Global warming study warns sea levels are rising far faster than we thought | Mail Online
Looks like Rahmstorf used the 1990 IPCC projections (before they went alarmist) for his baseline to compare against the satellite data, offset the y-axis of the satellite data – and used the completely inappropriate GIA adjustment.
The key thing to note is that the satellite trend is not as steep as the pre-1985 tide gauge trend.
What a scumbag.
The UK is tilting on a NE/SW axis, so the London area is sinking. This was the main reason for building the Thames barrier. There was a severe storm surge in 1953 – a combination of a high spring tide and a severe windstorm caused a storm tide. In combination with a tidal surge of the North Sea the water level locally exceeded 5.6 metres (18.4 ft) above mean sea level. 307 people died in the UK and more in the Netherlands.
The good news 90+ % of the people reading this newspaper in the Netherlands know it’s B S
http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/21115037/__VN__wereld_warmt_echt_op__.html?page=1
That is indeed good news. You will hardly find any AGW skepticism in Dutch mainstream media, but there are apparently plenty of Dutch skeptics!
Check my math. If the sea rises 3.2 mm per year, that is about one foot per century, so it would take only 30,000 years for the Statue of Liberty to be covered up to her chin. No wonder the NY Times was so worried.
But Steve, it was peer-reviewed! /sarc
Rahmstorf is about as cranky as they get.
They used the 90s prediction, but, said they were using the 4th assessment.
Which of course, by then their estimates didn’t come close to what Foster and Rahmy said.