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:
![funfactsstatue[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/funfactsstatue1.jpg?quality=83)
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 |
Source: http://www.nps.gov/stli/historyculture/statue-statistics.htm
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.
Source: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@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.
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.
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)
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.
Another paper 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.”
Kevin K. says: @ur momisugly 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.
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 🙂
The more realistic concern would be how long it will take all the apes to pile sand that high.
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.
http://youtu.be/8EMoU8OOsBs
Kevin K. says: @ur momisugly 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.
Chad Wozniak 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.
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.
After subscribing to NaqtGeo for more than 30 years I cancelled my subscription about five years ago because of this trash “science.”
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.
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.
@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.
Please see the FAQs here where I answer the question in more detail. http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/faqs/
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?
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?
National Geo my favourite mag just lost a subscriber. I can’t abide!
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.
And then there’s THIS: Sea level is falling????
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/aust-sucks-up-oceans-waters-study/story-e6frfku9-1226702459228
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!
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.
Top climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf tweets:
“Must-read #sealevel rise cover story in the National Geographic September issue (also online)”
The real truth for the future:
http://iceagenow.info/2012/01/ice-age-news-wrong-its-coming-sooner/ice-age-statue-of-liberty/
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.