood. What will we protect? What will we abandon. How will we face the danger of…. RISING SEAS.”

The roller coaster is (was?) swamped, the caption says, because “Superstorm Sandy narrowed New Jersey’s beaches by more than 30 feet. At Seaside Heights it swept away the pier under the roller coaster.”

Not “Rising Seas,” but a hurricane (or what has almost a hurricane.

78. milodonharlani says:

nickshaw1 says:
August 20, 2013 at 10:57 pm

@milodonharlani
I just don’t see it. I read an article recently about a sunken forest off Mobile that they determined to be on dry land during the last great Ice Age. It’s about 70 feet underwater.
If the melting of the sheets covering a goodly portion of the northern hemisphere (incredibly thick sheets at that!) only resulted in a rise of 70 feet (about 22 meters or so), how the heck could just Antarctica and Greenland total about 60 meters?
Or am I really missing something?
—————————————

Water content of Greenland & Antarctic ice sheets is about 66 meters of sea level rise.

During glacial phases, as during the last big “ice age” which ended about 11,400 years ago, so much more water is locked up in continental ice sheets, as over North America, Europe & Asia, that sea level can be lowered by as much as 140 meters. Of course the weight of all the ice also depresses the continents, so the effective lowering is greater.

Thus it wasn’t the melting of Greenland & Antarctica that caused the forest to be submerged, but the disappearance of massive ice sheets on the northern continents & more extensive montane glaciers in the SH. These sheets will form again when the present interglacial ends & the next glacial begins.

79. Pamela Gray says:

Grainy pictures are meant to be that way. Hides the photoshop lines better.

80. Resourceguy says:

In another issue of National Geographic they depicted NY with no humans left on earth and the conditions for nature to reclaim it over time. If humans caused almost all the warming, then the wild animal inheritors of NY will be the only ones to observe no significant sea level rise until the end of the interglacial period. Regardless, they will just move along and adapt as usual and perhaps graze in front of the monuments to policy fraud.

81. milodonharlani says:

PS: Here’s an estimate of how low sea level got at the Last Glacial Maximum off Australia, where continental crust rebound isn’t an issue:

http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~geodyn/tutorials/Physik_der_ErdeII/pdf/Yokoyama-etal2000_nature.pdf

My 140 meter estimate might be a tad too low, or high, depending upon how you look at it. I based that on the North Atlantic world, with which I’m familiar, but the waters of which are muddied by isostatic rebound.

But in any case, there was obviously a lot more ice locked up on land then than now. The Greenland & Antarctic sheets were of course also larger then. So the 70-foot deep forest was far from the limit of submerged land elsewhere, if it dates from the LGM.

82. Thanks for this post, Anthony. We get copies of NG as my wife is on some list for professional office freebies (even though we closed our office two years ago), and this issue is sitting on the kitchen counter, where every time I pass I start calculating, “Let’s see, at 3 mm per year. . .” You saved me the trouble of actually looking up the dimensions of Liberty.

Blatant scare-mongering and irresponsible promulgation of falsehoods. The current editorial staff do a great disservice to a once-noble marque.

/Mr Lynn

83. Richard Barraclough says:

I Insufficiently Sensitive says:

August 21, 2013 at 8:31 amthink that a straight-line projection of the sea-level rise is inappropriate, since the earth is a near-sphere and over a geologically-significant time interval, the surface elevation would increase as the cube root of the volume of ‘new’ water in the ocean. Meaning that 23,000 years is wildly underestimated.

No – not really a good point. That’s only true if we start making a brand new sphere out of all the meltwater. In the earth’s case, sea level rise = volume of meltwater / surface area. Since the surface area increases infinitesimally for the new meltwater, we can say that the sea level rise is effectively proportional to the volume melted.

84. SasjaL says:

TimTheToolMan on August 21, 2013 at 2:37 am

The baseline scenario is different and far more likely to happen – global nuclear war (it was close in 1962 …). The specific mutation that happened to the apes is not impossible, as this has already happened once …

85. ralfellis says:

Ric Werme says: August 20, 2013 at 10:25 pm
Copper thieves.
_____________________________

Do you have Romanians in the USA too?

.

@Galileoleonardo –
Excellent letter, as well said as anything.

It never ceases to amaze me how these people who claim to be “helping the poor” are the ones who will do them the worst harm There is clearly a lack not only of scientific understanding and method, but also of conscience, humanity and morality, in them. I don’t believe for a minute that they don’t know what their agenda will do, and I think they intend to do the most harm possible, out of some perverse notion that “gaea” or some other anti-deity wills it. I also believe this is tied up with both their disregard of evidence contrary to their meme and their utter unconcern over the suffering they will inflict.

These people are evil, and should be given no quarter. Whatever costs attend upon repairing the damage they do should come out of their hides, and they should pay ultimate penalties for their crimes.

87. highflight56433 says:

If the earth radius increases, then the rotational velocity decreases.

88. ralfellis says:

michael hart says: August 21, 2013 at 1:31 am
That torch Liberty is holding doesn’t look very carbon-neutral to me…
_______________________________________

Liberty has held many things in her lifetime, including the standard cornucopia.

Here is the original Liberty (Libertas) on a coin of Emperor Gallienus of the 3rd century. Here she is holding the pileus – the Phrygian Cap or Liberty Cap, which is a bit like the US’s Liberty Bell.

But I think this one is much more appropriate for America – this is Liberty (Libertas) on a coin of Emperor Gordian III, also of the 3rd century. Here she is holding an abacus (!!):

Err, do you think that they could change the New York Liberty, so that she holds a cash register??

.

89. dp says:

It is that kind hysterical hyperbole that created an economy in the UK that is deadly to elderly on fixed incomes. It should be a capital offense to publish rot like this. Within the time frame of the Holocene epoch, a blink in time, Ellis Island was once part of the coastal mainland and not an island at all. Where’s the picture of that?

90. Resourceguy says:

Pretty pictures but don’t read the stories. Now that sounds like some other pretty picture magazines out there—-with foldouts.

91. Climate propagandists have become so brazen they even write academic papers on how to select the most scary and effective images. And yes, baby polar bears rate highly. I took a close look at one of the “good” images they selected, of a power plant belching dark smoke, and wondered why only the chimneys in the foreground emitted dark smoke but those in the background emitted less scary white (water vapourish) smoke. Apparently photoshopping would be difficult. The power plant is unnamed but south-west of Dusseldorf (although motherearthnews brazenly implied it was in the US). It would be interesting if anyone could discover the original photo to see the extent of any fakery in the image used here.

“In a recently-released paper looking at how people visualise climate change, Saffron O’Neill at University of Exeter joined other researchers in the UK, US and Australia, to see how people engaged with climate change images drawn from mass media sources in those countries.
They investigated responses to images ranging from icons of nature, such as coral reefs, snowstorms, bushfires, cracked ground and ice sheets to human made phenomena, such as wind farms, traffic jams, low reservoirs, smoke-stacks, and fuel pumps and then images of political leaders.
For each image they wanted to measure:
1) “salience” – whether it raised the importance of climate change 2) empowerment or “self-efficacy” – the sense of being able to take any action on climate change.

Images of climate impacts were the most salient: in order of impact – flood aerial view, ice sheet, deforestation, polar bear, cracked ground, coral reef. Of the human generated images, smokestacks, traffic jams and temperature graphs led the way in terms of distress.”

http://theconversation.com/four-hiroshima-bombs-a-second-how-we-imagine-climate-change-16387#comment_202906

92. bw says:

The NOAA 2012 report in the phodges link states the global sea level from 2005 to 2012 changed by 1.1 mm/yr with an error of about 1mm/yr. That report includes all available data, but includes a calculated global isostatic adjustment.
The real global sea level is not changing. This is based on historical photo evidence of landmarks such as the statue of liberty and others. There is archeological evidence that the docks used for shipping 2000 years ago show sea level is the same after local “silting in” is considered.
The heavy pilings supporting large bridges, the Arizonal memorial and other known landmarks also show zero evidence of sea level changes.

93. Bernard Burdick says:

I canceled my subscription to National Geographic a few months ago, after 30 years of being a subscriber.

@ralfellis –
The 3rd century Roman antoninianus coin bearing the Liberty image was a paragon of currency debasement, a slug consisting of an alloy of copper and lead with the thinnest silver wash over it.

Of course, the economic circumstances which produced this coin may have reflected the approaching end of the Roman Climate Optimum. And unfortunately today is reflects pretty accurately the state of climate science – base metal silvered over with the pretense of authority.

95. JohnC says:

How about a graphic that shows three more water lines, one that assumes the worst case IPCC projection, best case IPCC suggestion, and finally continuation of the current rate, all to the year 2100.

96. SasjaL says:

tonythomas061 on August 21, 2013 at 1:00 pm

The chimney picture is already addressed somewhere here on WUWT by Anthony. (A cloud shading the darker smoke, if I remember correctly)

97. Gail Combs says:

David Thomas Bronzich says:
August 20, 2013 at 10:29 pm

My question would be entirely different, and as usual, more philosophical than scientific. Assuming that this would be a global event, with water at the same level everywhere, is there actually that much water on Earth?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That was my first thought, followed by I wonder where they will be mining all that extra water from. Comets?

This cover puts National Geographic in the same category as the National Enquirer except the National Enquirer is more honest. It does not pretend to be anything but a sensationalist rag.
……

As I recall the pulse at the end of the Eemian had a high water benchmark of about 17 feet above present.

Abstract

The warmest millennia of at least the past 250,000 years occurred during the Last Interglaciation…

The average insolation during the key summer months (M, J, J) was ca 11% above present across the Northern Hemisphere between 130,000 and 127,000 years ago, with a slightly greater anomaly, 13%, over the Arctic. Greater summer insolation, early penultimate deglaciation, and intensification of the North Atlantic Drift, combined to reduce Arctic Ocean sea ice, allow expansion of boreal forest to the Arctic Ocean shore across vast regions, reduce permafrost, and melt almost all glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere. Insolation, amplified by key boundary condition feedbacks, collectively produced Last Interglacial summer temperature anomalies 4–5 °C above present over most Arctic lands, significantly above the average Northern Hemisphere anomaly…. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379106000990

Another paper says:

During the last interglacial period (the Eemian), global sea level was at least three metres, and probably more than five metres, higher than at present1, 2. Complete melting of either the West Antarctic ice sheet or the Greenland ice sheet would today raise sea levels by 6–7 metres. But the high sea levels during the last interglacial period have been proposed to result mainly from disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet3, with model studies attributing only 1–2 m of sea-level rise to meltwater from Greenland4, 5. This result was considered consistent with ice core evidence4, although earlier work had suggested a much reduced Greenland ice sheet during the last interglacial period6.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v404/n6778/abs/404591a0.html

98. Gail Combs says:

milodonharlani says:
August 20, 2013 at 10:43 pm

nickshaw1 says:
August 20, 2013 at 10:39 pm

If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted, sea level might rise about six meters. If both Antarctic Ice Sheets melted, sea level would rise by about 60 meters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
You forgot the Antarctic Ice Sheets are sitting in a great big bowl. “The deepest point on any continent, the valley under Byrd Glacier, reaches 9,120 feet (2,780 meters) below sea level.”

99. Gail Combs says:

Kevin K. says: @ August 21, 2013 at 9:54 am

At this point Nat Geo is kinda like Playboy…you look at the pictures and skip the articles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
NAH, Just forget Nat Geo and read Playboy, the articles are good.

100. Jurgen says:

National Geographic just gets worse all the time. This magazine has completely exploited and corrupted its legacy. New generations won’t know this legacy and I guess the critical observers among them will readily see it’s real merit: lots of sensational pulp. The worry about N.G. now is maybe mainly with some older folks with memories of a different past. The smart guys at N.G. probably think with their policy they saved the organization in a time of big shifts in media land and fierce competition. The sad fact is with their choices they didn’t save it, they killed it.

More than 15 years ago I participated in a medical investigation of elderly people born in wartime conditions. It was a combined scientific medical investigation together with a few other countries that experienced similar war-time conditions. I guess because of this international character National Geographic at some point joined in. I was asked to be interviewed by them. I declined and explained the people in the hospital they better be careful to share their data with this organization, already at that point more interested in sensation that real science.

To be honest, in my cellar there is still a pretty big pile of older editions of NG. Once in a while I pay them a visit :-)

101. Gunga Din says:

The more realistic concern would be how long it will take all the apes to pile sand that high.

102. SØREN BUNDGAARD says:

Pr Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner: Sea Level Rise – Fact and Fiction

The ecological reasons for the “energy revolution” by the need to avert a looming climate catastrophe, stands on very shaky ground. This was shown in Munich, the lectures of several internationally renowned naturalist.

Swedish geophysicist Niels Axel Mörner demonstrated that the sea level by the year 2100 most may increase by five to twenty centimeters.

103. chemman says:

Kevin K. says: @ August 21, 2013 at 9:54 am
“At this point Nat Geo is kinda like Playboy…you look at the pictures and skip the articles.”

A bit backwards. Everyone always justified their purchases of Playboy because they wanted to read the articles and the pictures were secondary. In this case you are suggesting we get NG strictly for the pictures.

104. Gail Combs says:

August 21, 2013 at 1:56 pm

@ralfellis –
The 3rd century Roman antoninianus coin bearing the Liberty image was a paragon of currency debasement, a slug consisting of an alloy of copper and lead with the thinnest silver wash over it.

Of course, the economic circumstances which produced this coin may have reflected the approaching end of the Roman Climate Optimum…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And here I first thought you were talking of the American Quarter that went from silver to a sandwich of base metal when I was a kid.

“Of course, the economic circumstances which produced this coin may have reflected the approaching end of the Modern Climate Optimum….”

There I brought it up to date for you.

105. markpbone says:

Did anyone read the article? NatGeo isn’t claiming sea levels will rise to that depicted on the cover. The cover photo is simply that: a cover photo. It grabs people’s attention, with the sole purpose of getting you to buy the magazine, read the article, and maybe learn something. The author cites the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at putting maximum sea levels at 6.6 feet and 5 feet (respectively) by the end of the century.

I enjoyed your calculations, but I think they’re irrelevant.

106. usurbrain says:

After subscribing to NaqtGeo for more than 30 years I cancelled my subscription about five years ago because of this trash “science.”

107. Hi Folks, I’m new here although Allyson (A.D. Everard), my wife keeps me informed of the latest goings on.
My question is related to the “what if all the ice did melt” (due to changes in insolation for instance)?
We know that sea ice melting would make no observable difference to the sea level but has anyone calculated the nett result of the land ice melting accompanied by land mass rising due to less weight on those land masses (mainly Antarctica and Greenland) and ocean basin deepening due to the additional weight of water?
My feeling is that as the land rises, the rising portion would be localised so the extent of the ocean basins would stay about the same but the basins themselves would get a little deeper as more water and thus weight collects in them and causes them to sink a little, my guess is that there would be a little increase in ocean level but not the sort of catastrophe NG was trumpeting.
It is a complex situation but I’d be interested in whether any measurements have actually been made to determine the overall effect?
Cheers
Greg

O/T PS I used to consider that GW existed although not much was anthropogenic but I always thought that attempting to modify climate was not likely to succeed and that, like fiddling with economic policy was more likely to cause greater problems than if left alone. Finally I always thought we should adapt to any changes in climate rather than just restrict all development by various means as appears to be happening at the moment.

108. Just curious, but I’m wondering just exactly how much of your funding comes from ExxonMobil, Mr. Watts? Legally, you don’t have to disclose that, of course. So, don’t feel like you have to disclose your funding. Really. We believe the purity of your, uh, motivations.

• Anthony Watts says:

@konigludwig

None, absolutely none. But yours is a common misconception fueled by people that never bother to even ask, but just assume, so I appreciate your asking.

109. tomdesabla says:

Yes, I too appreciate your taking the trouble to ask, konigludwig. Obviously now that you have been set straight, you won’t doubt Anthony Watt’s, uh, motivations anymore right? Or are you, like so many others who take the smarmy, lofty tone you exhibit, still unconvinced?

Thank goodness we don’t need to concern ourselves with your, uh, purity. I for one, have no doubts about it. I do have doubts about the conclusions and exhortations of “climate scientists” who hide data, delete data, change historical temperatures 100 years after the fact, conduct BS studies that attempt to equate skeptics with conspiracy theorists, and routinely call people names and intentionally and repeatedly mislead the public in pursuit of their own political agendas and goals.

Do you think I should, uh, be allowed to have doubts? Or would you like to question my funding too?

110. tomdesabla says:

Yes, I too appreciate your taking the trouble to ask, konigludwig. Obviously now that you have been set straight, you won’t doubt Anthony Watt’s, uh, motivations anymore right? Or are you, like so many others who take the smarmy, lofty tone you exhibit, still unconvinced?

Thank goodness we don’t need to concern ourselves with your, uh, purity. I for one, have no doubts about it. I do have doubts about the conclusions and exhortations of “climate scientists” who hide data, delete data, change historical temperatures 100 years after the fact, conduct BS studies that attempt to equate skeptics with conspiracy theorists, and routinely call people names and intentionally and repeatedly mislead the public in pursuit of their own political agendas and goals.

Do you think I should, uh, be allowed to have doubts? Or would you like to question my funding too?

111. Phaedrus says:

National Geo my favourite mag just lost a subscriber. I can’t abide!

112. jbird says:

I dumped my subscription to National Geographic years ago. It is nothing but a propaganda rag for the Global Warming/Climate Change hoax. It’s most unfortunate. When I was a kid I loved the magazine, and I trusted what they wrote.

Liberty Island is a small 12.7-acre island in New York Harbor. As a remnant of last glacial age, it is composed of sand and small stones deposited as the glaciers retreated.

Then won’t the island get naturally washed away long before the water gets that high?

Gee, maybe that’s what the pic really depicts. Water level gets too high, ground got saturated, island crumbled away. As stabilization crews with tugboats and cables kept nudging the old girl, keeping her upright, as pedestal and statue settled onto the sea floor.

And that’s how they got that pic with only Hansen’s 5-6 meters of sea level rise.

See, it all makes perfect sense.

Now you may stop persecuting the fine magazine who was long the world’s greatest proponent for natural public breast feeding. In fact, their championing provides an apt slogan for their fellow Climate Advocates for Justice (the CAJ): Natural progress to our natural past!

114. Insufficiently Sensitive says:

National Geographic has always been graphically designed to attract the attention of the prurient. In my youth, it was pretty ladies without shirts. Now it’s eco-disaster porn, which excites those who wish to live at the expense of taxpayers, and hope for political control of the industrial age.

All those above, who have proudly posted the termination of their subscriptions, have been replaced by subscribers who are more likely to send in their lunch money to fatten the pockets of organizations of wannabe industrial-control bureaucrats.

115. Paul Matthews says:

Top climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf tweets:

“Must-read #sealevel rise cover story in the National Geographic September issue (also online)”

116. I’ve long since stopped reading the New Scientist (a British weekly science newspaper) for much the same reason. Is it simply that they believe that there is a larger market for biased climate science reporting, or are they too frightened of an environmentalist inspired boycott of their publication to exercise the scientific scepticism that they ought to.

117. Russell Raney says:

It appears that by only focusing on the rate and timing of rising seas, Mr. Watts is merely creating a diversion from the reality that global warming does exist, and that it is indeed caused primarily by human activity. Due to his climate change denying status and his connections to polluting industries, his credibility is no better than that of the National Geographic. The following link might be of interest to the readers of this blog: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts

118. From Nat Geo article:

“Unless we change course dramatically in the coming years, our carbon emissions will create a world utterly different in its very geography from the one in which our species evolved. “With business as usual, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will reach around a thousand parts per million by the end of the century,” says Gavin Foster, a geochemist at the University of Southampton in England. Such concentrations, he says, haven’t been seen on Earth since the early Eocene epoch, 50 million years ago, when the planet was completely ice free. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, sea level on an iceless Earth would be as much as 216 feet higher than it is today. It might take thousands of years and more than a thousand parts per million to create such a world—but if we burn all the fossil fuels, we will get there.”

So 216 feet is pretty close to what the cover photo depicts.

119. Vignedeconfiance says:

[Snip. Sockpuppetry violates site Policy. Use one screen name. See the Policy page. — mod.]

120. dbstealey says:

Russell Raney,

You’re obviously new here, so I’ll be gentle:

First, global warming certainly does exist. It has been happening at the same rate for hundreds of years, without any acceleration. So we agree there.

Next, there is no verifiable, testable, empirical evidence that human activity is the cause. That is simply a conjecture. So you may believe that to be the case, but belief is not scientific evidence.

Since you are new here, you should read the Policy page, which requires that you do not label those you disagree with as “deniers” or any other word rooted in ‘denier’.

Finally, you also link to scurrilous innuendo accusing Anthony Watts of “connections” to “polluting industries”. Explain yourself. What industries? And what is your definition of the vague term “connections”? Any blog like your link with a header proclaiming “Lower wages, Less Healthcare, More Gun Violence” has zero credibility. It is a propaganda blog. Is that the best you can do? Are you led by the nose by people like that? It appears so.

The enormous amount of misinformation in your link avoids the fact that Anthony Watts is a published, peer reviewed author in the field of climatology. What are your qualifications, if I may ask? Be specific. You like links, so let’s have a link to your CV — if you even have one.

The Surface Stations paper singlehandedly forced the USHCN to alter its temperature reporting protocol. You can find critics anywhere, but the flak only proves that Anthony is over the target, and the target is squealing in pain from his direct hits.

WUWT has rocketed from zero to well over one hundred million unique hits in only 6 years, including more than one million reader comments. Many reputable climatologists such as Prof Richard Lindzen, Dr John Christy, Dr Roy Spencer, and others have written articles and commented here. Contrast that with the abysmal site traffic of all the alarmist blogs combined. WUWT has won the internet’s “Best Science” Weblog Awards for three years running. No alarmist blogs have ever won “Best Science” even once.

So I ask you: what is your problem? Millions of people click on WUWT because the science is here, instead of the usual climate alarmist bilge. If you stick around for a while, you may even learn something — that the entire “carbon” scare is a grant-fed scam on the taxpaying public, and it is not supported by replicable science.

121. Russell Raney says:

[snip]

Furthermore, I don’t understand why my qualifications or credentials should be relevant in this discussion – I’m not a meteorologist, yet I’m inteligent enough to understand the research on and logic of man-made climate change issued by the most respected climatologists.

[snip – Let’s just leave your explanation at that. You are right, to folks like you, qualifications don’t matter, you’ll simply pass on smears on anyone who disagrees with you world view. None of this has anything to do with the fact that Mr. Watts is right about this National Geographic article, and so your comment is off-topic in addition to being nothing but trying to tear down Mr. Watts for daring to have an opinion.

If you want to take it further about qualifications, we’ll be happy to discuss your viticulture training. – mod]

122. Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
I’m saddened by the National Geographic’s deliberate distortion.

123. dbstealey says:

Russell Raney says:

“I don’t understand why my qualifications or credentials should be relevant in this discussion”

You disparage Anthony Watts, but then you think you’re immune from a question about your own [non-existent] qualifications or credentials?

The difference between this award winning site and your typical alarmist blog that you get your misinformation from is that your comments get pubished here [except when they violate written site Policy, like labeling people “deniers”].

Best you run along now, back to whatever alarmist propaganda blog you get your talking points from. This is the internet’s “Best Science” site, [emphasis on ‘science’], so I don’t think you belong here. Religion is more your forte.

124. dbstealey says:

Greg,

You asked what happens if all the ice melts. That will not happen [or if it did, it would take thousands of years], but this link may be of interest to you.

• Hi DB, thanks for the link, it contains some useful estimates of the volumes involved
however perhaps I didn’t state my question well.

I was interested in whether any estimates of the effects of crustal deformation had been
arrived at in the purely hypothetical case of grounded ice melting on a large scale.

An over simple analogy: imagine three ships floating next to each other in a closed basin, one (ship A) containing liquid cargo and representing land with ice on it, ship B represents the ocean
basin and contains some fluid and ship C represents land that has no ice to be shed.

Now if some of the fluid cargo is transferred from ship A to ship B the former will rise
relative to the water they are floating in and ship B will sink, ship C will remain
unchanged as will the level of the water they are floating in. Further, imagine that the
water they are floating in represents the magma that the tectonic plates “float” on.

The result of transferring liquid into ship B representing the ocean basin in terms of
the liquid level with reference to ship C will depend mostly on the relative density of
the cargo fluid with respect to the water (magma).

I don’t believe that magma behaves in exactly the same way as water such that crustal
masses displace their own weight in magma but I think some similar effects could be
observed?

Finally, I agree that melting of most or all of the ice on the planet would be
extraordinarily unlikely and would require an astronomical catastrophe (in the literal
sense).

Cheers
Greg Everard
(PS not the Greg I’ve seen posting here before)

125. Jeff Alberts says:
August 21, 2013 at 8:01 am
Galileonardo, excellent letter! I’d recommend that as a separate post, if possible…

August 21, 2013 at 11:50 am
Excellent letter, as well said as anything.

Alberta Slim says:
August 21, 2013 at 9:25 am
That is an excellent letter. But I doubt that NG will care, or print it.
Many of us are glad you sent it to them.

A bit too late getting back, but Jeff, Chad, Slim, thank you. Jeff, I took your suggestion for a separate post (and for fixing the typos you pointed out), but I didn’t think Mr. Watts would post it so I just published it here along with a follow-up post you might enjoy. Chad, I agree, the results of their agenda are not unexpected and are unforgivable. Thank you all for the feedback and suggestions.